The formal noise complaints have begun at Lowell Mountain, Vermont, even before the project is fully online.  Thirty-two neighbors filed a complaint with the state Public Service Department after two days of troublesome noise this week from ten of the eventual 21 turbines.  Low clouds may have contributed to the noise levels, which woke several people in the early morning hours of November 3, and continued through that day and the next.

UPDATE, 12/3/12: Green Mountain Power reports that the excessive noise on the weekend of November 3-4 was caused by a build up of wet snow on the blades. GMP spokesman Robert Dostis says that if neighbors had called them about the noise, the turbines would have been shut down immediately.

About half of the people who signed the letter live within a mile and a quarter of the turbines (6 within a mile, 9 more within a mile and a quarter), with most of the rest between two and three and a half miles away (7 heard it from over 3 miles).  Many noted that the noise was clearly audible inside their homes. 

The Lowell Mountain project has been contentious from the start, with mountain preservation activists blocking construction at times.  During construction, blast debris from the site crossed property lines of some neighbors, leading to a legal back-and-forth in which land owners were temporarily prevented from being on those parts of their property (where some individuals set up tents in an effort to block the blasting).  Kingdom Community Wind, the developer, was pleased that no one lived within a half mile, and few within a mile (see map above; blue ring is half-mile), and confidently quoted a DOE estimate that at just over 1000 feet, the turbines would be no louder than “a quiet bedroom.”  And though the project is popular among many in the region, it appears that we are about to be hearing from another community where turbine noise causes more widespread push-back from those living nearby than the reassuring assumptions would suggest.

UPDATE, 11/15/12: A local radio station adds this response from Green Mountain Power’s Dottie Schnure, who said the noises were an anomaly. “There are some very specific conditions if they happen at once– based on wind speed, weather conditions, moisture in the atmosphere– that can create noise. So, when that happens we are able to modify our operations so we do not create a noise issue.”  Schnure says residents are encouraged to call up and report excessive noise, something that wasn’t done immediately in this case.

UPDATE, 11/9/12: See this good piece on a Vermont independent media website; the reporter visited with project owners and opponents the day after the above letter was circulated by the Nelsons.

UPDATE, 11/8/12: A local paper, the (Barton) Chronicle, has published an article detailing some of the comments of those hearing the turbines last weekend; the article is not yet on the paper’s (limited) website, but may appear at this link soon. It’s archived on the National Wind Watch site here.  Three people living two to three miles away thought is sounded like a distant jet, while another thought it was wind from an approaching storm. “I had to agree with my wife, finally, that it was not just the wind over the mountains,” said David Lawrence, over three miles away, “If that is their sound it’s totally unacceptable.”  Don and Shirley Nelson, among the closest neighbors at just under a mile, have long opposed the project; still, they were shocked at the severity of the noise. “I knew it was going to be bad,” Mr. Nelson said Monday. “1 had no idea it would be this bad.”

“It was just like being tied to a chair with a train going by,” Ms. Nelson said. “And that train took all weekend to go by.” Inside her home, Ms. Nelson added, “it sounded like a terrible chimney fire.”

A man working in his sugar bush between one and two miles from the turbines, called it “the goddamnest roar you ever heard in your life.”  He and his son were unable to hear each other, even yelling, when about a hundred feet apart in the woods.

Geoffrey Commons of the state Public Service Department said this week, “We will gladly take complaints, and we are keeping a record.  Noise monitoring will be done according to a plan … that will not start until all the turbines are in operation” Mr. Commons said.

When it issued the project a certificate of Service Board set “a strict, objective standard” for maximum turbine noise. It limits sound to 45 decibels outside a neighbor’s home, and 30 decibels inside their bedrooms. “If they’re not meeting that,” Mr. Commons said of GMP, “the board has been very clear that they’ll have to make changes in order to meet it.”

This week, sixty people living within a mile of the Hardscrabble Wind Farm in upstate New York filed suit against the manufacturers of the turbines, owners of the project, and consultants who prepared environmental assessments. Since the new lawsuit is apparently aiming to collect damages from the wind farm owners, rather than challenging the project’s operating permits, it takes a line of attack that’s hard for me to get behind, because of its need to show negligence.

As I prepared my post on the lawsuit, I found myself reflecting on the larger context within which today’s wind farm noise controversies are taking place.  What follows is an AEI Commentary that grapples with the difficult and contentious process we are in the midst of, and AEI’s place within that process.

I can appreciate why the Hardscrabble neighbors chose to target company finances rather than local zoning authorities; when permits have been granted based on a clear public process, there is generally very little legal recourse. And, when one’s life is upended, it makes sense to want those behind the upheaval to take responsibility. I’ve certainly heard wind farm neighbors elsewhere, after finding that procedural challenges led to no meaningful change, wondering whether looking for monetary compensation would be a better way to get companies to realize that their siting practices are not as benign as they seem to think. Still, it’s hard for me (distant from the impacts and biased toward working together) to accept that rather than simply claiming that the project has been more impactful than the planning documents presumed, the suit seeks to lay blame by claiming that “all of the defendants acted willfully, recklessly, were grossly negligent, and/or acted with a conscious disregard…”

In particular, I’m troubled that the noise consultant who did the sound modeling is a named defendant (not only the company, but the staff acoustician as well). 

Read the rest of this entry »

Sixty people who live within a mile of the Hardscrabble Wind Farm in Herkimer County, NY, have sued the operators of a 37-turbine wind farm that began operating in early 2011.  Initial press reports suggest that the suit does not aim to shut the wind farm down, but to receive damages payments based on a litany of specific impacts, ranging from noise-induced headaches and sleep disruption to reduced productivity of livestock.  

The complaint as filed is available here, which details the specific impacts claimed by each plaintiff; many include loss of enjoyment of outside activities on their land, and inability to open windows due to noise; some include loss of income due to noise (including as a voice teacher), and some note behavior changes in domestic and wild animals (one notes that bear, deer, turkeys, and grouse no longer frequent his land).  No specific damage amount is requested.

It’s likely that any attempt to shut the wind farm down would be difficult if not impossible, since the project is operating under validly obtained permits.  In recent months, Iberdrola, which manufactured the turbines in the Hardscrabble project, has been experimenting with a new Noise Reduction System after noise monitoring indicated that the turbines occasionally broke the 50dB town noise limit.

