Posts Tagged ‘Geleynse’

There is a lot of buzz these days as corporate wind developers are fighting back against the growing resistance to industrial wind turbines on several counts: there are problems for the involuntary neighbours of the machines such as health effects and declining or outright erasure of property values, and on the larger scale, Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers are paying for a technology that simply doesn’t work and can NEVER live up to the promises made for it.

One comment made by the pro-wind faction is that, if wind turbines are so bad, then why don’t we hear from the people who have leased their land for the huge industrial machines. Very simple: their contracts do not allow for them to speak about any aspect of their agreement with the corporate wind developer.

Another comment is that industrial wind turbines are good for farmers. And the answer to that is, no, they’re not. Just listen to the video of a Wisconsin-based farmer who “hosts” three turbines. He says his crops are suffering, his health is suffering, the community has been torn apart, and he goes on to describe a dismal situation. (See the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzh106w1lRA&feature=player_embedded#!

Again, from Wisconsin, a property owner who says the corporate wind developer told him “bold-faced lies” about the noise. The first day they turned on, he says, “[it sounded like] I had a jet airplane over my house … and it didn’t go away.” He says his community will never be the same, neither will his life: “They stole from me.” His house is for sale. http://www.windaction.org/videos/28235

You may also wish to read the account of a property owner in New York State, who had previously been critical of those opposed to industrial wind turbines. Listen to what he says now: http://www.livinginnewyork.org/cohocton_lessor_hal_graham_complaining_about_noise

And, an Ontario property owner who lives near the International Power Corp “Frogmore Wind project” has just learned that her custom-built dream home is now unsellable and probably worthless. Here’s how she describes the situation in her community:

We, in the Clear Creek/Cultus/Frogmore industrial wind turbine zone who live surrounded within a 3-km radius by 18 Vestas, 1.65 MW IWTs, are a dense enclave of ~ 140 houses, 300 residents of which 70 signed a petition last year saying that they WERE affected by those 18 IWTs. Because we have 10 +/- abandoned houses, 10 +/- vacant houses for sale,
9 +/- occupied homes for sale and 8 seasonal homes, there is much scope for study and research.

That’s 37 families out of 140 who are significantly and negatively affected by 18 industrial wind turbines. (One wonders at the prospect for North Gower: 10 turbines at 2.5 MW and 626 feet tall, located in part of hilly topography that we know from research in other locations has an effect on how and where the noise travels. We also know if the developer gets approval, they won’t stop at 10. While at Clear Creek/Frogmore, homes are within 3 km, in North Gower-Richmond, virtually the entire village, including the public school, will be within 3 km of turbines, based on some maps produced in the past by Prowind.)

All this for wind power which can barely squeak out megawatts of power, and at best operates at below 30% capacity. Right now, 10:30 a.m. on July 13, on Wolfe Island where residents say the quality of life has been utterly lost, the turbines are generating 59 MW out of a capacity for 185 MW. At Amaranth, the output is ZERO (capacity 200 MW).

What it does produce is profits for the corporate wind developers.

What can you do?

-Let your City Councillor and MPP know that you want the City of Ottawa (or your city, wherever you are) to get control of development BACK; it was taken away by the Green Energy Act.

-Learn more about industrial scale wind power

-Learn more about how electricity is generated, marketed and sold in Ontario—it’s a worrying situation.

-DEMAND that the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario put aside her report published in May, and undertake new, proper health research together with the Ontario Research Chair, Dr Sivo Sivoththaman (For details, see http://northgowerwindturbines.wordpress.com )

To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

and check out news stories daily at http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

When it comes to industrial wind turbines there is plenty of talk about the health problems due to sleep disturbance as a result of the noise the machines produce (and vibration), about declining (or erased) property values, about the destruction of the landscape, but there is one argument that is not an opinion, it’s a fact:


The promises of “clean” energy, jobs, etc., all false. One of our members pointed us to this blogsite where the author analysizes the IESO data. It’s a very interesting story:


Wind doesn’t work.

According to Parker Gallant, writing in The Financial Post, “McGuinty has not delivered on one of his ideals [cheap green power, no coal plants] and instead has brought in electricity costs that are the most expensive of any province (except PEI) and higher than half the American states. At the same time, Ontario’s public sector electricity debt continues to increase.”

Who’s paying for this experiment? YOU are.

