Smith: Wind turbine noise cause real health problems

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Annette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment Inc., based in Danby.

Recent media attention about wind energy development in Vermont, misses a critical reason why so many communities around the state are saying “no” to utility-scale wind on Vermont ridgelines. It˙s not just about the view.

When you focus solely on the view, you miss some of the other issues that are driving opposition. After working on the subject for three and a half years, Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) knows there are numerous other complex issues — impacts to water quality from stormwater runoff, wildlife habitat fragmentation, bird and bat mortality, reductions in property values, and health impacts from noise in particular. Wind proponents condescendingly state that “people just don’t like to look at them,” in an intentional attempt to marginalize Vermonters who are concerned about wind projects’ impacts. Rather than address the issues, proponents belittle people who are directly affected.

These concerns are not based on selfish hysteria, but science. The Society for Wind Vigilance www.windvigilance.com is focusing credible, peer-reviewed science on the health impacts of wind turbines. They held a forum of doctors, acousticians, victims, and other interested people in October 2009, which I attended. Wind turbine noise is not a new story, making it all the more frustrating to see the noise problems left out of almost all the reporting being done in Vermont this fall about wind energy.

The wind industry is in denial about the noise impacts from their huge machines, and refuses all requests to hire experts that are acceptable to neighbors rather than the usual firms who are paid to defend developers’ interests.

There are thousands of wind opposition groups all over the world. The story is the same everywhere. The audible noise and inaudible low frequency and infrasound are driving people from their homes. People do not abandon their homes for no reason. Noise from these big machines can extend three to six miles in mountainous terrain, with residents within 2 miles most at risk.

Wind turbines pressurize the air, making homes act like a drum. The noise gets inside people’s homes and bodies. Sleep is disrupted, leading to other conditions including heart problems.

Wind turbines pressurize the air, making homes act like a drum. The noise gets inside people’s homes and bodies. Sleep is disrupted, leading to other conditions including heart problems. Despite hearing directly from Vermont doctors concerned about these impacts, our Department of Health has shown no interest in protecting neighbors’ public health.

A Sheffield family has been advised by their doctor to move because their children’s sleep and behavior is being disrupted by wind turbine noise. A neighbor of the Lowell project reported that with just two turbines turning, “it sounded like a 747 was flying overhead and never landing.” Noise experts tell us that noise on both sides of the Lowell wind project is going to be unduly adverse. A ridgeline array plus turbines too close together plus using 3 MW turbines with 4.5 MW blades equals a formula for excessive noise.

The sad part is that there is no mitigation for noise issues after the fact. Either someone turns the turbines off, or people have to move. Wind proponents like to say it is only those who oppose projects who object, because they are not being compensated. That assertion has been disproven by numerous studies and experiences in Vermont, where project supporters are among the victims.

By January, more than 1,000 Vermonters will be threatened with wind turbine noise and its accompanying health effects around Sheffield, Lowell and Georgia Mountain. Wind developers will deny there are any problems. They will hire their own experts who will find everything is fine, as they have in Sheffield.

When you have invested everything in your home or business, and you are threatened with losing everything, and with no compensation, the scenario is desolate. Around these wind projects, the story is heartbreaking as hundreds of people are being sacrificed.

Meanwhile, more towns are feeling frustrated and put-upon by developers who suggest they play “hosts” to these massive industrial projects. The Town of Newark was just sued over their Town Plan revision by a wealthy landowner who has leased his land to Eolian Wind.

We do have alternatives to respond to climate change. Solar cost is on a steep downward trend. Vermont has 30 percent more sun than Germany and Japan, both of which have heavily deployed solar. It is a better environmental option.

The tide has turned in Vermont where big wind is concerned. Environmental degradation, corporate take-over, aesthetic impacts, the noise and no proof that it will make a difference in addressing climate change make big wind a poor choice for Vermont.

If you want to find out about the noise for yourself, we know of several families in “host” communities that would be glad to swap houses with you for a while. Just let me know.

