Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ross McKitrick’

Professional engineer Bruce Sharp has written an excellent summary of the wind power situation in Ontario, which appeared in the April 5th Financial Post. Well worth a read, Mr Sharp neatly summarizes the government’s green energy program as it has been executed and concludes that the cost to taxpayers is overwhelming.

Here is the story:

Power bill cover-up

Ontarians will pay $319 more per year for green energy soon — despite government denials

By Bruce Sharp

The Ontario green-energy ship is taking on water and yet one would never know it from how the captain is talking. On March 22, the provincial government announced the results of its highly anticipated feed-in tariff (FIT) review and the message from the bridge was “Everything’s fine … stay the course.”

In supporting this message, the current captain/Minister of Energy Chris Bentley made reference to how green energy accounts for only about 5% of the increase in electricity bills. The problem with such a statement is it begs many questions, including 5% of what, and over what period?
np-related]

A recent electricity price-increase forecast for 2012-16, filed with the Ontario Energy Board, helpfully provides answers, with wind and solar energy forecast to directly add $3.05-billion to annual provincial energy bills. Furthermore, if one makes conservative estimates for the costs required to integrate wind and solar, the added annual cost rises another $850-million. So, the additional annual cost for wind and solar will reach $3.9-billion by 2016, resulting in a residential bill increase of 3.17¢ per kilowatt hour or an annual $319 per household by 2016. In contrast to the current captain’s recent statement, this represents 54% of the total increase expected for 2012-16.

This number is a lot higher than 5%, so how did we get here?

The ship’s first captain — who long ago left the ship — allowed an external and somewhat self-interested group to craft the legislation that set Ontario electricity on a course for dangerous waters. At the time, the captain assured everyone that the Green Energy and Economy Act would increase bills by only 1% per year, while acknowledging that unit prices would rise significantly, so the only way for consumers to limit their increase would be to conserve. The problem is that in a business such as electricity, where most of the costs are fixed, uniformly reducing consumption leads to higher unit rates and largely unchanged bills. The only hope for conservers is that no one else will conserve and that they will be in the small minority.

Past and current captains alike have and continue to pull out a number of other life rafts that are full of holes. Here’s a few:

Renewables Replace Coal The Retire Coal movement started in the run-up to the 2003 election, when the Liberals matched the New Democrat Party’s promise to phase out Ontario’s coal-fired generating plants. To deal with this loss, the Ontario Power Authority procured over 7,000 megawatts of new, natural gas-fired generation, most of which is now in service. The Renewables Replace Coal argument has come up belatedly, as a way of justifying the runaway development of green energy, the associated gold rush and approaching high bill increases. Too bad wind and solar are none of what coal and natural gas are: firm, dispatchable and flexible. So, Ontario’s onslaught of renewable energy could not be coming at a worse time — just as uber-flexible coal is being replaced by flexible-but-less-so natural gas and as renewable energy provides too much power at the wrong times. One ugly result is that Ontario will be paying more and more to generators to not generate.

Advertisement

Health savings Back in 2005, the Ontario government commissioned a study that claimed that replacing coal would result in annual health savings of $2.6-billion. The preferred option to generate these questionable savings was — you guessed it — natural gas and not renewables. And what made the claimed savings questionable? The study authors incorrectly concluded there was a statistical cause-and-effect relationship between coal-fired generation and respiratory deaths — a fact that hasn’t prevented rampant misuse of the study (see University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick’s work debunking this claim). On the off-chance the research was correct, now that coal-fired generation is down 85% from the study’s reference quantity, one would have expected that in his recent report Don Drummond would have talked about the supposed (pro-rated) annual health savings of $2.2-billion.