Email the North Gower Wind Action Group at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

A Canadian epidemiologist testified at a Public Service Commission hearing in Wisconsin, on the health effects noted from exposure to the noise and vibration (infrasound) from industrial wind turbines. Note how simple it would be to do actual research on actual people, in his opinion. But instead, the Ontario government proffers a highly selective review paper as “research”, as did the wind energy lobby in Canada.

If the corporate wind developers were truly concerned about the health of Canadians (“Coal is killing people!” [it isn’t.] ) they would pay for a real study.

The link is provided if you wish to view a video of  Dr Phillips’ testimony, and a transcript of his remarks follows.

To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

PSC: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Carl V. Phillips: Yes, I do.

PSC: OK, spell your name.

PHILLIPS: Carl V. Phillips, C-A-R-L, initial V as in Vincent- Phillips- P-H-I-double L-I-P-S

PSC: All right, go ahead.

I’m an epidemiologist and policy researcher.  I’m specifically expert in how to optimally derive knowledge for decision making from epidemiologic data.

I have a PhD in public policy from Harvard University, and I did a post doctoral fellowship in public health policy and the philosophy of science.

I’ve spent most of my career as a professor of public health and medicine, most recently at the University of Alberta and I currently direct an independent research institute.

I reviewed the literature on health effects of wind turbines on local residents, including the reports that have been prepared by industry consultants and the references therein, and I have reached the following conclusions which I present in detail in a written report that I believe will be submitted [to the commission].

First, there is ample evidence that some people suffer a collection of health problems, including insomnia, anxiety, loss of concentration, general psychological distress, as a result of being exposed to turbines near their home.

The type of studies that have been done are not adequate to estimate what portion of the population is susceptible to the effect, the magnitude of the effects, or exactly how much exposure is needed before the risks become substantial, but all of these could be determined with fairly simple additional research.

What is clear is there is a problem of some magnitude.  The evidence may or may not be enough to meet the burden of a tort claim about a specific disease, but in my opinion it’s clearly enough to suggest that our public policy should not just be to blindly move forward without more knowledge.

The best evidence we have—which has been somewhat downplayed in previous discussion—is what’s known as “case cross-over data,” which is one of the most useful forms of epidemiologic study when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.  That is, it’s possible to remove the exposure and see if the disease goes away, then reinstate it and see if the disease recurs, which is exactly the pattern that has been observed for some of the sufferers who physically moved away and sometimes back again.

With that study design in mind, we actually have very substantial amounts of data in a structured form, contrary to some of the claims that have been made.  And more data of this nature could easily be gathered if an effort was made.

Moreover, people’s avoidance behavior—their moving from their homes, and so forth—is a clear (what’s called) “revealed preference measure” of their suffering.  Such evidence transforms something that might be dismissed as a subjective experience or perhaps even fakery, to an objective observation that someone’s health problems are worth more than the many thousands of dollars they’ve lost trying to escape the exposure.

My second observation . . . is that these health effects that people are suffering are very real.  The psychologically mediated diseases that we’ve observed, and in fact overall mental well being, are included in all modern accepted definitions of either individual health or public health.  It’s true that they are more difficult to study than certain other diseases, but they probably account for more of the total morbidity burden in the United States than do purely physical diseases.  Therefore [they] should not be in any way dismissed.

Third, the reports that I have read that claim there is no evidence that there is a problem seem to be based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does and what does not count as evidence.  I don’t think I can cover too much of this in the available time right now, but I explain it in detail in my report—why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers prima facie [at first glance], don’t represent proper scientific reading.  Moreover, the conclusions of the reports don’t even match their own analyses.  The reports themselves actually concede that there are problems, and then somehow manage to reach the conclusion that there is no evidence that there are problems.

And my final point, as I’ve already alluded to, is it’s quite possible to do the studies it would take to resolve the outstanding questions, and they could actually be done very quickly by studying people who are already exposed.

This isn’t the type of circumstance where we cannot really know more until we move forward and wait for years of additional exposure.  The only reason we don’t have better information than we do is that no one with adequate resources has tried to get it.

That’s the conclusion of my points.

Read Full Post »

Grey Highlands council passed its version of what is now known as “the Arran-Elderslie bylaw” which demands that planning capabilities connected to wind energy developments, which were erased by the Green Energy Act, be restored on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We will be forwarding this bylaw to City Council in Ottawa, and will need your support in asking them to consider the bylaw. This is in the interest of every citizen of Ottawa, to oppose the removal of democratic rights, and to oppose high-impact industrial developments which are and incompatible and  inharmonious use of the land near homes and schools.