Leave a Reply

53 Comments on "Smith: Wind turbine noise cause real health problems"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Fred Woogmaster
3 years 9 months ago

Moratoriam means the loss of profit for investors with capital.
Moratorium means due diligence and protection for Vermont citizens.
Annette Smith makes good sense.
I agree with Phil Scott; a time limited moratorium, sufficient to evaluate the issue more fully, will serve us well.

George Plumb
3 years 9 months ago

So how important are the lives of just a few people? I mean really? It is much more important that we keep on generating increasing amounts of electricity so that thousands of people can drive hundreds of miles to a water park and produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide from their SUV’s and vans. Its the economy stupid!

And thankfully VPIRG, VNRC, and CLF keep on supporting industrial scal wind. Yes, it is the right thing to do!

3 years 9 months ago

Yesterday the Berkshire Eagle (Mass) had an article on the effect of noise on home owners on the Lowell Mountain side of the 21 turbines.

I was up on the other side, in Albany and followed dirt roads up the mountain to farms and trailers set under the ridge. The turbines are almost overhead, gigantic, ominous and just beginning to operate. We’ll hear what those who live there heard.

Rumblings are about of a documentary on turbine scams.

Darcie Johnston
3 years 9 months ago

Senator Benningt and Senator Brock were the first to offer a moratorium amendment. Phil Scott position was announced in late August as Election Day was approaching. He never attended the events supporting the anti-wind folks this fall. Don’t confuse his verbal support for actual help.

Annette Smith
3 years 9 months ago
I wrote this piece several weeks before the horrendous noise event that was experienced by the neighbors to the east last weekend. Here’s the petition they put together and filed with the PSD. http://lowellmountainsnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/noise-complaints-filed-with-vermont-public-service-department-11-5-12/ Testimony provided to the PSB showing the deficiencies in GMP’s noise expert’s analysis and clearly identifying that noise will be a problem at the Lowell wind site, all of which the Board chose to ignore: http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/docket/7628LowellWind/Testimony%20&%20Exhibits/Other_Parties'_Prefiled&Exh/AlbanyTown/James.pdf http://www.kingdomcommunitywind.com/permitting/lmg-leslie-blomberg/ http://www.kingdomcommunitywind.com/permitting/town-of-albany-dr-t-ray-lovko/ http://www.kingdomcommunitywind.com/permitting/rebuttal-testimony-richard-r-james/ http://www.kingdomcommunitywind.com/permitting/albany-richard-r-james/ http://www.kingdomcommunitywind.com/permitting/town-of-albany-dr-lovko/ http://www.kingdomcommunitywind.com/permitting/lmg-leslie-d-blomberg/ The PSB set the maximum noise level as 45 dBA (exterior), averaged over an hour. Dr. Lovko clearly told the Board this is not… Read more »
Avril Howe
3 years 9 months ago

It is tragic that all the predictions regarding the noise issue is now becoming a reality for these poor folk.

Imagine if this was your home and how the wildlife will also be affected?

It is deeply disturbing that the PSB chose to ignore the testimony presented to them on this problem during the hearings. This tragedy could have been avoided had they done so.

Vermont is too small for the appropriate siting of Big Wind.

Grahame G. Bell
2 years 9 months ago

Almost without exception serious health risks from commercial activity have been both predicted and ignored.By the time the consequences become too difficult to ignore those commercial interests have moved on to devastate other environments. Without massive subsidies not one of these winds farms anywhere worldwide would exist. Science has the ability to reduce our energy needs without reducing our desire. Wind is only ever 60% efficient . To date we have only harnessed a tenth of our ability to convert solar. The brain with the equivalent of 5 biilion laptops of capacity consumes barely 30 watts of energy daily.

