Newspaper Archive of
Mt. Pulaski , Illinois
February 2, 2015     Times
PAGE 8     (8 of 16 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
PAGE 8     (8 of 16 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
February 2, 2015

Newspaper Archive of Times produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2019. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.

ReLight's Plans Flicker Setback or Defeat? By Mike Lakin There was an hour-and-a-half of testimony from both sides of the issue; the topics having been previously reported in the paper. Oft sited was the Brown County, Wisconsin study con- cerning health effects from wind farms. This report was previously submitted to the paper and is reprinted below due to its apparent influen- tial effect on decision makers. ReLight's Robert Paladino said, "The Brown County decision was based on a report that has never seen the light of day." Paladino also said research linking infrasound and health problems, is inherently biased against wind farm dtvelop- ment. He added that nobody from the currently operating wind farm in Logan County has come forward with any c0m- plaints. Chris Cowen spoke in refer- ence to a Pennsylvania study, saying the infrasound and tur- bine noise would likely lead to people moving out of their homes. Larry Cyrulik spoke in favor of the project. He said the proj- ect would bring jobs and new tax dollars. Michael Nichols said com- pensation by Relight for living in the footprint of the project would not make it worth losing sleep for thirty years for $500 a year. The Board voted 7 to 5 favor- ing conditions Zoning Officer Will D'Andrea presented at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in Mt. Pulaski. The conditions also stipulated that Relight's decommissioning fund be indexed to the Con- sumer Price Index (CPI) used by the State to .ensure that there would be enough money to dis- mantle the project in 2040. Before the final vote, Board Chairman David Hepler and Board Members Pat O'Neill and Charles Ruben gave statements for supporting the project. None of the Board members spoke against the project during the discussion. David Hepler- He com- mented on his own research and had concerns with some of the documentation provided by the people opposed to the proj- ect. He also talked about the obligation of the Board to work on behalf of the greater good of the whole County. Pat O'Neill - He attended the meetings at Mt. Pulaski and said he hadn't heard of any health or other problems associated with wind farms in other parts of the country. Charles Ruben- He noted that he had towers on his prop- erty and has not heard of any complaints from the Emden area about the towers. He added the county had to consider county's finances. On the vote to approve a conditional use permit for the ReLight project, the vote was six to six. Due to the tie, the motion to approve the permit failed to pass, the permit was denied. Board members presen t were Chairman David Hepler, Andy Anderson, Rick Aylesworth, Kevin Bateman, David Blanken- ship, Emily Davenport, Robert Farmer, Pat O'Neill, Gene Rohlfs, Chuck Ruben, Scott Schaffenacher, and Jan Schum- acher. On the vote, Chairman Hepler, Bateman, Davenport, Farmer, O'Neill, and Ruben voted in favor of issuing the conditional use permit. Ander- son, Aylesworth, Blankenship, Rohlfs, Schaffenacher, and Schumacher voted no ..... of the income to ReLight. To receive-the tax credit the tur- bines had to be in operation by . the last day of this year. But... = . Congress could extend that deadline and put the wind farm back on the table. " The lease agreement signed Some landowners that had by landowners could still be in signed a ReLight lease regret, play as one landowner said it ted having signed. According to some landowners, when the lease was signed it was explained what they could expect. At the signing, the effect on farming was represented as being negli- gible. As time passed, and more details was learned, landowners found more and more ground would be taken out of produc- tion for power lines, poles, and access roads beyond what they had been told. The impact on farming went from negligible to a growing negative effect on regulaJ" farming activity. As one landowner commented, the amount of rent for the wind tur- bine wasn't going to compen- sate for the farming problems it created. Opponents see a clear-cut vic- tory in the county board vote. As one opponent pointed out, ReLight is to receive a federal tax credit that is a good bit gr looked like the failure to obtain the conditional use permit did not have any effect on the agree- ment; it is still in effect. Now that ReLight has all the a cards played by the opposition, they could start hiring experts to refute most of what was pre- sented to the county board. To fight that, the opposition would have to hire experts to argue their side; not a little expense. ReLight can appeal the county board decision. Quite a pos- sibility because the company only has to change one of the no votes and it has made a sizeable financial outlay for the project. All in all, this could be only the beginning. It totally depends on whether ReLight sees this as a setback or a defeat. As of this writing, no word has come from Relight's Mr. Robert Paladino. Member of Brown County Board of Health Warns of Wind Turbine Health Concerns Dear Editor A classmate from Lawrence, Barbara Stroud Borth, called my wife and me regarding Iwrs and their prospect of being installed in your area. I sincerely hope that will not happen. I am a phy- sician member of the Brown County Board of Health in WI. We have been studying Shirley W'md and it's residents for 4 1/2 years and seen numerous seri- ous health problems. I am including a piece I submitted to several small papers in the area of Shirley W'md. If you think it might be of help to educate the public feel free to use it. Ear pain, pressure, ringing, vertigo, blurred vision, headache, nausea, chest pain pressure, abdominal pain, poor concentration, forgetfulness, irritabil- ity, depression may well present as a diagnostic dilemma to your doctor. One revealing clue may solve the puzzle. located in the Town of Glenmore. It sound at the levels generated by wind consists of eight 500 foot 2.5 megawatt turbinesi but your ears certainly detect Where do you live? In Brown County the answer may be the outer hair cells in the inner ear and in the vicinity of the Shirley Wind Farm states that "You cannot hear the infra- industrial wind turbines (IWTs). Since its construction in the fall of 2010 a number of its residents have become ill with many of the aforementioned symp- toms. Three families have been forced to abandon their homes because of the severity of their symptoms, and several others would move save for financial reasons. About forty families have aban- doned their homes in a wind farm in Ontario, Canada because of symptoms associated with lWTs.1 Patients world- wide have been afflicted with similar symptoms. Studies show that infrasound/low frequency noise (ILFN) generated by IWTs travels for miles. This sound is often unheard. Professor Alec Salt at the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis has described the transmission of ILFN via and respond to it."2 A re- cent study of Shirley Wind has found symptom generating ILFNin excess of 4 miles from the nearest turbine!3 Symptoms are per- ceived by some as a deep, rum- bling thump, and by others a body part vibration or pulsation. A teenager in the Shirley Wind Farm can sense if the tur- bines are on or off without any visual contact, and this phenomenon has been described worldwide. As noted above, making a diagnosis may be quite difficult. It is very impor- tant that your doctor rule out other causes of your symptoms (not related to ILFN from IWTs or other sources such a cooling towers, heavy industry, etc). For example urinary frequency and urinat- ing at night have been reported associ- ated with ILFN, but there may be sev- eral other explanations for these symp- toms including diabetes. Unfortunately, many physicians, including ENT spe- cialists may not be well informed about ILFN and its effects on humanhealth. In addition, your doctor may not have a high enough index of suspicion regard- ing your symptoms and its causes. Con- sequently, it is very important for you to provide as much information regarding onset of symptoms, other family mem- bers symptofias, distance from the near- est IWT, and whether ILFN has been measured with a micro-barometer at your home. In spite of all this informa- tion, physical and laboratory findings are scarce and your doctor may come up with only a presumptive diagnosis. It is not unusual for individuals to leave the area of the wind farm for several days and see if their symptoms diminish or go away. One may have to repeat this test a few times to convince oneself of the relationship. Cont'd on Page 9 I"