I don’t like to say “I told you so,” but this AEInews post from autumn 2011, published after the first public complaints about noise at Hardscrabble, is well worth re-reading, as it includes a lot of detail about the sound levels projected in the project’s planning documents.  As I noted there, this is just the sort of project that has become more problematic in recent years, “aiming to thread a very difficult needle, as they site turbines amongst hundreds of home sites, using noise standards that are pushing the edges of what is tolerable to residents who value the local peace and quiet.”  While local noise standards allow turbines to be up to 50dB at homes, what stood out here was the noise contour maps, which showed over a hundred homes in the 40-45dB zone, and quite a few more in the 45-50dB zone (about half of these close homes were host families).  As it turns out, it seems that here, as elsewhere, a significant proportion of those hearing the turbines at around 40dB are indeed being bothered by the noise.  This is becoming a recurring theme at wind farms in the northeast (including Ontario) and the upper midwest, as well as in Australia and New Zealand.  The root of the problem is that noise levels long widely accepted as tolerable for other sources of community noise are triggering complaints in a significant minority of residents near wind farms.  As wind farms move from wide-open spaces of the west and into closer proximity with large numbers of rural homeowners, noise issues are on the rise (though still not occurring at many wind farms, and likewise, not bothering everyone even where problems arise).

As longtime, very mainstream, acoustical consultant David Hessler recently noted, in a Best Practices document compiled for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, “the threshold between what it is normally regarded as acceptable noise from a project and what is unacceptable to some is a project sound level that falls in a gray area ranging from about 35 to 45 dBA (Ldn: full 24-hr average sound level).  Citing the classic Pedersen, et al studies, he notes “relatively high annoyance rates of around 20 to 25%” among residents living in areas with project sound of 40-45dB.  He thus currently recommends a mean (Ldn) sound level of 40dB at residences in most cases, or 45dB “as long as the number of homes within the 40 to 45 dBA range is relatively small.” (For more on this Hessler guidelines document, see AEI’s overview of low-frequency noise research, available here)  While Hessler’s approach may have helped at Hardscrabble, we don’t have solid information on what the full day-long average sound levels have been there.  Neither the noise modeling beforehand or press reports of the post-construction monitoring include the averaging time used; with the monitoring finding the project generally under 50dB, it’s possible that daylong averages, including times when the wind isn’t blowing, were below 45db, or possibly even 40dB.  In any case, those recommendations were published nearly a year after Hardscrabble began operating, and two years after the final acoustical assessments were completed.

Since the new lawsuit is apparently aiming to collect damages from the wind farm owners, rather than challenging the project’s operating permits, it takes a line of attack that’s hard for me to get behind, because of its need to show negligence. Instead of distracting this post with thoughts on this, I’ve just posted an extended commentary in which I address this question of negligence within the context of the fundamental and widespread reassessment of the noise impacts of wind farms that is underway within the industry, the acoustical engineering community, and the public.  

Nearly a year of experience with a ten-turbine wind farm has led the town of Woodstock, Maine to consider nudging any future wind developments a bit further from homes.  As reported here in July, the Spruce Mountain Wind Farm sits more than three-quarters of a mile from any homes; a few homes (perhaps 10) are within a mile, and another dozen or so are within a mile and a half. So far, Woodstock’s wind ordinance committee has received more than a dozen letters of concern about unexpected noise impacts, a number that would seem to represent a significant proportion of residents within that area.

This week, the town’s Wind Ordinance Committee presented its draft ordinanceto govern future wind development to the Selectmen; the town meeting will vote on the plan in March.  The new rules would require setbacks of 1.25 miles to non-participating property lines, and limit sound levels to 35dB at night, and 45dB during the day (10dB quieter than state rules require).  Committee member Charlie Reiss said the group tried to find the right balance that would make future projects tolerable for neighbors without creating restrictions so severe that the projects would be impossible to build.  Selectman Rick Young said he had read all of the 12-page ordinance before the meeting. “I’m impressed. I thought it was very thorough,” he said.  The committee will continue meeting and making adjustments to the proposal, in anticipation of the town meeting vote in March.

Kern County, CA, surrounding Bakersfield and straddling the mountains and the Mojave desert, is home to one of the more iconic wind farms of the first round of the US wind industry.  Just east of Tehachapi, over 5000 turbines were built during the 1980s and ’90s.

Now, faced with a slew of new wind projects, the Kern County Planning Department is working double-time to find a way to manage the future build-out of wind (and solar) development in the region.  This week, county planners began hosting meetings at which the latest planning maps are being presented for public comment.  Fourteen new wind farms have already gained approval for construction within the proposed Wind Inclusion Areas, with three others awaiting permits.  

On the map to the left, yellow represents the existing development pictured above, and the other colors each represent a new development. For those living within this roughly 11 x 17 mile Wind Inclusion Area, the prospect is daunting.  April Biglay, a local activist who’s been encouraging the county to proceed with caution, attended the first meeting, and said, “I think it’s bittersweet. I think the county is making a huge effort to get under control the production of wind energy. At least the studies are in. At least they are looking at these areas, I mean it’s better than nothing.” 

Some landowners who live outside the designated wind zones are frustrated that the county may, in effect, preclude future wind development outside of areas where it’s already well-established.  Phil Wyman, one such landowner, says, “The only difference between us and the people who got permitted is that they did it yesterday and we want to do it today or tomorrow.”

Looking at the big picture, the Wind Inclusion Zones (the lighter areas on the map to the right) represent a small portion of the sprawling county, though arguably a substantial portion of the transition zone between the mountains and desert.  A much larger “Proposed Kern County Wind Resource Area” was released in draft form at similar meetings late last year; the new maps retain the southern portion of that Resource Area, but greatly reduce the northern extent of wind development.

Kern County is in an especially intense version of the local decisions being faced by communities in many parts of the country.  Local opposition to wind expansion is based on many factors, including dominating the landscape and concerns about wildlife, especially raptors.  For those living in the Inclusion Area, noise is a significant concern; neighbors of current wind projects in the area say that turbines are commonly audible to a mile or more, and under the new proposals, many more people in what has been a quiet, remote landscape will be living within earshot.  