steve merrill
3 years 9 months ago
If it emits sound it CAN be measured, no? How about ALL of us who live in villages and town centers (as is MOST of all Vermont) where we HAVE to “enjoy” the sound of Harley’s with straight-pipe exhausts and trucks with glass-packs? Last time I checked it was a FEDERAL violation (since the 1990’s) to “tamper with” or replace pipes with non-stock exhausts, yet Vt. DEC/ANR/DMV will do NOTHING about all of US having our windows rattled and lives disrupted..I live next to the border and the Canadian Harley’s are NOT allowed this insanity or they get pulled over… Read more »
3 years 9 months ago
Annette, Thank you writing this article. “The sad part is that there is no mitigation for noise issues after the fact. Either someone turns the turbines off, or people have to move.” Mitigation of noise levels can be accomplished by feathering the blades. The wind turbines will produce less energy AND make less noise. It is practiced in Massachusetts, etc. The noise is greatest at night, when wind speeds usually are greater. Wind turbine owners will howl, because they make the most energy when the wind is blowing hard; money, money, money! The production tax credit, PTC, is 2.2 c/kWh… Read more »
3 years 9 months ago

Anne,
My comment disappeared.
Please resurrect it.
Willem

steve merrill
3 years 9 months ago
Funny how we ALL in the villages/centers, where MOST Vermonter’s actually live, have to listen to straight-pipe Harley’s, jacked up trucks, and muffler-less cars as the cops won’t enforce the laws against this stuff..Last time I checked it was a violation of FEDERAL law to tamper with the exhaust on ANY vehicle made after 1990 or so, but we don’t count as much as some yuppies who have the money to live out in the country I guess, hell, I’d be happy to swap this place in town for ANY place away from a traveled road. And where’s the so-called… Read more »
Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago
Wind farms don’t harm people’s health. 17 major reviews world-wide of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed studies find the same thing: no harm from wind farm and no mechanism for harm. They all agree that a small number of people very close to wind farms find the noise annoying. Full links, references and analyses here: http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/What-might-cause-people-who-live-near-wind-turbines-to-get-sick/answer/Mike-Barnard Wind energy is the best alternative for wildlife including birds and bats. Every study performed shows that wind energy is the best form of generation for wildlife. One study implies that if all fossil fuel generation could be replaced with wind farms, 70 million… Read more »
David Norman
3 years 8 months ago
Mike… just so you are aware of the origins of the “17 major reviews” of Industrial Wind Turbine noise and health; About a year or so back I made a comment on one of Simon Chapman’s blogs where I created this number, providing the references, most of them based on the “Massachusetts expert panel” edict in this regard. My choice of the number 17 was based on a somewhat arbitrary figure, since I had in fact identified 34 relevant research reviews which had been Journal “peer reviewed”. Mind you, the scientific virtue of the “peer reviews” and the Journals themselves… Read more »
Mike Barnard
3 years 8 months ago

Odd how there is a complete referenced set of links to these 17 individual reviews in my answer compiled by Professor Chapman.

I think you are mistaking coincidence for something else.

David Norman
3 years 8 months ago
Mike… Interestingly, although this was the first occasion upon which I had actively participated in a narrative which I had under study, I had long since realized that “factual representation” particularly if it had the appearance of legitimate citation, was all to easily adopted, even by credentialed and otherwise invested knowledgeable participants. This was despite the fact that it was not “scientifically legitimate”, in the sense that I had purposely committed a quite arbitrary “error of omission”, although I was careful to respect the nature of the information in respect to any personal bias I might have. This was no… Read more »
3 years 9 months ago

Mike,
Here is a peer-reviewed report* of a recent study of noise from Maine IWT facilities on ridge lines which states there IS harm to the health of people.

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Effects-of-industrial-wind-turbine-noise-on-sleep-and-health_Nissenbaum-et-al.pdf

*From the September-October 2012 issue of Noise and Health, a professional publication.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses

2 years 9 months ago
The Nissenbaum / Aramini / Hanning study published in Noise and Health is unreliable.The data actually shows that everyone in the study group sleeps poorly, not just the ones close to wind farms. Their data is too scattered to support a correlation between wind turbine placement and sleep. Five of the six authors and thanked reviewers are Advisory Board members of the anti-wind lobbyist group, the Society for Wind Vigilance, but their long histories of anti-wind activism are unstated. One of the authors, Nissenbaum, was active in the wind farms studied previously doing poorly structured studies that would have increased… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 9 months ago

“A neighbor of the Lowell project reported that with just two turbines turning, “it sounded like a 747 was flying overhead and never landing.” … The sad part is that there is no mitigation for noise issues after the fact. Either someone turns the turbines off, or people have to move.”