Green jobs Any projection that never changes is worthy of suspicion. From the introduction of the Green Energy and Economy Act, it has always been claimed that it will produce 50,000 green jobs. These jobs are largely to come from expensive wind and solar and with their 20-year contract lives, one would hope that these types of generation would then produce the lion’s share of the million person-years (50,000 jobs x 20 years) of employment Ontario should expect to see. Not so, according to studies done in 2011 for Canada’s wind and solar trade associations. Looking at the 2009-28 period, wind is to produce 73,000 person-years of employment while solar is to produce 85,000 person-years. Within these numbers, once the renewable energy gold rush ends around 2018, the combined ongoing employment drops to a measly 2,100 jobs. And before we leave the green-jobs topic, let’s not forget the jobs issue the government never discusses: the other jobs destroyed by high electricity prices.

Income from electricity exports Some see this as a good thing, but the fact that the quantity is growing and the sales are taking place at very low prices are both very negative factors. The increasing export quantity is a sign of excess supply — something that will only get worse over the next few years as Ontario adds huge quantities of wind, solar and other generation. The export sales also take place at prices that represent only pennies on the dollar relative to what was paid for the electricity. The current export price is under 2¢ per kWh and over the next five years is forecast to average under 3¢. So, if Ontario is buying at the respective prices of 13.5 and 44.3¢ per kWh and selling at small fractions of that, an increasing volume will only make matters worse.

In the end, Ontario will have expensive renewables that do not replace coal, do not deliver health savings, may cause a net job loss and that also contribute to a costly supply glut.

Who pays for all of this? Ontario electricity consumers in steerage. The upper decks, including offshore suppliers, far-flung and local project developers and investors, are all making out like bandits … and those setting Ontario’s course seem strangely indifferent to what’s happening on the lower decks.

Financial Post
Bruce Sharp is a professional engineer and 25-year veteran of the Ontario energy ­industry.

Read Full Post »

The Ontario Liberal government and the wind power business lobby responds to concerns about the environment and specifically human health as a result of industrial wind power generation projects with the riposte that “thousands of people are dying from coal” every year: specifically, they claim that over 9,000 (sometimes they round it up to 10,000) die EACH YEAR, with a cost of $3 billion in health care.

This is preposterous.

It is based somewhat on a consultants’ report done 20 years ago for the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) which is still being used as a foundation for further “research”—not research at all, but statistical modelling.

Thoughtful people are saying, WHAT?! Nine THOUSAND people a year? Our own research (in progress) indicates that, obviously, that number is not accurate, but in reviewing Health Canada data, the numbers start out in the low hundreds (nationally) with the proviso that the numbers are NOT to be “piled”, i.e., you can’t take data from asthma, and other respiratory problems plus emergency room visits etc. etc., pile them together, and come up with a huge, magical, politically useful number. Worse, now the Liberals, urgently seeking re-election in October, have amped it up to say “our kids are dying,” which is a misuse of statistics on childhood asthma.

Even Chatham Medical Officer of Health David Colby, who has taken assignments for the corporate wind lobby, himself said this week that the deaths in Ontario were about 250 per year, associated with air pollution.

The media is finally waking up to this discrepancy, as seen in an article by a Maclean’s magazine asociate editor, appearing in today’s Kitchener-Waterloo Record. The story is here, with full text below. http://www.therecord.com/print/article/512878

Air pollution death toll claims just blowing smoke

Anyone tossing around allegations that a “crime” has been committed had better be prepared to defend those claims with solid evidence.

Two weeks ago on these pages local entrepreneur Derek Satnik made such a claim. In defending the viability of wind power Satnik, who works in the green energy industry, warned readers that they must consider the deadly impact of other forms of electricity. (“Does any potential health risk from wind power even matter? March 26, 2011)

Satnik writes: “The chief medical officer of Ontario publishes annual reports that talk about the 9,000 Ontarians who die every year from respiratory aliments caused in part by the emissions from coal based electricity plants.” He claims anyone who uses electricity is somehow “involved” in this devastating annual death toll. “It’s a crime that we’ve gone so long thinking it’s OK for anyone to turn on their fridge without thinking of who dies at the other end of the wires.” It seems a damning argument. If true.

So where is the provincial government’s list of coal-fired deaths?