Here is the Arran-Elderslie motion. For others (including Lanark) go to http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

A By-law to Amend the Municipal Code (Health Provisions Respecting Locating Erecting Wind Generation Facilities)
WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to amend the Municipal Code to incorporate certain health and safety provisions with respect to the locating and erecting of wind generation facilities within the Municipality;
1.         That “Schedule B Protection to Persons & Property, Building Inspection: Health & Safety Provisions Respecting Locating & Erecting Wind Generation Facilities” is hereby added by the addition of Schedule A to this by-law.
2.         That Schedule A attached to this by-law shall form part of this by-law.
3.         This by-law shall take effect with final passing.


WHEREAS the fundamental role and duty of all three levels of government in Canada—Federal, Provincial & Municipal—to take all steps necessary to protect the health, safety and well being of their residents is hereby acknowledged;
AND WHEREAS Section 7 of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, Being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that:

“Legal Rights

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”;
AND WHEREAS the said Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual’s autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada with three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. 
AND WHEREAS the said Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provision provides both substantive and procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state (e.g., the rule against unclear or vague laws) such as the locating and erection of wind generation facilities as vaguely provided for in the Planning Act of the Province of Ontario with no locating criteria legislated;
AND WHEREAS no legal principle has been demonstrated by the Province of Ontario about which there is sufficient societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system should fairly operate that there be no locating criteria based on the health, safety and well being of the residents of Ontario, with respect to wind generation facilities, that would identify with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person (R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003);
AND WHEREAS The “Principles of Fundamental Justice” require that means used to achieve a societal purpose or objective must be reasonably necessary and this principle is violated when the government, in pursuing a “legitimate objective”, uses “means” that unnecessarily and disproportionately interfere with an individual’s rights (R. v. Heywood) as is the case with removing the locating of wind turbines from local planning processes thereby  interfering with normal individual rights respecting local land use planning;
AND WHEREAS the said Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can also be violated by the conduct of a party other than a Canadian government body (e.g. wind generation companies) with the government needing only to be a participant or complicit in the conduct threatening the right, when the violation of the security of the person with respect to the person’s health, safety and well being would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the government, or other body’s, actions;
AND WHEREAS the Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to security of the person, consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health and of the right protecting the “psychological integrity” of an individual, that is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000);
AND WHEREAS Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides further that the “Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures” include: 

“7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals. “(responsibility for the health of its residents)

“8. Municipal Institutions in the Province”                     (including local planning limitations)

“13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province. “  (with a responsibility to protect same)

“14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts”

(including upholding Part 1 being the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms);
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada has established HEALTH CANADA, an Agency whose mandate is to “protect the Canadian public by researching, assessing and collaborating in the management of the health risks and safety hazards associated with the many consumer products that Canadians use everyday” and works with “all levels of Governmental agencies and programmes: Industry, National, regional, and international groups and the Canadian Public”, in pursuit of reducing or eliminating said risks and hazards;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has established The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure which is responsible for promoting the development of an affordable, safe, reliable, secure and environmentally sustainable energy supply;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has established The Ministry of the Environment which is responsible for protecting, restoring and enhancing the environment to ensure public health and environmental quality;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has established The Ministry of Natural Resources to sustainably manage the province’s natural resources to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the people of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS on February 20, 2004, Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty stated that: “The health of Ontarians is our province’s most precious resource. We share a responsibility to protect it from harm, and care for it in times of need”;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, through Section 11, of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, has mandated broad authority that lower-tier municipalities may provide “any service or thing that the municipality considers necessary or desirable for the public, as follows:

      (2)  A lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws, subject to the rules set out in subsection (4), respecting the following matters:…

           1.    Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards.
           2.    Accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations and of its local boards and their operations.
           3.    Financial management of the municipality and its local boards.
           4.    Public assets of the municipality acquired for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.
           5.    Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality.
           6.    Health, safety and well-being of persons.
           7.    Services and things that the municipality is authorized to provide under subsection (1).
           8.    Protection of persons and property, including consumer protection.  