Yet, windmills are, almost by definition, an intermittent power source, as wind critics never tire of telling us.

Assuming we take at face value the noise reports, how do you reconcile these two statements?

Annette Smith
3 years 9 months ago
Yes, the conditions change. Sometimes it is windy and the noise can be horrible. The whoosh whoosh whoosh is like Chinese water torture. Sometimes there is no wind and they get relief, most commonly in the summer and during the daytime. Like the wind, it is unpredictable. That in no way diminishes the serious public health threat that Vermonters are now being exposed to. The wind blows most at night and in the winter. Feathering the blades has not proven to solve the noise problems, though it can reduce the noise. Jon Margolis ridiculously said on VPT the other night… Read more »
Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago
The recent study by Nissenbaum et al referenced by Mr. Post has a few challenges which are likely to lead to its retraction: 1. The three authors are long-time anti-wind lobbyists who did not declare their prior history or conflicts. Two are members of an anti-wind lobbyist organization, Wind Vigilance. 2. The three thanked reviewers are paid testifiers in anti-wind litigation and siting reviews. Once again they did not declared their conflicts of interest. 3. They found a very weak correlation at best. The data actually shows significant sleep challenges in both the study group and the control group. They… Read more »
3 years 9 months ago

Mike,
GMP already bought one unlivable house too close to the 3 MW Lowell Mountain industrial wind turbines, instead of litigating which would have meant airing “dirty linen”.

The homeowner had to sign a gag order, so HE would not be airing dirty linen; a Potemkin democracy?

Other IWT owners have done the same all over the world.

Maybe there IS something to that noise issue which is becoming more undeniable as time passes all over the world.

I’ll be curious how Vermont will deal with it; a broom and a rug?

Jeff Parsons
3 years 9 months ago

Regardless of the science–if the turbines are very noisy at times because of specific atmospheric conditions,the people affected need to set it up so that others, particularly policy makers and the power companies can also hear this noise (so there will be no denying it). Then the power companies can mitigate like turning off the turbines when those specific conditions occur.

Jeff Parsons
3 years 9 months ago

Have your house representative come listen to the noise (Mark Higley in Lowell)

Annette Smith
3 years 9 months ago

Mike Barnard seems to be very busy promoting wind around the world and dismissing health and noise complaints.
http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2012/06/mike-barnard-doesnt-know-much-about.html
“Mike Barnard (June 13, 1:10 pm) appears to be a one-man propaganda machine on behalf of the big energy companies hiding behind wind.”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/comments/conservation-organizations-denounce-misrepresentation-from-the-wind-industr
“It’s becoming more obvious that Mr. Barnard is a paid shill for Big Wind. He runs around commenting on other sites parroting the party line.
I really wish he’d come clean and disclose his financial involvement in Big Wind.”

So Mike, who do you work for, where are you, and why are you promoting big wind in Vermont?

Fred Woogmaster
3 years 9 months ago

Mr. Barnard: What IS the nature of your involvement in the wind industry? Will you profit from its development?

Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago
Ah, two more people join the chorus of those who assume that because I’m pro-wind, informed and advocate on its behalf, I must be receiving money from the industry. Fred, Annette, I hate to disappoint you, but I don’t work for the wind industry, don’t receive money from the wind industry and don’t have a wind turbine on a piece of property paying me a nice annual fee. I voluntarily debunk wind disinformation. I maintain clear, referenced, lay-person posts on Quora.com (http://www.quora.com/Mike-Barnard/answers/Wind-Power). I spend a few hours a week as part of my charitable give back responding to incorrect information… Read more »
Annette Smith
3 years 9 months ago

Mike, thanks for the response. Sounds like you don’t have any basis for your so-called expertise. Get out in the field and talk to people who live around these big machines on ridgelines. And since you’re such a do-gooder, where does your power come from, how do you heat your home, and what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?

Hilton Dier
3 years 9 months ago
Ms. Smith, I imagine that Mike Barnard got his expertise on wind issues the same way you did – self directed research. Denigrating his method is denigrating your own. Perhaps Mr. Barnard has gone out in the field and talked to people – neither of us knows. And please, enough with the personal attacks. How Mr. Barnard heats is home is irrelevant to the validity of the points he makes here. I also dislike the practice, employed by both you and Mr. Barnard, of attributing absurdly malicious motivations to other people’s positions on this. (i.e., his remark about emphysema, above,… Read more »
Annette Smith
3 years 9 months ago
Hilton, it is not a personal attack to ask someone about their carbon footprint. The whole point of wind turbines is that they supposedly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. People who promote them claim they will save the planet. So it’s fair game to ask people who promote wind what they are doing to make a difference. We all need to take more personal responsibility. I continue to be astonished by people’s lack of compassion. Wind turbine noise, which I have become sensitive to because I’ve been around them too much, is a real problem. Denying it won’t make it go… Read more »
3 years 3 months ago

Hilton,
The 45 dBA standard is flawed, because it does not consider the LOW, less than 20 Hz, frequencies that are causing almost all of the problems called wind turbine syndrome.

One needs to know some basics about acoustics before commenting.

Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago
@Hilton, I agree that my suggestion that the people are intentionally promoting emphysema in others is absurd. It’s intended both to highlight the absurdity of their statements and to highlight the unintended implications of their actions. Obviously I can’t mean that someone is intentionally willing illness and death on others through their actions when I don’t know them. I’ve stood next to and in wind farms in two countries and look forward to standing in and among them more over the coming years. I’ve spoken to many people who live next to them, the vast majority of whom have no… Read more »
Steve Raphael
3 years 9 months ago

Thanks Mike. I found your posts to be very helpful.

Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago

Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your support.

Rob Roy
3 years 9 months ago

I also appreciate your post(s).

It’s interesting to me that several respondents seem to find it more effective to attack the messenger, without having much to say about the substance of your posts.

Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago

Thanks, Rob. I’m glad my material is of value.

Leah Marsters
3 years 9 months ago

Thank you Rob and Mike

Fred Woogmaster
3 years 9 months ago

Mr. Barnard: Thank you for responding. I am absolutely in favor of the use of wind power, reduction of use – more so, although my knowledge on the subject is miniscule. Many legitimate questions, concerns and complaints have come from my Vermont neighbors more knowledgeable than I and closer to the issue. Therefore I believe caution to be in order and I continue to support a pause in the development of large scale industrial wind operations in Vermont without further investigation and dialogue. As for your ’emphysema’ comment – give me a break!

Mike Barnard
3 years 9 months ago
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Forming and holding to an opinion in ignorance, for example, of the significant impacts of coal mining and generation in the USA — 13,000 deaths annually, tens of thousands with degraded lung capacity, thousands of children with asthma gasping over inhalers — is entirely your right. That coal generation has negative externalities of 17.8 cents per kilowatt hour according to credible studies from health impacts and global-warming — Hurricane Sandy anyone? — should be immaterial to your opinion. And the 17 major reviews showing no health impacts can be safely ignored as… Read more »
Fred Woogmaster
3 years 9 months ago

correction: please replace ‘without’ with
‘in the absence of’ … sorry.

Luann Therrien
3 years 9 months ago
Before the turbines were built we felt we did not know enough about Industrial Wind to have an informed opinion. We did not oppose the project being built. Did not oppose the project until it was up and running. 16 turbines that are just under 3/4 of a mile and just under 2 miles away from our home. And creating a noise that unlike what the wind developers will try to make you believe, IS distinguishable above the natural noise. I can tell you living this close to wind turbines is not normal or right. I do not feel normal at… Read more »
Luann Therrien
3 years 9 months ago

  Find most people that are in favor of Industrial Wind Projects do not live anywhere near where they ever have to worry about a project being built.
They are as annoying as people who ‘visit’ a project and think they have any kind of clue of what it’s like to live near a project.

john burton
3 years 9 months ago
Rob Roy Macgregor
3 years 9 months ago

Mr Burton’s statement about the dismantling of turbines in England is not true.

Mr. Burton’s read of an article about a Tory minister’s proposed moratorium on onshore wind turbine construction in England is inaccurate, and although you wouldn’t know it from reading the article he cites, it is not true that a moratorium is in effect.

For a more accurate story about the controversy between various department ministers see the article below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225531/Minister-signals-end-wind-farm-We-pepper-turbines-country–declares-energy-minister.html

Larry Rudiger
3 years 9 months ago

Exposure to coal dust is a pretty well-described risk factor for emphysema.

http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/black-lung-disease-topic-overview

3 years 9 months ago
As a clean energy source, the wind industry takes health-related concerns very seriously. However, numerous government and peer-reviewed studies in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the U.K. have found no evidence of health effects from wind turbines. In fact, thousands of people around the world live in close proximity to wind turbines without incident. Moreover, in a local study completed earlier this year, the Massachusetts Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection commissioned a panel of experts to analyze “the biological plausibility or basis for health effects of turbines (noise, vibration, and flicker).” The experts – who had backgrounds in… Read more »
3 years 9 months ago
The inherent problem with wind generation is that it places turbines up in the sky, instead of enclosed within a more solid power plant on the ground or buried within a dam. This makes noise a real issue with industrial wind. Another problem with grid-tied renewables is that there is no actual value placed on those kilowatts. Electricity generated by solar, wind, biomass or cow $#!† should be prized for what it is and not dumped into a 5000 watt clothes dryer or a roof ice melter. Currently, our grid is not smart enough to work this way, so these… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 9 months ago

“… so these renewable projects will continue adding expensive, over-subsidized power to the grid…”

Why do you consider renewable projects “over-subsidized” and to what are you comparing them? ALL energy projects in the US are heavily subsidized, and have been for generations. Why don’t you consider the rest of the energy on the grid “over-subsidized?”

3 years 9 months ago
> Why do you consider renewable projects “over-subsidized” > and to what are you comparing them? Sorry, I should have clarified that not every “renewable” project is “over-subsidized.” Many small/home-scale renewable projects have been built without rebates, including ours. Generally, I think something is over-subsidized if it would not be built without those subsidies. If something makes economic and/or environmental sense, then it should make sense out of pocket. Before and after a project is built it should be scrutinized by government agencies to see if it lives up to the plan. Only after a number of years of successful,… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago
John, Here are some URLs that show wind and solar are much more subsidized than other energy sources, yet they produce junk energy that has to be balanced with gas turbines or hydro (in a few places), and require significant upgrade and expansion of the electric grid. Add those costs to the already high cost of wind energy on ridge lines, 10 c/kWh subsidized per GMP 15 c/kWh, unsubsidized per US-DOE, compared with Vermont Yankee 6 c/kWh, Hydro Quebec 6 c/kWh, and annual average NE grid prices at 5.5c/kWh. Industrial wind turbine, IWT, facility developers usually use estimated capacity factors,… Read more »
Tom Finnell
3 years 3 months ago

A recent Australian study determined that “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is caused by a virus, and that the virus is spread by word of mouth.

Frank seawright
3 years 3 months ago
I don’t find that to be unexpected. How many times in your life have you mentioned some set of symptoms and have someone say that “that’s going around.” And lacking a better explanation you may adopt that as a sufficient explanation for what you are experiencing. There is no case definition for a sickenss caused by noise/infrasound/pressure fluctuations caused by wind turbines though there may well be one within the next five to seven years. The phenomon of having people suddenly self-report is entirely to be expected once it becomes known that others have reported the same. It is common… Read more »
Carl Werth
3 years 3 months ago

I hear that’s how propaganda is spread too…

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Smith: Wind turbine noise cause real health problems"