I phoned the chief medical officer of Ontario in Toronto and was told her office has never produced any reports on respiratory deaths due to electricity or air pollution. Hmm.

However, the Ontario Medical Association – a non-government organization that represents doctors – did produce a report in 2008 on the death toll resulting from air pollution. While it does not explicitly finger coal power as the culprit, it’s possible Satnik just made a sloppy reference.

Then again, over 9,000 deaths a year is a massive loss of life. A closer look at the original source material is necessary.

The Ontario Medical Association’s Illness Costs of Air Pollution report states that “air pollution is a contributing factor in almost 9,500 premature deaths per year in Ontario.” It then provides a surprisingly detailed account of these fatalities. In Waterloo Region exactly 348 deaths were caused by air pollution. In Guelph and environs, the toll was 158. Hamilton: 445. Toronto: 2,130.

But there is something absurd about the precision with which the doctors’ organization claims to have identified death by smog. Air pollution never shows up as a cause on a death certificate. So how can anyone be sure of these numbers? In fact not all doctors agree with the outlandish claims.

Last year I asked Cambridge family physician Paul Cary about the smog deaths attributed to our region. He called it “quite ludicrous. In 40 years of medicine I have never once seen or heard of a patient struck down by air pollution.” While smog alerts can be associated with mass hospitalizations and an increase in deaths, Cary explains this is a spurious link. Heat-exhaustion and fluid loss are the real culprits, not pollution.

The numbers for smog deaths do not come from any tangible real world evidence, but have been inferred using computer models.

The Ontario Medical Association combines hospitalization and death rates, air quality readings and various other factors to create a guess at how many fatalities are due to air pollution. This includes short-term impacts arising from smog alerts as well as longer-term effects. Toronto Public Health uses the same technique to conclude that 1,700 residents die annually from air pollution.

But computer modeling of this kind is a highly subjective exercise. It is necessary to apply some common sense to the results.

Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist, has taken a close look at the usefulness of the computer methods producing these smog death figures. First he took Toronto’s computer model and gave it data from the 1960s, when air pollution was noticeably worse than today. Back-testing is a common way to judge a computer model’s reliability. If it cannot explain what has already happened, then it’s usefulness in explaining the future is highly suspect.

The output was nonsense. In February 1965, for instance, the computer model claimed more people died from air pollution than died in the real world from all causes.

“The results I got suggest the models are implausible,” McKitrick told me. “They’re attributing over 100 percent of all deaths to air pollution. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Given the obvious flaws in existing computer models, McKitrick created his own simulation. With two Scottish academics he gathered 20 years of data from five Canadian cities – a far larger data set than used by the Ontario Medical Association – and performed a more sophisticated computer test. These results show air pollution to be almost entirely irrelevant to hospital admissions or death. Smoking and income are the most significant factors in explaining respiratory ailments.

“We can find no evidence that air pollution levels observed from 1974 to 1994 had a detrimental effect on either excess hospital admissions or time spent in hospital,” concludes the report in the academic journal Environmental Modelling & Software.

According to McKitrick, even if all forms of air pollution miraculously disappeared from Ontario over night, there would be no noticeable decline in the death rate. Claims of a massive death toll do not stand up to scrutiny.

Fans of wind power can blow all they like, but 9,000 people do not die every year because of coal-fired electricity.

Peter Shawn Taylor is editor-at-large of Maclean’s. He lives in Waterloo.

……

Our chairperson engaged Energy Minister Brad Duguid on this topic via a web-chat and he replied, Why quibble about numbers when it doesn’t matter how many but people–our children–are dying? This was meant to show that if you are opposed to industrial wind power generation projects, you obviously don’t care if people are dying.

Fact is, the truth matters–and 9,500 people a year dying in Ontario isn’t the truth.

NOTE—-Air pollution in Ontario today, April 7: all areas reporting air quality of GOOD to VERY GOOD.