thereby recognizing the lower-tier municipality’s need and responsibility to provide for the health, safety and well-being of is residents;
AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie’s confidence in the safety of the locating criteria of WIND GENERATION FACILITIES, as legislated by the Province of Ontario, is based on the premise that, having done their due diligence with respect to ensuring the health, safety and well-being of their citizens under The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both the federal and provincial governments are prepared to certify the said facilities for location within the Municipality;
AND WHEREAS there is no intention by The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie to prevent or restrict the “use” of wind generation facilities as a source of renewable energy but rather to promote their “use” in a responsible manner to benefit, or at least, do no harm to any individual by such “use”;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to ensure the continued good health, safety and well-being of all persons living and/or owning lands within the Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie in a responsible manner;


1.         That, the Chief Building Official, at his/her discretion, may issue a building permit, in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code, for the construction of any wind generation facility, when the said application is accompanied by all of the following:
a)      a certificate issued by Health Canada confirming that the proposed type of wind generation facility will benefit, or will not harm, the health, safety and well-being of any resident of The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie;
b)      a certificate issued by the Ontario Ministry of energy & infrastructure confirming that the proposed type of wind generation facility will benefit, or will not harm, the health, safety and well-being of any resident of The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie;
c)      a certificate issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment confirming that the proposed type of wind generation facility will benefit, or will not harm, the health, safety and well-being of any resident of The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie;
d)      a certificate issued by the Ontario Ministry of natural resources confirming that the proposed type of wind generation facility will benefit, or will not harm, the health, safety and well-being of any resident of The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie;
e)      a certificate issued by the ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS confirming that the proponents of the proposed type of wind generation facility and the Crown have carried out satisfactory, meaningful consultation with all the affected aboriginal groups that is respectful and accommodates their rights as recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;”
f)        certificates issued by either or both the Saugeen First Nations and Chippewas of Nawash, as applicable, confirming that the proponents of the proposed type of wind generation facility have carried out satisfactory, meaningful consultation with them with respect to the proposed facility.
2.         That before the certificates identified in Section 1 above are issued, the stated Ministries must provide original documentation to the satisfaction of the Council of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie that the necessary full and complete non-partisan third party, independent health studies on humans are presented to determine safe setbacks and noise limits.
3.         That this by-law shall take effect with final passing.


To email the North Gower Wind Action Group, northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

The IESO has this cute little graphic indicating the current production of energy from industrial wind turbines in Ontario, always with a pithy description like “Enough to power homes in Parry Sound” or some such. The truth is more like, well, we COULD have powered 100,000 homes today but really, we generated enough for about six hairdryers.

Here from the IESO website, is the total energy production in Ontario for yesterday, June 13th. Listed is the capability and actual. Wind power is a complete joke…it simply doesn’t work. And June 13th is not an anomaly, either: every day indicates similarly disappointing results.

(Sorry, the entire spreadsheet won’t fit: to see it, go to http://reports.ieso.ca/public/GenOutputCapability/PUB_GenOutputCapability_20100613.xml )


Hours 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
WIND Total
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
20 17 11 14 5 2 6 19 22 15 4 14 7 1 0 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 1
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
3 3 6 5 2 2 1 0 2 4 5 9 14 18 25 17 21 24 18 8 1 0 0 0
99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189
7 12 13 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 11 6 4 10 6
76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
0 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182
10 1 4 0 0 0 1 17 41 21 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198
17 28 28 15 11 20 24 19 15 22 30 27 24 21 12 8 2 0 0 11 8 13 21 25

Look especially at Wolfe Island which is 2 1/2 hours south west of us near Kingston: it is an area with greater wind potential than North Gower, but look how little is being achieved. Why is North Gower even a candidate for wind power when the wind potential here is marginal? Why is $20 MM being spent for very little return (except to the corporate wind developer)?

WHY is the province spending so much money on wind power generation when it clearly doesn’t work and will NEVER meet Ontario’s needs for power?  Ratepayers and taxpayers are footing the bill for this huge mistake: expensive, unreliable, intermittent and inadequate wind power.

To email us northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

News daily at http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

Doctors who were involved in the review of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health’s report on industrial wind turbines and health effects, say that information about health effects was in the version they reviewed … but was taken out. Probably for political reasons.

Interesting. The full article is here.


And, here:

Wind turbine report missing community impact section

Posted By Paul Jankowski

Posted 16 hours ago

A recent report by Ontario’s chief medical officer of health on the potential health impact of wind turbines was somewhat disappointing not for what it contained, but for what is missing, Dr. Hazel Lynn says.

