Nombre de visiteurs : Hit Counter by Digits
 

Paris:


livre      epaw-youtube    rdp fed

 

 

Échos > 2016 > Examen des données incontestables sur la réponse à la modulation d'amplitude des éoliennes

Untitled Document

uk

ukgov

Research and analysis

Review of the evidence on the response to amplitude modulation from wind turbines

From:
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
First published:
25 October 2016
Part of:
Low carbon technologies

Review of the evidence on the response to amplitude modulation (AM) from wind turbines, with recommendations on control through the use of a planning condition.

Documents

Wind Turbine AM Review: Phase 1 Report

PDF, 347KB, 29 pages

 

pdf2

Wind Turbine AM Review: Phase 2 Report

PDF, 1.47MB, 117 pages

 

Detail

This review was commissioned by the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) in spring 2015 and finalised before DECC became part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in July 2016.

The research has reviewed the evidence on the response to amplitude modulation (AM) in relation to wind turbines. It was undertaken by a research team lead by WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff, who are responsible for the overall editorial content of the report, and supported by three independent external reviewers.

The review considered the robustness of relevant dose-response relationships and how, in a policy context, the level(s) of AM in a sample of noise data should be interpreted. In particular, it considered at what point AM causes a significant adverse impact and has recommended how excessive AM from wind turbines might be controlled through the use of an appropriate planning condition.

The final report addresses comments raised by three peer reviewers, appointed by DECC. The reviewers, from Denmark and the Netherlands, are experts in noise and health.

While this research does not represent planning guidance, BEIS encourages developers and planning authorities in England to consider this research when determining if an AM condition would be appropriate.

The contractor worked closely with the Institute of Acoustics’ AM working group, who in August 2016 recommended a preferred metric and methodology for quantifying and assessing the level of AM in a sample of wind turbine noise data.

_________________________________________________________

Comments
http://www.windsofjustice.org.uk/2016/10/the-truth-on-turbine-noise-uk-government-review-of-the-evidence/

Government/publications/review-of-the-evidence-on-the-response-to-amplitude-modulation-from-wind-turbines

Telegraph opinion

WindEnergysAbsurd
  analysis on facebook:

The truth on turbine noise is coming, bit by bit and not before time although too late for those people who have been so affected by amplitude modulation that they have had to leave their homes.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff undertook a review of research into the effects of and response to Amplitude Modulation (AM). The
objective was to review the current evidence on the human response to AM, evaluate the factors that contribute to human response, and to recommend how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of a planning condition.

They collated and critically reviewed a mass of relevant papers, existing planning conditions and planning policies related to AM.

'The review established a clear need for AM control, a clear link between overall turbine noise level and annoyance, and a correlation between the degree of AM and an equivalent level without AM. It also established that the sensitive period for wind farm neighbours to AM coincides with operational conditions (between sunset and sunrise) where the prevalence of AM occurs. These findings raise the question about whether the noise limits in ETSU-R-97, which are generally higher at night, accord with current Government policies to avoid significant adverse noise
impacts, and mitigate or minimise adverse impacts.'

A recommendation has been made to construct a planning condition to control AM, but only for new applications and only in England (planning being devolved). They make the point that it isn't known at this stage whether existing planning legislation can cater for this or whether a planning legislation amendment will have to be made.

Westminster (BEIS) has said: 'While this research does not represent planning guidance, BEIS encourages developers and planning authorities in England to consider this research when determining if an AM condition would be appropriate.'

We would expect that all English planning authorities would take this instruction very seriously indeed.

However, where does that leave Scotland?

We note that the Scottish wind farm impacts study is referred to.

'AM could be perceived by residents in around two thirds of the ten case study sites...'

So, Scottish Government, you need also to get your fingers out of ...your ears?.....and wake up to the fact that AM is real and that people are suffering.

We are reminded of one of the very early cases of AM where Jane and Julian Davis were affected to the point where they had to move out of their farm and take rented accommodation to escape. They always made the point that not every person would be affected by AM and this is supported by the study. Actually, this report is vindication for the Davises who worked so hard to have the problems of AM recognised, as did Mike Hulme of Denbrook, which is also mentioned in the study, his proactive stance being enhanced and continued by Bev Gray of the Cotton Farm wind farm who continues to monitor wind farm noise and many others.