Email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and you may follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind

The North Gower Wind Action Group Inc. is a community group of more than 300 families in the North Gower-south Richmond area of the City of Ottawa; we are a member of Wind Concerns Ontario Inc., a coalition of more than 50 such community groups devoted to the appropriate siting of industrial wind turbine installations.

Read Full Post »

Not so long ago, all you heard in the agricultural newspapers in Ontario was how wonderful the opportunities to host industrial wind turbines on your farm property were. The income was going to “save the family farm” we were told, and there would be no difference whatsoever to farming the property; some farm owners were quoted as saying they farm right up to the bottom of a turbine, with no problems.

Today, not so much: in fact the contracts property ownersare signing are confidential (it’s a condition of signing that the property owner cannot discuss terms), difficult to get out of, and contain many clauses that restrict activity. Farm owners have learned that the wind companies retain the right to come on their properties at any time, to remove trees if they need to, build roads, and restrict construction of any buildings on the farm property. (A sample contract is available at the Wind Concerns Ontario website at http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com ).

A round-up of articles and letters from the last week shows a diversity of opinions.

Shane Mulligan, Project Manager for the Local Initiative for Future Energy or LIFE, writes  in Ontario Farmer that every village could have an industrial wind turbine. “Yes, there seems to be evidence that wind farms have impacted the health of some folks, especially in the Ripley area. Wind Concerns Ontario and others have made much of these claims and are calling for more studies, larger setbacks, and suspension of building until turbines are ‘proven safe’. Safe compared to what? Every energy technology carries some impacts and uncertainties, and somebody is always ‘downwind’.”  Mr. Mulligan’s co-operative is at least in favour of community involvement in wind projects, a situation now made impossible by the Green Energy Act.

Economics professor Ross McKitrick writes in Ontario Farmer that Ontario’s rush to build wind turbines as salvation for jobs and the economy is reminiscent of the Brian Peckford Newfoundland government’s 1987 plan to boost the economy by subsidizing the building of massive hydroponic greenhouses. “Cucumbers did start appearing,” McKitrick writes. “The problem was each one cost $1.10 to grow and the wholesale market price was just over 50 cents. The greenhouse went bankrupt and ceased operations by 1990. The jobs vanished and the province was left with $14 million in debts to pay.”

Wind developer salespeople “have found in Dalton McGuinty their own Brian Peckford. They convinced him we can become a world leader, not in green produce but ‘green energy.’ Common sense has been jettisoned and the checks are flowing.

“We already have green energy,” McKitrick writes. “Most of our electricity comes from non-emitting hydro or nuclear generation, at a fraction of the cost of wind- and solar-generated power. By the government’s own data, Ontario air pollution has fallen dramatically since the 1970s through the use of scrubbers and automobile technology.”

“Green energy salesmen bamboozle gullible governments into signing checks in return for empty promises of jobs and growth. As the bills mount, prices rise and the economy sags, the inevitable unravelling begins. It will happen here too. The only question is how many jobs will disappear, and how much economic hardship we will put up with, before having the common sense to shut the scam down for once and for all.”

Last, Tom Van Dusen, who attended the North Gower meeting January 23rd, writes in Ontario Agri-News:

February 2011, Vol. 35, No. 2

AgriNews Interactive http://www.agrinewsinteractive.com

Turbines put wind up opponents
By Tom Van Dusen

The Prince Edward County resident who challenged in Ontario Superior Court the placement of industrial wind turbines hopes to hear a decision within several weeks.Ian Hanna outlined his case Jan. 23 to a coalition of some 125 turbine opponents gathered in North Gower. The next day, Hanna was in a Toronto courtroom making his case.

As a taxpayer, he said he resents incentives being handed out by the provincial “green fairy” to encourage construction of windmills without any scientific basis for their locations.

The meeting was convened by the North Gower Wind Action Group, Beckwith Responsible Wind Action Group and Spencerville’s South Branch Wind Opposition Group, all of which are resisting proposed wind farms in their areas.

To get them in the mood for the discussion, participants upon entering the hall were greeted with a loud background drone said to have been recorded from wind turbines in Maine by a landowner living about 1 km from the nearest one.

If he wins the case, Hanna and his backers anticipate that planned wind power projects will be put on hold across the province until “proper” medical studies are conducted which they expect will lead to minimum setbacks of 1.5-2 km between turbines and residences as opposed to the current 550 metres.

“This will kill many projects plus perhaps force rectification/compensation for built projects,” supporters say in a pamphlet seeking donations to the Hanna legal cause.

It’s the proximity of the industrial windmills and the constant drone they create which can make life miserable for rural residents, said Janet White of Wolfe Island in Lake Ontario south of Kingston which is now home to 86 turbines.

White said “slick” companies have created a rift on the island between residents who accepted windmills on their property and those – such as herself – who didn’t. Few jobs and little in the way of general economic benefit have resulted from the wind power project, the sometimes emotional mother of three children added, stating she feels she’s now living “under the thumb of big industry.”

Hanna’s big bone of contention is with the Green Energy Act which he says doesn’t contain authoritative guidelines for the appropriate siting of turbines because “there’s no good evidence as to when they’ll be safe or not.” His case dates back to early 2009 when environmental attorney Eric Gillespie was retained.

In addition to a multitude of ailments said to be caused by proximity to turbines such as sleeplessness, stress, hypertension, and tintinitus, Hanna and his followers cite livestock health, safety, environmental degradation, and decline in property values among drawbacks of windmills in the neighbourhood.

“People are suffering from living too close to turbines,” Hanna said who allowed that he himself isn’t close to a wind farm. “They’re sick, they can’t sleep and they can’t sell.”

……………….

More people are thinking and learning; that’s all we ask.

northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

You can follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind at Twitter.com

Read Full Post »

We are still reeling from the hypocrisy of Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan’s statements yesterday about Ontario’s power situation, rising electricity bills, and the Ontario government’s plans. The script seems to be following closely the recommendations of the Sussex Strategy Group which advised its “loose coalition” of corporate wind developers to focus on jobs.  People are willing to pay more for electricity the group said in a leaked communications strategy document, if they think it will result in more jobs and investment.

So what did Mr Duncan say? We refer to his appearance on TVOntario’s “The Agenda” the evening after his economic update. His mantra over and over was “cleaner air” and “more jobs”. He pointed to wind energy in particular and talked about “windmills”. The great thing about wind is, he said, after an initial investment once a windmill is “up and built you don’t have to pay for the wind.”

Absolute nonsense: the FIT rate for wind developers now is $0.13 per kilowatt hour, while consumers are being charged up to 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour. And solar is worse, with producers being paid 80 cents a kilowatt hour. Clearly, somebody is paying for something.

He spoke of a power utopia in which all energy is clean but it’s going to cost us a bit to get there. His 10% discount on electricity bills is to help “families be able to afford this transition.”

Ottawa’s Bob Chiarelli followed the playbook in more detail in an appearance on CBC radio’s Ottawa Morning. He said the McGuinty government plans to close ALL coal-fired power generation which is the “equivalent of getting 7 million cars off the road.” He mentioned jobs but kept coming back to health issues, and said Ontario needs cleaner air so people won’t be getting sick and kids won’t be having asthma attacks. “We’re asking the people to be partners in our investment.”

With multiple billions of dollars going to mostly foreign-owned corporate wind and solar developers, that is a significant investment. And one that’s not needed according to people like Tom Adams (former Energy Probe executive director) or Parker Gallant (a former banker) and a host of other experts. And the spectre of people getting sick and dying from “dirty coal”? Not true: Health Canada cannot find any connection between air pollution and hospitalizations for respiratory illness. Professor Ross McKitrick says that the true determinants of respiratory illness are income levels, and smoking.

Ontario’s own figures show that air pollution is on the decline in Ontario. Sources are pollution from the United States’ industry and coal-fired plants, and from Ontario’s own cars and trucks. So, the “equivalent of 7 million cars” being shut down isn’t actually going to take 7 million cars off the road…

The Ontario Power Authority was set to announce a new round of Feed-in Tariff contracts this week and is now saying “late November”. Now that the stage has been set with the ideas of clean air and lots of jobs (also not true), the announcement will like go ahead.

In the meantime, this from a letter from the Township of East Garafraxa in Ontario to Premier McGuinty, referring to the placement of turbines and the effect on that community: “Perhaps he [Energy Minister Brad Duguid] should talk to some of the residents who continue to report health implications and loss of property values and who live daily with the issues of the turbines and related transformers. Some of these people have lived their entire lives on these properties and now face moving to survive. The Province should listen to their concerns of sleep disturbance, dizziness, headaches, and a host of other symptoms, and study the health implications and financial implications to the residents and municipalities.” (Signed by Mayor Allen Taylor.)

We leave it to the pundits to analyze this further but we refer you to Wind Concerns Ontario http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

for further comments and stories.

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

Read Full Post »

Yesterday we posted a summary of the international conference in Picton (prepared by Lorrie Gillis), but we would now like to add some points of emphasis.

1. Dr Michael Nissenbaum demonstrated absolute proof that there are health effects as a result of exposure to the noise and infrasound from industrial wind turbines. Even he was surprised at the extent of it. His study is relatively simple to duplicate, and there are plans to do just that in Ontario.

2. Dr Carl Phillips said that claims that there is no research are spurious and agenda-driven. There is quite enough evidence, he says. Much of the studies done to date that show there are no health effects are very “poor” and done by people who have no understanding of epidemiology.

3. Economic professor Ross McKitrick called into question the Ontario government’s cry that “dirty coal” is a health hazard, and showed that in fact, pollution has declined in Ontario, dramatically, due to “Clean Drive” and other programs and technology. In one moment that would have been hilarious were it not for the fact that it is an indication of how set this government and the wind industry is on misleading people, Dr McKitrick showed that using the statistical model employed by the Clean Air Alliance, the Registered Nurses Association, the OMA and others, if you applied it back to 1965, more people died from air pollution than actually died. If your model is giving you unreasonable numbers, he said, then there is clearly something wrong with it. Income and smoking are the important factors in respiratory health, he said, not air pollution. [Note: the Ontario Power Authority’s own VP Communications, Ben Chin, has said this on occasion: air pollution in Ontario comes from the U.S., and cars]

Last, lawyer Eric Gillespie update the progress on the Ian Hann challenge to the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, and predicted that there would be plenty of litigation on the horizon: as the proponents/wind energy developers meet with resistance from municipalities, they’ll be threatening legal action, and, as property owners/rural residents face health effects and declining property values, they will be pursuing legal action against the landowners who have leased their land for turbines.

Ignorance, wilful misleading of the public by both government and industry, and neighbours pitted against neighbours: this is Ontario today.

November 18th is when the Ontario Power Authority announces the next round of FIT agreements.

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

Read Full Post »

A report on the International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Health Effects, which was attended by several people from the North Gower area, as well as several hundred participants from the UK, US, and Australia.

The first international symposium on The Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects put on by The Society For Wind Vigilance was solid and powerful.
 
Dr. Robert McMurtry, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), F.A.C.S., was moderator for the event and did a wonderful job of keeping everything moving along.  There was time for questions and comments set aside after speakers.
 
On Friday evening, we heard Orville Walsh speak to different setback distances.  
 
John Harrison, Ph.D., reviewed deficiencies in regulations and limitations in noise modeling.
 
On Saturday morning, Nina Pierpont, M.D., Ph.D., keynote speaker, spoke to navigating the surreal landscape of massive and systematic denial, cover-up and apathy to the suffering of many near wind turbines and to her work on Wind Turbine Syndrome.  The Society for Wind Vigilance recognized Dr. Pierpont as the pioneer in raising the issue of adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines.  She received a standing ovation!
 
Alec Salt, Ph.D. Cochlear Physiology, M.Sc.,B.Sc, Biology, demonstrated that the ear is far more complex than a microphone and that it actively amplifies high frequency sounds as it cancels out infrasonic sounds.
 
Arline Bronzaft, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., shared her knowledge on the effects of intrusive noise on child development and learning. 
 
Dr. Christopher Hanning, B.Sc., MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, told us that the most common complaint of those exposed to industrial wind turbine noise is sleep disturbance.  Many of the other symptoms, fatigue, headache, nausea, memory problems and tiredness are probably secondary to sleep disturbance.  He says there is now a large body of evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that sleep is disturbed and health impaired by wind turbines at distances up to 2km, at noise levels claimed to be safe by the industry.
 
During a working luncheon,[PowerHungry author and journalist] Robert Bryce explained that the growth of the wind industry came about because of the industry’s ability to portray itself as “green”.  He told us that the growth will be difficult to sustain because the industry has overstated its ability to deliver meaningful savings on carbon dioxide emissions, it faces a growing backlash from affected landowners and from ratepayers who are learning about the high cost of “green” energy.
 
After lunch, Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD, discussed his findings on the world’s first controlled study of adverse health effects related to industrial wind turbines.  He reports that adverse effects are real and significant.  Since the pilot study was completed, a larger, more detailed and standardized controlled study has been undertaken at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine, utilizing validated questionnaires.
 
Carl V. Phillips, Ph.D., sent his presentation for us to hear in his absence.  He is awaiting the arrival of a new son/daughter at any minute and was unable to travel to the symposium in person.  He says the claim that there is no evidence of negative health effects from wind turbines near residences is clearly false since there are ample credible reports of people experiencing problems.  He is working on developing a research tool for collecting case-crossover data for use by any community.
 
Carmen Krogh, B.SC. Pharmacy, spoke to the consequences of the violation of social justice for families worldwide who are affected by turbines.  She states that those experiencing symptoms also feel victimized by the very systems that would normally protect them.  In some cases, Ontario families have abandoned their homes to protect their health. 
 
Eric K. Gillespie, LLB, spoke to legal challenges and opportunities that are being pursued, strategies that include private litigation brought by individuals, public interest litigation raising broader issues, by-laws, resolutions and other steps taken by local government and administrative hearings outside of the court system.
 
On Sunday morning, the room was full again to listen to Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., ask if coal kills, where are the bodies?  He explained the nature of the coal plants currently operating in Ontario and air pollution trends.  He was able to show that the claims that current air pollution levels result in thousands of cases of illness and death are not supported in up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature.
 
Dale Goldhawk, broadcaster, told us that everyone thought dump site 41 was a done deal, that nothing could be done to stop it.  He says there are no done deals with projects that are counter to the best interests of people – and that includes wind turbines!  He wants us to remember the words of Gandhi:  First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  Mr. Goldhawk will be speaking to industrial wind turbines all this week on his show, Nov. 1st to Nov. 8th and he would love to hear from you!  Shows start at 11:00a.m. each day on 740am radio or http://zoomerradio.ca 
Call in at 1-866-740-4740 or 1-416-360-0740 or email to fightback@goldhawk.com
 
Dr. Robert McMurtry eloquently summarized the weekend for us and thanked our speakers, all traveled to the symposium at their own expense, for sharing their knowledge with us.  It was uplifting to see the caring and concern in the room. There was an award and a standing ovation for all of the speakers! 
 
There were hundreds of messages of support from around the world for the first international symposium on the global wind industry and adverse health effects!  There will be a comprehensive list posted on www.windvigilance.com when the team catches their breath again.  Messages came from New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, EPAW, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Untited Kingdom, United States, Belgium, Crete, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands and Poland. 
 
From all around the globe, people spoke of correcting an unethical wrong and of their gratitude to the Society for arranging this powerful weekend of speakers.

Read Full Post »