Lynn, the Grey Bruce medical officer of health, was part of the group that reviewed drafts of the report issued in May by Dr. Arlene King. The report concluded “the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.”


Lynn said in a recent interview that while she does not dispute that finding, the final report glosses over the disruption that the introduction of wind turbines can cause in a community.

“The whole section that a couple of us really wanted in there on community health and community disruption went. It’s not in there. I suspect politically she can’t criticize another ministry, so I was a little disappointed,” Lynn said.

“I think it’s a fair comment that there is other material that could have been in the report and wasn’t,” said Dr. Ray Copes, the director of environmental and occupational health at the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion and another member of the committee that reviewed drafts of the report.

Copes said there are “really important and quite legitimate” questions about wind farms that he and Lynn thought should be discussed, but “I guess the CMOH’s report wasn’t the place for it.”

King could not be reached for comment on Friday but Andrew Morrison, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, said the report “reflects the consensus of the panel that Dr. King put together to look at this issue.”

The report does conclude, among other things, that “community engagement at the outset of planning for wind turbines is important and may alleviate health concerns about wind farms.”

“Basically, I think they (wind farms) disrupt communities if they’re not properly planned and instituted and when you disrupt people’s communities they get sick,” Lynn said. There is evidence to back that position up, she added, but “that doesn’t come through very clearly” in King’s report.

Ontario’s Green Energy Act strips municipalities of control over where wind farms are sited and gives it to the province.

King’s report also states that there “little information is available on actual measurements of sound levels generated from wind turbines and other environmental sources. Since there is no widely accepted protocol for the measurement of noise from wind turbines, current regulatory requirements are based on modeling.”

Read Full Post »

Once again, property owners in rural areas are finding that legal action is the only way to get redress for the situation they find themselves in, namely that the provincial government, corporate wind developers and landowners can plan industrial wind turbine projects which then affect the enjoyment of property, property values, and in many cases, people’s health due to sleep deprivation.

West Huron is the site of yet another legal action, another class action suit against the wind developer and the landowners who have leased their land for turbines.

Here is the basis on which the class action is going forward:

Our firm has been retained to commence a class action lawsuit against TTD Wind Project ULC, Twenty-two Degree Energy Corp. and landowners who erect wind turbines. This class action will ask the court for damages including but not limited to personal injuries due to health related problems, injury and/or loss of production of livestock, injurious affection, diminution in value of property and nuisance.

In Ontario, we do have another avenue which is the Ian Hanna challenge to the Green Energy Act, on the basis of the Precautionary Principle. A brochure and donation information is available at http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

As citizens affected by industrial wind turbines despair at the prospect of getting any help or protection from their governments, legal actions are beginning. We in North Gower are watching this and other events as the proposal for 10 industrial wind turbines proceeds; if approved, the Marlborough development by Prowind Canada will mean huge, 626-foot structures erected close to many homes and families, and farms.

Here is a story about a family in Michigan State, near Lake Huron, who have had their health and the enjoyment of their property affected, and are now part of a group of residents taking legal action. This is the fifth lawsuit against corporate wind developers in the U.S., and the first in Michigan.

The U.S. is “ahead” of Canada in terms of wind turbine installations, so watching these stories is important. Here is the link, which contains the print news story and a video as well. (On dial-up? The North Gower Branch of the Library has high speed, and high speed wireless. You can listen to video using headphones.)

Key comments:

Reporter: So, basically, you’ve built a house that is now unbearable to live in?

Citizen: Yes. How about that for an investment?


In Ontario, we have our own legal challenge in the form of the Ian Hanna challenge to the Green Energy Act. For more information on that, and on how to donate to the cause which if successful will benefit all in Ontario, go to http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

An update from Ian Hanna, concerning his challenge to the Green Energy Act. Wind Concerns Ontario is asking communities to contribute to this challenge—if every community gave $3,000 it would cover the costs of this legal action, which will benefit everyone facing industrial wind turbine developments.

IAN HANNA v. ONTARIO – Legal Action update

 As many are aware, in October 2009, with the support of a great many people, a major legal challenge was launched under my name to the Green Energy Act – specifically to the parts that deal with siting and setbacks of Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) in relation to people’s homes.

This “Application for Judicial Review” seeks to have IWT development close to people placed on hold across Ontario until independent, epidemiological studies are completed to determine safe setbacks from places where people live.