As Winds Energy Absurd said yesterday : Alan Jones' interview on the Australian 2GB radio programmeis interviewing Dr Mariana Alves-Perreira who has degrees in physics, biomedical engineering and a PhD in environmental science and who has been researching vibroacoustic disease since the early 80s. She has written or co-authored much peer-reviewed evidence of vibroacoustic disease and low frequency noise; she was one of the early pioneers.

Listen first of all to Alan reeling off the list of what Frydenberg (Energy Minister) knows, in reality. Listen to him tell of the 11,000 homes which were cut off last year and of the 13,000 on hardship plans.

The Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission mouth off the party line that there is no evidence that wind turbines are harmful to health, on the basis of 'what you can't hear won't hurt you'.

Alan asks Dr Alves-Perreira why, in the face of evidence from herself and so many other scientists and physicians' research, many of which presented to the Australian Inquiry, they continued with these lies.

She responded that 'It all comes down to litigation problems in the future'.

And yes it does. The longer someone gets away with something...anything....the longer they think they are invincible. History has proved, time and again, that this is not the case. Invariably scales fall from people's eyes. Sometimes it takes longer but eventually it comes. Whether it be the Berlin Wall, statues of dictators or scams of immense reverse Robin Hood proportions, the truth will out and then it will be payback time.

http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/213937 

  

Susan Crosthwaite

www.windsofjustice.org.uk

www.EPAW.org

susanmcoss@gmail.com

+44(0)7436810013

 

 

 

 

 

From: mary.young32@btinternet.com [mailto:mary.young32@btinternet.com]
Sent: 30 October 2016 12:34
To: Pat Wells; George Lindsay; Stuart Young; Lyndsey; Susan Crosthwaite; Brenda; Angela Shiells; Chris Metcalfe
Subject: AM Study

 

This is what is now the pinned post with a picture entitled Truth and with links to the study and to the Telegraph Opinion piece.  I notice that there is somewhere else which has published a version of what the study says; totally inaccurate but which is being picked up by foreign media, unfortunately.  We need to rectify that if we can, and also to put pressure on the SG.  So if anyone wants to RT the tweet and add to it, that's fine.

I've tweeted and tagged in Sturgeon and Wheelhouse: Truth on windfarm noise is coming. Scotland expects protection for its residents



M

The truth on turbine noise is coming, bit by bit and not before time although too late for those people who have been so affected by amplitude modulation that they have had to leave their homes.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff undertook a review of research into the effects of and response to Amplitude Modulation (AM). The
objective was to review the current evidence on the human response to AM, evaluate the factors that contribute to human response, and to recommend how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of a planning condition.

They collated and critically reviewed a mass of relevant papers, existing planning conditions and planning policies related to AM.

'The review established a clear need for AM control, a clear link between overall turbine noise level and annoyance, and a correlation between the degree of AM and an equivalent level without AM. It also established that the sensitive period for wind farm neighbours to AM coincides with operational conditions (between sunset and sunrise) where the prevalence of AM occurs. These findings raise the question about whether the noise limits in ETSU-R-97, which are generally higher at night, accord with current Government policies to avoid significant adverse noise
impacts, and mitigate or minimise adverse impacts.'

A recommendation has been made to construct a planning condition to control AM, but only for new applications and only in England (planning being devolved). They make the point that it isn't known at this stage whether existing planning legislation can cater for this or whether a planning legislation amendment will have to be made.

Westminster (BEIS) has said: 'While this research does not represent planning guidance, BEIS encourages developers and planning authorities in England to consider this research when determining if an AM condition would be appropriate.'

We would expect that all English planning authorities would take this instruction very seriously indeed.

However, where does that leave Scotland?

We note that the Scottish wind farm impacts study is referred to.

'AM could be perceived by residents in around two thirds of the ten case study sites...'

So, Scottish Government, you need also to get your fingers out of ...your ears?.....and wake up to the fact that AM is real and that people are suffering.

We are reminded of one of the very early cases of AM where Jane and Julian Davis were affected to the point where they had to move out of their farm and take rented accommodation to escape. They always made the point that not every person would be affected by AM and this is supported by the study. Actually, this report is vindication for the Davises who worked so hard to have the problems of AM recognised, as did Mike Hulme of Denbrook, which is also mentioned in the study, his proactive stance being enhanced and continued by Bev Gray of the Cotton Farm wind farm who continues to monitor wind farm noise and many others.

As we said yesterday, referring to Alan Jones' interview with Marianna Alves-Perreira, the day is coming and litigation won't be far behind.

 



1234

Haut de page
Qui sommes-nous ?