At the same time, military exclusion zones, fire hazard areas, existing parks and national monuments, and other factors combine to limit wind and solar development to a small portion of the area in which they might otherwise make economic or energy-production sense (ie areas of reliably high winds or bright sun).  There are no easy answers to questions about how best to balance energy production against local impacts; Kern County offers an especially vivid sense of the tensions involved, with its creation of virtual sacrifice zones that, while not huge in the grand scheme, are large enough to impact many residents.

For more info:
Kern County powerpoint presentation (pdf version)
Inclusion/Exclusion zone detail map
Full county map 
Two local environmental groups fighting wind expansion 
A local economic development group supporting renewable energy projects

Aggressive offshore wind energy plans in Germany are pioneering innovative new approaches to reducing the noise impacts of wind turbine construction, according to a recent Bloomberg News article.  It’s a good, long piece, well worth a read.  A few highlights:

“Quite a large proportion of our sea area will probably be used for offshore wind farms,” said Hans-Ulrich Rosner, head of the Wadden Sea Office for WWF in Germany. “This will have a serious impact on nature, which needs to be mitigated.”  Harbor porpoises, common in the North and Baltic Seas, appear to be especially sensitive to noise, adding to the challenges. 

Construction of the 108 MW Riffgat offshore wind project is nearing completion; it’s been utilizing a double-walled, water-filled casing in which bubbles are produced to absorb some of the sound from pile-driving of the turbine foundations into the seabed.  In addition, a less intense vibration method is being used for almost half the depth of the piles, with the louder hammering of classic pile driving being used for only the last 40 meters.  These noise reduction techniques amount to half of one percent of the total cost of the wind farm.

Germany’s Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, or BSH, has set a noise limit of 160 decibels for 750 metres around offshore wind construction work. Developers regularly overshoot the limit, which is not applied to detonating old bombs, the BSH’s Christian Dahlke said.  “Our regulations are creating a new industry,” Dahlke said. “If environmental rules to protect animal life are tightened in other countries as well, our companies may even export these technologies.”

At the Nordsee Ost project, a large hose perforated to produce a curtain of air bubbles around each of the 48 turbine foundations to absorb the noise from pile driving, which “brought the noise level much closer” to the 160 decibel cap.  But RWE, a utility involved in the project, said that more research and development is needed “to meet the limit reliably in the future.”

Two small wind farm projects in southeastern Massachusetts that have stirred neighbor complaints about noise over the past several months will be tested for compliance with state noise limits.  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules require that noise sources increase existing noise levels by no more than 10dB.  This summer, one of the turbines in nearby Falmouth was found to sometimes exceed that difference at night, and was temporarily shut down except for some daytime sound testing periods. Both Falmouth turbines remain off at night, and are now operating during the day.

In Kingston, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (CEC) will oversee the sounds tests, and in Fairhaven, where over a hundred residents have filed health complaints, the Massachusetts DEP has begun to conduct the tests, as they did in Falmouth. Laurel Carlson of the MassDEP has said she does not expect to find a noise violation in Fairhaven, where existing background sounds should be higher.  “In the middle of the night it was 29 decibels (in Falmouth) — we call that national park quiet,” she said. “We’re not expecting to find that level of quiet in Fairhaven or any other community.”

UPDATE, 8/10/12:  Good piece in the Boston Globe today recapping the latest noise monitoring developments.

The town of Falmouth, Massachusetts has been the site of some unusually wide-ranging efforts to come to grips with the unexpected impacts on nearby neighbors after two town-owned turbines began operating at the local wastewater treatment plant.  Several dozen neighbors, most living within a half mile or so, have spoken out consistently about their experiences with turbine noise, leading to an evenly split town meeting last spring in which about half the town meeting voters asked that the turbines be shut down, and half urged the selectmen to pursue a collaborative process to come up with a solution to the problems.

In response, a committee was formed to come up with a set of options to offer to the selectmen, hopefully in time for the fall town meeting, though it may take longer.  The process is being facilitated by the Consensus-Building Institute, which has created a website where you can track the progress of the committee. Here you can find generalized meeting minutes (usually available within three weeks after each meeting; look for items called “Final Meeting Summary” under each date), presentations made at meetings, and some outside documents, including the full collection of testimony from over forty residents submitted to the Falmouth Board of Health when it held a hearing on the issue.   In addition, local public access TV is making videos of all meetings available; links to these videos appear on the CBI page as well. 

As laid out by the group as it began its process, the core interests at stake include the following, with the understanding that any broadly acceptable long-term plan for the turbines will need to respond to some extent to all of these core interests:

• Health, safety and well-being of impacted abutters
• Property rights and economic impacts on property for abutters
• Implementation of Falmouth’s climate action protection plan goals to reduce use of fossil fuel
• Fiscal impacts on the town’s taxpayers and town services
• An amicable end to a conflict that has divided and challenged the town’s relationships and reputation

The participants have been selected to represent the following interests:

• 5 residents primarily concerned with adverse impacts of the turbines on neighbors, including health and economic impacts
• 2 residents primarily concerned with implementing Falmouth’s climate action protection plan to reduce use of fossil fuel
• 2 taxpayers primarily concerned with the Town of Falmouth’s fiscal well-being
• 2 residents with strong empathy for all perspectives. These representatives are primarily concerned with a fair and effective process that may lead to an amicable outcome and reunite the town
• 3 Town Departments
• 2 liaisons from the Board of Selectmen attend all meetings and are available to answer questions, but do not participate at the table

Ten wind turbines in Woodstock, Maine began operating last December, and now that summer camps are occupied on two local ponds, noise complaints are starting to roll in from up to a mile and a half away.  The turbines are more than three-quarters of a mile from any homes; a few homes (perhaps 10) are within a mile, and another dozen or so are within a mile and a half (see location map). So far, Woodstock’s wind ordinance committee has received more than a dozen letters of concern about unexpected noise impacts, a number that would seem to represent a significant proportion of residents within that area.  The Bethel Citizen recently published a very lengthy article detailing many of the neighbors’ experiences, as well as responses from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the wind farm owners.  Among the highlights:

One year-round resident notes that the noise is loudest when his home is downwind of the turbines, and adds, “What is most interesting to me is that they seem loudest on the calmer days.  That is, if the wind is barely existent, I can really hear them roaring.”

A woman with a camp on Shagg Pond said that on the Friday before July 4th holiday, “The noise was so horrific at my camp that I couldn’t stay outside,” she said, saying she had suffered headaches. “It sounded like an airplane that never left the top of my house.”

A permanent sound monitor installed 2000 feet from the Spruce Mountain Wind (SMW) property line between the last turbines and Shagg Pond had its wires chewed by mice, so has not been collecting data recently.  While SMW had earlier applied to the state DEP to discontinue routine monitoring, and instead respond only to specific complaints, that application was recently withdrawn.  Earlier monitoring data, as well as spot checks after two complaints (one in February and one in July) showed that the project was operating within its permit conditions of 55dB in the daytime and 45dB at night.  Ed. note: once again, we may be looking at an example of a high permitted level leading to intrusive noise conditions (well above other sounds) even when in compliance; in addition, if there are compounding factors that cause higher sound levels in conditions hard to identify or replicate (e.g., unusually high degree of inflow turbulence), a short spot check may not catch the same noise conditions, even if winds are from the same direction and speed.

The Woodstock committee charged with drafting a town ordinance to govern future wind farm construction had been considering a 1-mile setback as one possibility.  Given the recent complaints, committee chairman Bob Elliott said they may need to consider larger setbacks, lower noise limits, or both. In addition, they are considering a requirement that project developers fund an escrow account to allow the town to hire its own consultants as needed.

The UK Valuation Office Agency has begun setting some new precedents by approving property valuation reductions for some homes near wind farms. It appears that only a few properties have been downgraded so far, and it is unknown how many such requests have been submitted and denied.  As reported in The Telegraph:

In one recent case a couple saw the value of their home 650 yards from the Fullabrook wind farm near Braunton, Devon, fall from £400,000 to £300,000 according to a local agent’s estimate. The couple, who were not attempting to sell their house, told the VOA that the persistent whooshing noise caused by the turbines and the visual intrusion – including a flickering shadow when the sun is directly behind the blades – made their property less valuable. The VOA accepted their argument and agreed to move the property from council tax band F to band E, amounting to a saving of about £400 a year, the Sunday Times reported (subscription required).

The Sunday Times story goes on to note that the VOA has received other applications for property value reductions near wind farms, though the number is unclear because only those reaching appeal are made public.  At least three other properties have had reductions approved, though factors other than sound alone reportedly came into play.  At least one successful appeal, by Jane Davis, came after real estate agents refused to even list the property she had moved away from because of wind farm noise.  

Health Canada, the country’s health department, is preparing to launch a study of health effects among residents near wind farms.  The study as currently planned will be based on interviews and physiological measurements of 2000 people living near wind farms of 8-12 turbines.  Each participant will fill out a self-reported health survey, and will be tested for stress hormones, blood pressure, and sleep patterns.  Study subjects will live from under 500 meters from turbines to over 5km.

The research design and methodology has just been made public, and is open for public comment until August 8.  Among the key methods outlined, with my initial thoughts in brackets:

• Sleep patterns will be monitored using wrist-worn devices for seven consecutive nights. [Will this be long enough to capture sleep-disruption trends, if they exist?  It would be good to ask study participants who self-report sleep disruption whether the week chosen for testing was representative of their worst weeks, average weeks, or below-average weeks, in terms of sleep quality.  A pilot study will examine the usefulness of adding a sleep diary to the full study protocol; this should be encouraged as a way to assess sleep patterns over a longer period of time, ideally including seasonal differences.]
• Sound levels will largely be modeled based on measured sound levels near the turbines, including sound into the infrasonic range; these models will be validated in the field at distances of up to 5km. [It would be good to know the full range of frequencies that will be modeled and measured.  In addition, medium- to long-term validation measurements in the field would be useful, in order to capture a better sense how often worst-case noise periods may occur; such events may be relatively rare or seasonal but be important elements in community response, especially stress responses.  Models to be utilized should be based on recent studies that have found lower frequency elements of wind turbine noise often attenuate at a lower rate than higher frequencies; this is especially important in considering any possible effects of audible low frequency sound at distances of a kilometer/half mile or more.)
• Sampling out to 5km (3.1 miles) will allow researchers to generate a dose-response curve based on the sound levels of the turbines.  [5km is probably a decent distance to use for an effective control, in that turbines are nearly always inaudible at such a distance.  I would hope that the study design can assure that there are enough subjects at close range, especially within 1km (.6 miles) and 2km (1.25 mi). to be sure that any reported and measured health effects will be statistically significant.  While I appreciate the need to have statistical significance at all distances, “wasting” too many subjects at greater distances could make it more difficult to be sure of any effects found at the distances where they appear to be more common, and at which there is apt to be a greater range and complexity of responses.]
• [While a dose-response relationship is a foundation of many health effects, there are many other factors that tend to make individuals more or less susceptible to whatever health stressor is being studied.  It would be helpful to include assessment of some of the factors that could be contributors to a health effect from wind farm noise, including noise sensitivity, pre-existing vestibular issues, and susceptibility to motion sickness, among others.]

This is somewhat old news, but a recent article brought it to my attention. The Michigan Public Service Commission’s Wind Working Group, an advisory committee, appointed a Wind and Health Technical Work Group in 2010 to look at siting standards; they were charged with making recommendations regarding physical safety and noise limits.  Dr. Jerry Punch, an audiologist and professor emeritus at Michigan State University, was chosen to chair the panel. Kenneth Rosenman a professor of epidemiology (occupational diseases) at MSU was co-chair.

Over the course of their first year of meeting and discussions, it became clear that Mark Clevey, a manager for Consumer Education and Renewable Energy programs with the State Energy Office, didn’t agree with the direction in which the panel seemed to be heading.  “He (Clevey) came to a few meetings and then stopped coming,” Punch said. “Later, we were contacted and told that they had reorganized and that the work group was no longer needed.”

Soon, Clevey was presenting the work of the Wind and Health group under his name; this March 2011 presentation is the final mention of the project in the records of the Wind Working Group, which has met three times since then. In that presentation, Cleavy stressed the role of community engagement to alleviate concerns, and posited that there is insufficient evidence to spur any changes in current noise standards, which stand at 55dB.

However, Punch, Rosenman, and one other member of the Technical Working Group released their own report, summarizing what had been the emerging recommendation of their group before it was disbanded.  The key recommended change in Michigan standards is that noise from wind turbines should be limited to 40db at night, as measured outside homes. It’s not entirely clear if they’re recommending a 40dB annual average, or a 40dB average over a number of 10-minute periods.  Their recommendations also include the option for wind developers to obtain waivers from homeowners, to allow sound levels higher than 40dB; but they recommend an absolute maximum of 55db, which is the current state noise limit for wind farms.

UPDATE, 7/22/12: A followup report from the same source as the above article details a bit more of the behind-the-scenes conversation among Michigan regulators.  This followup details an email sent by John Sarver, who had recently turned his State Energy Office job over to Clevey, written to Clevey and Julia Baldwin, who was moving to the Michigan PSC as Renewable Energy Section Manager.  Sarver advocated that the Technical Work Group be allowed to complete its process, but that they should be made aware that Clevey was not planning to make regulatory changes based on the report; he also encouraged them to delete their internal emails on the topic “because of the possibility of FOIA requests.” (And, indeed, it was a Freedom of Information Act request that revealed this email.)

A trio of towns in southeastern Massachusetts continue to address turbine noise issues in response to neighbor complaints about sleep disruption and health effects near small wind farms of three to four turbines each.  

In Falmouth, which was the first of the towns to have turbines begin operating close to homes, the affected neighbors have joined a committee charged with coming up with a set of options to present to the Selectmen, hopefully in time for the November town meeting.  

Across the bay in Fairhaven, where even more people live within a half mile or so of turbines that began operating this spring, the Board of Health has received over a hundred complaints, and asked the developer to submit a plan for how he might be able to reduce noise and flicker issues; the first response, received this week, was more focused on doubting the veracity of the complaints.  Sumul Shah, the developer, stressed that nearly two-thirds of the 132 complaints had come from either plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the town seeking to dismantle the turbines or others who had publicly voiced their opposition to the turbines before they were operational, suggesting that since some others seem to tolerate the noise, those complaining should be able to also.  Ed. note: Indeed, many nearby neighbors objected to the turbines as they were being permitted, based on the problems that had cropped up in nearby Falmouth.  The fact that some of these same people are now experiencing noise issues should not come as much of a surprise to anyone; about fifty of the complaints have come from people not involved in either effort to stop the turbines.

Board of Health member Barbara Acksen said she was appalled by Shah’s letter, saying “We were not at all pleased with the report. He should just be responding to the data and not casting aspersions on people who complain,” she said. “You can’t just say ‘Well, these people didn’t like the turbines before so their complaints don’t matter.'”  Shah says that he can’t consider mitigation options until it’s determined whether the turbines are out of compliance with state or local noise statutes; the state DEP will begin noise tests sometime in the coming month. it appears that this may become another in a series of projects in which a wind farm may operate largely or totally within its permitted noise criteria, while still causing widespread noise issues for neighbors.  This situations suggest that many noise standards may not be sufficient in communities used to peace and quiet, yet home to a moderate density of homes.

Meanwhile, in Kingston, residents continue to express dismay at turbines that began operating earlier this year.  Chris Dewitt said his heart aches at the impact these turbines have had on his family and his neighbors. He said he personally has been woken up early in the morning, around 3:30 a.m. one day and 4 a.m. the next, because of the noise of the turbines. “This is not sustainable,” he said. “Think about this decision in respect to the people.”

One of the more revealing comments I’ve seen lately about living near turbines was in a comment submitted to the paper that ran the Fairhaven story:

I live 2/3rds of a mile away from them. Not a day doesn’t go by I don’t hear them. Not 1. I say again 2/3rds of a mile away! How loud do they need to be for them to be heard at that distance – constantly? Most nights the noise isn’t loud enough to keep me awake. Sometimes it is. So it is my experience that the people who live much closer have a very very legitimate complaint. I can’t imagine living closer to them.

The State Journal, a West Virginia business magazine, recently published a comprehensive article updating the situation at the Pinnacle Wind Farm in Keyser, WV, where more than two dozen families continue to struggle with noise from 23 turbines atop a steep ridge line (see earlier AEI coverage).  

At the beginning of June, the state PSC dismissed a complaint by neighbor Richard Braithwaite, which asked for turbines to be shut down at night, saying that because no sound conditions were placed on the site certificate issued by the PSC, it has no jurisdiction to consider such complaints.  Spot measurements taken at Braithwaite’s home measured 45dB, well below the 56dB state noise limit; Braithwaite has regularly measured higher sound levels both inside and out, and a PSC staffer who visited agreed that the noise was “very prominent” at times.  In dismissing the complaint, the PSC noted that while it would not step into the situation, the neighbors could seek recourse through a nuisance claim in civil court; the neighbors are considering such a step.

This week, Gary Braithwaite (Richard’s brother) filed a new complaint, asking for a full shut down of the project.  It’s unclear how this complaint may differ procedurally from the earlier one in ways that could change the PSC’s lack of jurisdiction.  Meanwhile, the article also updates the progress that Edison Mission Group, the wind farm developer, is making on their plans to install sound-reduction louvres on the turbines, which is expected to reduce routine sound levels by about 7db; it’s unclear whether this will reduce noise issues, since for many neighbors, it seems to be blade noise that is most problematic. UPDATE, 7/7/12: The PSC has dismissed Gary Braithwaite’s complaint, noting its similarities to his brother’s complaint.

For those following this and similar community noise response situations, the full article is well worth a read.

This is the most substantial report I’ve yet seen suggesting that an animal is directly affected by some aspect living near a wind turbine.   In this case, the wind farm company requested that a vet examine the dog after the owner contacted them about a dramatic behavior change in one of his working sheep dogs after nights in which the wind blew from the turbine direction.  Like many human reports, the effect occurs only in particular wind conditions; I wonder whether it’s similar to some wind farm neighbors who experience ear pressure and popping when downwind from turbines, perhaps due to air pressure differentials in the turbine wake, or due to a particularly strong physiological reaction to low frequency noise.  Many other reports of effects on farm animals have been more general, making it hard to preclude other possible causes.  Of course, as in humans, such dramatic effects appear to be relatively rare, but worthy of noticing. 

The report was originally published in the Hamilton Spectator on June 24, but doesn’t seem to be available on their website any longer.  The bulk of the article is reprinted below:

Veterinarian Dr Scott Shrive, from Hamilton Vetcare, said he examined a Kelpie working dog from a client that was quite concerned about the behaviour of the dog. “It is usually very active, alert and an excellent working dog, and it has become very withdrawn and this is more evident when wind is coming from the same direction that the wind turbines are in,” he said.

“The dog is reluctant to come out of its kennel when the wind is coming from that direction – it won’t work, they can’t get it to work, it won’t even jump up on the vehicle, but on days when there is no wind, so when the turbines aren’t working, it goes back to normal, it comes out of its kennel it is happy to work all day like it normally does.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued an expedited ruling that affirms a 2011 Minnesota PUC decision to issue a permit for the Goodhue wind farm using smaller setbacks than the county requires.  While the county requires a 10-rotor diameter setback from non-participating neighbors (about 2700 feet, or just over a half mile), the PUC let the project move ahead with setbacks of about 1600 feet.  The Court ruled that the PUC can supersede county rules when it has “good cause.”  The court documents say the 10-RD setback “would essentially prevent all wind energy projects in Goodhue County,” which was apparently the core good cause for overruling the county ordinance.  (Ed. note: I’m not sure whether the county standard allowed for easements to build closer to willing neighbors; such easements offer a way to allow projects to proceed while minimizing noise impacts on neighbors who especially value rural quiet.)

Strangely, the Court said that it had seen the 10 rotor diameter rule as a “zero-exposure standard;” in fact, a half mile would not avoid audibility or ocassionaly intrusive noise , especially at night, though it would reduce the number of homes experiencing relatively louder sound exposures.  There are roughly 200 homes within the 1600 to 2700 foot zone.  Many of the more substantial negative impacts reported by wind farm neighbors occur in this range.

While National Wind, developer of the 78-megawatt project, aims to begin construction within weeks, in hopes of being operational by the end of the year in order to qualify for expiring production tax credits, hurdles remain.  The PUC rejected the company’s eagle monitoring and protections plan in February, and the developers have been planning to obtain an optional take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to protect themselves in the event of that a bald eagle may be killed.  A bird and bat protection plan is also still pending, and National Wind had earlier said that legal uncertainties had affected their ability to attract investors.  In addition, the Coalition for Sensible Siting, which lodged the appeal ruled on here, may well choose to continue their challenge to the State Supreme Court; they have 60 days in which to lodge that final appeal.

Update, 8/6/12: CSS has decided not to appeal. This article also suggests that due to outstanding wildlife permits, as well as legal action by some land owners who are trying to void their leases, project developers have stopped pushing to build this year, and are awaiting resolution of these issues, as well as the possibility of a one-year extension to the production tax credits.

Local coverage of the latest developments:
Minnesota Public Radio
Rochester Post Bulletin
Pioneer Press

Earlier AEI coverage of PUC deliberations and initial appeals is here. 

The Petiitions Committee of the Welsh Assembly, which includes members from four diverse political parties, has issued a report on its investigation of wind farm noise in Welsh communities.  The report is short but concisely comprehensive in considering input from residents with noise complaints, advocates of wind energy, and wind developers.  The committee suggests that in deeply rural areas, it may be necessary to “increase the (standard 500 metre) separation distance as appropriate, and in specified circumstances up to 1500 metres, according to environmental factors such as the topography and the ambient noise levels of the area.”  Sleep disruption was a major factor in complaints, and in the Committee’s recommendations, which quoted a recent editorial in the British Journal of Medicine, written by sleep expert Christopher Hanning.  After hearing reports of faulty turbines making grinding noises for weeks before being repaired, the Committee also recommended immediate shut down of those turbines, at least at night, until repairs can be made.

UPDATE, 5/31/12: The article in The Australian that spurred this post has triggered a quick back-and-forth in the couple days since it was published.  First,  this article implied it was nothing more than a renegade staffer speaking without understanding the issue, quoting a Queensland Health spokesman as saying the Department has not issued any new guidance on wind farms, and insisting that a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) short “rapid review” statement remains the relevant document.  But this was quickly followed by a very clear statement from the Chairman of the NHMRC team currently doing a more in-depth study of the issue of health issues near wind farms; the Chair, Bruce Armstrong, affirmed that it’s “entirely appropriate to adopt the precautionary principle where it is neither possible to say with any certainty there is a problem nor is it possible to exclude with any certainty the existence of a problem.” And, a further statement from Queensland Health also endorsed the letter, saying “Our letter to the Tablelands Council was to advise council of the NHMRC guidelines and the fact that these guidelines are being reviewed by NHMRC.”

The author of the original letter, David Sellars, is a Director in the Environmental Health Branch, which deals with “health risk assessments of environmental hazards,”  and currently directs the Tropical Regional Services office, which focuses on health of populations, rather than individuals.  So, it appears the Mr. Sellars was not operating outside his area of responsibility.  It remains unclear whether, as stated in the “Climate Spectator” column that ran the initial “retraction” of the statement, Mr. Sellars well-versed in the state of research on the issue.  The second Departmental statement certainly confirms it’s more than his personal opinion. 

So, with all that in mind, here’s the bit that triggered such a quick and chaotic response:

Queensland Health has become the first government health agency to recommend a “cautionary” approach to wind farm siting, urging the Tablelands Regional Council to maintain a 2km (1.25 mi) buffer between new wind turbines and residences.  Tablelands is considering an application for an 80-turbine wind farm, nine of which are within 2km of homes.

Despite the fact that the proposed Mount Emerald wind farm would meet existing noise criteria, Queensland Health noted that “Research into the potential health effects of wind turbines is ongoing and is being undertaken on an international scale.”  A 2km setback would likely nearly eliminate health effects triggered by sleep disruption and greatly reduce stress-related health effects that have been increasingly reported by some residents living near wind farms.  Many wind farm neighbors also note physical sensations that they attribute to infrasound and low frequency noise, which would be also be reduced at 2km.

Queensland Health’s director of environmental health, David Sellars, said the National Health and Medical Research Council was reviewing its position on the possible health effects of wind turbines and was aiming to release a public statement by the end of the year. “Queensland Health would be likely to be guided by the NHMRC statement, resulting from this research,” he said. “Until such time, Tablelands Regional Council is encouraged to take a precautionary approach to development applications of this type.”

Mr Sellars noted that the Victorian governments recently adopted planning guidelines, which ban wind turbines within 2km of homes, could be considered current best practice from a cautionary perspective. New South Wales is currently considering similar draft guidelines, and in South Australia, noise levels are limited to 35dB in areas “primarily intended for rural living,” which in effect creates nearly as much setback from homes.

Further update, 5/31/12: The Mayor of Tablelands has said that it’s likely the local council will await the publication of the new, more comprehensive report from the NHMRC before making a decision on local wind farm siting standards. “I think councillors would be very interested to see the outcomes of that before they vote on anything,” said Mayor Rosa Lee Long.

Meanwhile, Ratch Australia, the developers behind the Mt Emerald wind farm proposal, insist there is no rationale for the 2km set-backs enforced elsewhere in the country.  “Every site is unique and there is no scientific consideration that justifies the set-back,” the company said in a written statement.

(Ed. note: There is no scientific justification for any common setback standards that govern exactly how far from homes wind turbines can be placed; if it was only about pure science, noise limits would be based on levels that cause physical injury, such as those used in workplace safety laws.  Rather, wind farm siting standards are based on local tolerance for noise nuisances, which can never be scientifically determined (though of course we can, over time, get a sense from experience elsewhere to help inform new decisions).  2km standards are generally based on the idea that turbines will only rarely be heard beyond that distance at levels that cause strong annoyance or sleep disruption; the same could be said for other possible distances, since of course topography and atmospheric conditions lead to differences in sound propagation.  A reasonable case could be made for any distance from 500m to 3km, depending on how far an ordinance is trying to go toward minimizing the sound level of turbines at homes.  2km is aiming to avoid sound levels loud enough to be intrusive to the more sensitive among local residents, while in most locations, it will not mean turbines are always inaudible.)

The Falmouth Board of Health held a special meeting to gather written and oral testimony from neighbors of three wind turbines in town who are experiencing health issues.  Seventy people attended the meeting, with about 30 having prepared written testimony about their personal health after the turbines became operational, as requested by the board, which the Board will submit to the Massachusetts Department of Health.  While one resident who lives 3000 feet from a turbine testified that he had noticed no ill effects, most of those attending shared specific symptoms and incidents.  Many of these related to sleep disruption and resulting headaches or lack of concentration, including Mark Cool, an air traffic controller who had the first near-accident incident in his career after losing sleep due to the turbines.  Some spoke of physical sensations, a “pressure” that they suspect is triggered inaudible infrasound (though may be caused by air pressure pulses in down-wind turbine wakes).  Most of those in attendence seemed to agree with Diane Funfar, who said, “turn these tortuous machines off.”

Two local papers carried coverage of the Board of Health meeting, and one local TV station aired a video report.

One of the two town-owned turbines has been shut down after it was found out of compliance with state noise standards on quiet nights, and is being tested to see if it is in compliance during the day; the other town-owned turbine is currently running only in the daytime while efforts are underway to find a local consensus on how to proceed. Seventy neighbors in forty households want them shut down completely while the consensus process is underway, and recently chose not to participate in the initial planning of the consensus process, which is set to get underway in June.

One of the contentious wind turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts has been ruled out of compliance with state noise rules after an investigation by the state Department of Environmental Protection.  The noise study found that the turbine created noise levels at one residence less than 1500 feet away that exceeded background ambient noise by more than 10dB, which the agency described as “unacceptable to local residents.”  Residents reported a sense of vindication at the finding, and the town has shut down the turbine; the town had already agreed to shut their second turbine down at night while seeking a community-wide consensus on moving forward.  Todd Drummey, 48, a financial planner who lives 3,000 feet from the closest turbine in Falmouth, compared the noise of the turbines to jets and pile drivers, depending on the weather. He said shutting them down, at least temporarily, was a good first step. “But what I would really love to see is that they’re moved,’’ he said, adding he also has trouble sleeping at night.

DEP officials stress that the finding should not be seen as evidence of a more widespread noise issue, noting that turbine designs and topography vary from project to project.  In particular, the offending turbine is an older-style “stall-regulated” design (in which blade speed is controlled by tilting the three blades away from the wind), which is louder in high winds than “pitch-regulated” turbines, in which each blade rotates while remaining in their original shared plane. Falmouth officials suggested that they may do some daytime testing of the offending turbine, to see whether it can join the other unit and operate within 10dB of ambient during the day (the DEP tests focused on the quietest times of the night).

In looking over the DEP’s report, what jumped out at me was that while at only one of the five locations tested by the DEP did the turbine sounds consistently exceed ambient by over 10dB, at every location, the average peak turbine sound was at least 5dB louder, and in 10 of the 12 individual testing sessions, the turbines were more than 7dB louder.  This points to the subtle yet important question of what is used as a standard; many acousticians consider 5dB a difference that is likely to trigger widespread complaints, with 10dB likely to lead to significant problems.   New York State noise law aims to keep noise sources from exceeding a 6dB difference.  Yet the more substantial 10dB difference has been widely adopted as a standard, and could be one factor in seeing more noise complaints than might be expected by project planners. One more subtle but rarely considered factor is that while 3dB is considered a difference that is just audible over a similar ambient background, noise sources with different frequency spectrums than current background levels can be perceived at a few decibels below ambient, as could be the case with quiet night time conditions and a turbine sound spectrum heavy in lower frequencies; this could accentuate the audibility of turbines in some conditions, making a lower “dB over ambient” standard more likely to serve the intended purpose of minimizing audibility, annoyance, and complaints.

Vermonters for a Clean Environment have filed a complaint in US District Court challenging the Forest Service’s planned permit for 15 new wind turbines in the Green Mountain National Forest.  The challenge includes several issues, but centers on the visual and sound impact of the new turbines on the nearby George D. Aiken Wilderness. Sound monitoring and modeling indicates that the boundary of the Wilderness is one of two areas in which the new turbines are likely to be audible above existing background sound levels (which includes sound from several older turbines near the new project site).

The recent court filing is not yet available on the group’s website, but an earlier appeal submitted to the Forest Service contains many of the same arguments.  A central point is expressed this way:

If the mechanical sound of the wind turbines can be heard within the George Aiken Wilderness, it is no longer a wilderness, plain and simple. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c) (requiring that the area “retain[ ] its primeval character” and requiring that the “the imprint of man’s work [should be] substantially unnoticeable”).

The complaint suggests that ridgelines in the Wilderness will have more visual impact than the Forest Service documented, and there was not a sufficient assessment of how far into the wilderness sounds may be audible. The permitting documents estimates that turbines will be 5-7dB louder than background sound at the Wilderness boundary, and will be less audible as you move deeper into the wilderness; these figures are long-term (day-long or night-long) average sound levels.

The Record Hill Wind Farm has made the first of planned ongoing quarterly payments to all year-round and seasonal property owners in Roxbury, Maine.  The checks, for $111.57, reflect the average cost of the power used by residents in town over the course of three months.  While wind farms cannot directly supply local electricity (their power is sent into the grid, and often sold in bulk to utilities or other purchasers of electricity), this innovative program aims to give local citizens a direct benefit to compensate for wind farm’s intrusion in the local landscape.

While Roxbury’s 400 landowners seem enthusiastic about the payments, some landowners in nearby towns who can hear the turbines are left out in the cold, including those on Roxbury Pond covered earlier here.

Two town meeting votes, along with a short-lived wind turbine plan adopted by the local board of selectmen, kept things blustery in meeting rooms as well as in the springtime air of Falmouth this month.  A large number of people living within a half mile to mile of the two town-owned turbines have been struggling with noise issues, and the town has tried a few different approaches designed to reduce the problems, including shutting down the turbines in high winds.

Just before this year’s town meeting, the board of selectmen adopted yet another curtailment plan that they hoped would make things more livable while they tried to find some sort of consensus moving forward.  The plan would have shut down one turbine anytime the wind topped 10 m/s, and would have increased the cut-in speed of the other between midnight and 3am, from 3.5m/s to 8m/s (this to address the fact that in the still of night, wind noise from the blades can be troublesome even at low speeds).  These curtailments would be in place until May 15, after which both turbines would be shut down all night (1opm to 6am) until the end of June.  Apparently the hope was that a new long-term plan might be in place by then; the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge is nearing completion of an information-gathering process that included 53 local stakeholders (see their draft report here).

However, two articles were up for a vote at the annual town meeting which stretched across several nights later that week.  The first called for both turbines to be shut down until November, and it passed 100-75.  A few minutes later, a supposedly competing article calling for the selectmen to continue their efforts to build consensus toward finding a solution on what to do with the machines passed by a vote of 93-74, leading the town meeting moderator and at least one selectman to wonder how to reconcile the two.  Without seeing the text, I can’t say for sure, but it doesn’t seem on the surface that the two initiatives are contrary; the work toward a long-term consensus can continue whether the turbines are operating in the meantime or not. Certainly, the process recommended by the Consensus Building Institute is likely to take much longer than from now until the end of June (in short, they recommend that a local committee sketch out a variety of options, without recommending any one; the goal would be to provide selectmen with “a clear, comprehensive, and inclusive analysis of the range of options, their costs and benefits, and their impacts.”

This article in the Falmouth Enterprise offers a detailed blow-by-blow account of some of the more contentious aspects of the recent town meeting debate.

Two recent articles have shed interesting light on the ongoing controversy in Keyser, WV, home of the Pinnacle Wind Farm, where many neighbors have been complaining about noise since the turbines began operating late last year. The first clarifies that most or all nearby residents signed agreements with the wind company, including the residence where the noise was expected to be the loudest, 56 dB.

This article notes that the regulations use a full 24-hour average, or day-night level (Ldn), which helps to explain why some residents’ reports of measuring higher levels can coincide with the company affirming that it is operating within its prescribed limits.  It would be likely that peak  sound levels could be well above the average, which is lowered by times when the turbines are turning slowly or not at all.

Much of problem here appears to be that residents, including those who signed agreements, did not appreciate just how loud 55 dB would seem, nor understand that the average may lead to peak sound  levels above that limit. As covered earlier by AEInews, some residents say they were led to believe they would rarely, if ever, hear the turbines.  It appears likely that company representatives assumed wind noise would down out the turbine sounds.

The second article addresses the addition of  noise reducing mufflers to the turbines there, which is expected to reduce some troublesome high pitched sounds from the turbine’s fans, though neighbors say that lower-frequency blade sounds are also bothersome. Charley Parnell, vice president of Public Affairs for Edison Mission Group, owners of the wind farm, said, “We believe Pinnacle is operating in a manner that meets the requirements of our permits, but taking additional steps to mitigate noise is an important part of our commitment to be a responsible corporate citizen of the communities in which we operate.  We look forward to many years of providing clean energy generated by Pinnacle, and we intend to work in good faith to address local concerns.”

Here we go again!  As in AEI’s similarly long recap of 2011 research on low frequency noise and infrasound published in December, I’ve tackled a similar task with close to a dozen papers published in 2011 on health effects of living near wind farms.  Rather than publish the entire thing as a blog post, I’ve created a 26-page PDF that can be downloaded or viewed online.  Here, I’ll reprint the 4-page introduction (note that even the intro has many important footnotes viewable only in the PDF version).
See pdf of Wind Farm Noise and Health: Lay summary of new research released in 2011

In February of this year, I wrote a column for the Renewable Energy World website that addressed the recent increase in claims that wind farms are causing negative health effects among nearby neighbors.  The column suggested that while many of the symptoms being reported are clearly related to the presence of the turbines and their noise, the relationship between wind farms and health effects may most often (though not always) be an indirect one, as many of the symptoms cropping up are ones that are widely triggered by chronic stress. In recent months, the dialogue around these issues has hardened, with both sides seemingly intent on painting the question in simple black and white—community groups assert that turbines “are making” people sick, while government and industry reports insist that there’s “no evidence” that turbines can or do make people sick. The gulf between the conclusions of formal health impact studies and the experiences of some neighbors has widened to the point that both sides consider the other to be inherently fraudulent.  I suggested that the rigidity of both sides’ approach to this subtle and complex issue is likely increasing the stress and anxiety within wind farms communities that may in fact be the actual primary trigger for health reactions.

Here, I’ll expand on that shorter column by taking a closer look at the few surveys and studies that have attempted to directly assess the prevalence of health effects around wind farms, including a detailed look at recent papers from Carl Phillips, Daniel Shepherd, Bob Thorne, Michael Nissenbaum, Nina Pierpont, and Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand, along with consideration of publications from Eja Pedersen, Frits van den Berg, Geoff Leventhall, Roel Bakker, and the Waubra Foundation.

Even as the public becomes increasingly concerned about health effects, with a lot of focus on the role of inaudible infrasound, it’s been striking to me to that the researchers investigating health effects – even clearly sympathetic researchers – are not talking about infrasound much at all, and are instead focusing on stress-related symptoms.

Read the rest of this entry »