As announced on April 28th by my attorney, Eric Gillespie, a hearing date of September 30, 2010 has now been confirmed with the Ontario Divisional Court.

 On May 4th, we attended a very important hearing in the Divisional Court where a motion to allow the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) to be admitted to this application as a party was argued before Her Honour Madame Justice Swinton.  CanWEA was seeking to be able to file evidence in this case and to be entitled to cross-examine witnesses etc. as a full party.

 In response to such motions, the Court may grant full party status, deny it completely, or accept someone as a “Friend of the Court” (a “Friend of the Court” may make oral and written submissions at the hearing, but may not introduce any new evidence or cross-examine any witnesses).

We are pleased to report that CANWEA was not granted full party status. They were accepted as a “Friend of the Court”, a decision fully in accordance with our submission to the Court, meaning at the main hearing they will only have the ability to file a brief written argument and make brief oral submissions.  They will not be permitted to file any evidence or cross examine any witnesses.  This means that the schedule, which is in place, will not require alteration and should proceed as planned with the hearing on September 30th.

 All in all, we are very pleased with the way things are unfolding and we consider the outcome of this past week’s hearing to be very much in our favour.

 The overall significance of this case was also indicated by the presiding Judge who wrote “If the application succeeds, the members (of CanWEA) will no longer have an opportunity to obtain regulatory approval for the construction of new wind energy projects in Ontario, and the development of utility-scale wind projects in Ontario will be effectively halted for an indeterminate period of time.”  This illustrates the importance of this legal challenge.  

 I will keep you posted, as much as is possible, as we move ahead towards the finish line in September.

We appreciate all of your support and generosity.

 All the best

 Ian Hanna

To donate, mail cheque to:
Wind Concerns
105 Guildwood Pky
PO Box 11059
Scarborough, ON M1E 1N0

Make the Cheque out to :  Wind Concerns Ontario


Ian Hanna Fund
Box 173
Milford On K0K 2P0

Cheques made out to:
APPEC Legal Fund or IWTB Legal Challenge Fund

Read Full Post »

Here are some thoughts on the health effects from Dr Michael Nissenbaum who has been conducting a study of the residents living near Mars Hill. As those who attended our April 13 information meeting will know, early results of his study show that the majority of people living in proximity to the industrial wind turbines there are experiencing effects on their health.

As you read this, bear in mind the topography of the North Gower-Richmond area, which is an internationally known site because it is a drumlin field.

Wind Turbines, Health, Ridgelines, and Valleys

Author:  Nissenbaum, Michael

It is a medical fact that sleep disturbance and perceived stress result in ill effects, including and especially cardiovascular disease, but also chronic feelings of depression, anger, helplessness, and, in the aggregate, the banishment of happiness and reduced quality of life.

Cardiovascular disease, as we all now, leads to reduced life expectancy. Try and get reasonably priced life insurance if you are hypertensive or have suffered a heart attack.

If industrial wind turbines installed in close proximity to human habitation result in sleep disturbance and stress, then it follows as surely as day follows night that wind turbines will, over the long term, result in these serious health effects and reduced quality of life.

The question is, then, do they?

In my investigation of Mars Hill, Maine, 22 out of about 30 adults (‘exposed’) who live within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines were evaluated to date, and compared with 27 people of otherwise similar age and occupation living about 3 miles away (Not Exposed).

Here is what was found:

82% (18/22) of exposed subjects reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, versus 4% (1 person) in the non-exposed group. 41% of exposed people reported new chronic headaches vs 4% in the control group. 59% (13/22) of the exposed reported ‘stress’ versus none in the control group, and 77% (17/22) persistent anger versus none in the people living 3 miles away. More than a third of the study subjects had new or worsened depression, with none in the control group. 95% (21/22) of the exposed subjects perceived reduced quality of life, versus 0% in the control group. Underlining these findings, there were 26 new prescription medications offered to the exposed subjects, of which 15 were accepted, compared to 4 new or increased prescriptions in the control group. The prescriptions ranged from anti-hypertensives and antidepressants to anti migraine medications among the exposed. The new medications for the non exposed group were anti-hypertensives and anti-arthritics.

The Mars Hill study will soon be completed and is being prepared for publication. Preliminary findings have been presented to the Chief Medical Officer for Ontario, and have been presented to Health Canada, by invitation. Earlier partial results were presented to the Maine Medical Association, which passed a Resolution calling for caution, further study, and appropriate modification of siting regulations, at its annual meeting in 2009.

There is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of turbines 1.5 MW or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.

The study was undertaken as a pilot project to evaluate for a cluster of symptoms after numerous media reports, in order to present data to the Maine Medical Association, after the Maine CDC failed to more fully investigate.

While the study is not perfect, it does suggest a real problem that warrants not only further more detailed investigation, but the tenderest caution, in the meantime, when decisions on how to site industrial wind turbines are made.

What is it about northeast USA ridgelines that contribute to these ill effects, and how can they be avoided?

Consider, the Northeast is prone to icing conditions. Icing will increase the sound coming off of turbines by up to 6 dBA. As the icing occurs symmetrically on all blades, imbalance detectors do not kick on, and the blades keep turning, contrary to wind industry claims.

Sound is amplified coming off of ridgelines into valleys. This is because the background noise in rural valleys is low to begin with, increasing the sensitivity to changes, particularly the beating, pulsatile nature of wind turbine noise, and sound sources at elevation do not undergo the same attenuation that occurs from groundcover when noise sources are at ground level. The noise travels farther and hits homes and people at greater amplitude that it would from a lower elevation. Even though this is not rocket science, it was conclusively proven in a NASA funded study in 1990.

Snow pack and ice contribute to increased noise transmission. Vermont valleys have both, I believe.

Preconstruction sound modeling fails to take the tendency of the homes that people live in to respond and vibrate perceptibly to sound at frequencies that the occupants of the dwellings cannot necessarily hear. They hear, and feel, the walls and windows rattle, and the floors vibrate, in a pulsing manner at a frequency or the turbine rpm.

When preconstruction modeling fails to take the pulsatile nature, propensity for icing, and ridgeline elevation into account, as well as a linear as opposed to point source of noise, problems can be expected. What distance is safe? It depends on the terrain, the climate, the size of the project and the turbines themselves. Accurate preconstruction modeling with safe targets in mind is critical. The WHO says that 30dbA is ideal, and noise levels of above 40dbA have definite health consequences. At Mars Hill, where affected homes are present at 3500 feet, sound levels have been measured at over 52.5dbA. The fiasco there has been acknowledged by the local wind energy company, and by a former Maine governor.

Vermont would do well to learn from the affected people in Mars Hill.

I have seen the preliminary plans for the planned Deerfield Wind Facility, and have particular concerns regarding the dwellings to the north and northeast of the northernmost extension of the turbine layout. These homes are well within a mile, generally downwind, and downhill from what I am told may well be 2 MW turbines (or larger?), in a snowy and icy part of the Northeast.

The parallels to Mars Hill are striking.

We know that preconstruction sound modeling failed at Mars Hill. No matter what the preconstruction modeling at Deerfield shows, the real world experiment at Mars Hill suggests that there will be problems for homes at the setbacks that seem to be planned for Deerfield on the attached image.

The people who live within 3500 feet at Mars Hill are truly suffering. Learn from Mars Hill. It is not a matter of not having wind turbines. It is a matter of putting them where they will not affect people’s health.

Newer technology to accurately measure sound at a quantum level improvement in temporal, frequency and amplitude resolution over commonly used acoustician’s equipment now exists, though it is costly and not readily available. But it will be widespread, soon, well within the tenure of the individuals responsible for making siting decisions today.

Avail yourselves of these findings and familiarize yourselves with the new technologies. You will not only be future proofing your current decisions, you will also be helping people who would otherwise end up too close to industrial wind turbines escape the fate of the exposed residents of Mars Hill, and many other sites in North America (Mars Hill, Maine, merely represents the first small ‘controlled’ study).

I have seen the results of this cutting edge equipment, and how it has revealed drastic short duration excesses over allowed sound levels, levels that set homes vibrating and rendering them unlivable, but also levels of lower frequency transient noise at the audible level, that demonstrates not only failure of preconstruction sound modeling as currently practiced, but also the inadequacy of the measuring tools in the toolkit of the everyday practicing acoustician-consultant who generates reports for industry and local government.

—Montpelier, VT, May 7, 2010

Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD
University of Toronto (MD), McGill University (Specialty Diagnostic Imaging), University of California (Fellowship)
Harvard University Medical School (junior faculty, Associate Director of MRI, BIH)
Currently, Radiologist, NMMC, Ft. Kent, Maine

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »