Bill Carroll, CFRA, Doug Ford, electricity bills, hydro bills, Nation Rise, renewables, wind power, wind turbines
Turbine components waiting for delivery to Nation Rise wind power project. Another $450 million to go on your hydro bill. [Photo: Leanne Baldwin]*
October 24, 2019
Ontario Premier Doug Ford gave his first interview after the federal election today, with host Bill Carroll on Ottawa talk radio CFRA.
The topic was how Ford could work with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after an acrimonious election campaign in which Ford was repeatedly used as an example of Conservative government dedicated to budget cuts, but the conversation included the cost of electricity in Ontario, and why hydro bills are set to go up next week, when the Ford government had promised to get them down.
“[The electricity file] has been very frustrating,” Ford told Bill Carroll. He put some of the blame on the McGuinty-Wynne governments which cut lucrative deals for wind and solar with “cronies” Ford said, and Ontarians are now stuck paying above-market rates for electricity.
“We’re trying to get a handle on it,” he said.
Meanwhile, despite a citizen appeal that cost the people of North Stormont, south of Ottawa, about $100,000 in legal fees as they brought forward numerous, serious concerns about the impact of grid-scale wind turbines on people and the environment, the 100-megawatt Nation Rise wind power project is under construction.
It will cost Ontario electricity customers more than $450 million over its 20-year contract.
And, in Chatham-Kent, another wind power project is being built: Romney Wind is being built by EDF of France. That will add over $250 million to electricity bills.
“If you set out to destroy the electricity file in Ontario, you could not have done a better job than they[McGuinty and Wynne] did,” Ford said.
*Note the pickup truck in the lower left corner of the photo—an idea of the scale of the wind turbines
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
Premier Doug Ford is correct in acknowledging this ‘absolute disaster’.
Who in their right mind would consent to being subjects of an experiment that could harm them?
Considering that there were no studies done to prove that residents whose homes would be surrounded by arrays of turbines would be safe on their properties and in their homes from acoustic trespassing of emissions of audible and inaudible noise, this incursion must be considered an experiment. The logical and legal conclusion is that residents who have been and are being harmed have had their rights violated. The Nuremberg Code was established to protect them.
The first statement of the Nuremberg Code addresses the key issue that must be considered in order to end the ethical crisis we’re facing in Ontario regarding harm to health from industrial wind turbines as a result of this experiment.
#1The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
Residents did not consent to being harmed.
Residents were not told about the risks of being exposed to audible and inaudible(LFN modulations and infrasound radiation) noise which would be emitted by industrial wind turbines in such close proximity.
When residents reported harm, the MoECC’s responses were inadequate to protect them and prevent further harm.
Residents consistently reported that the wind industry’s compliance standards for audible noise were obviously wrong because they were repeatedly experiencing the annoyance response.
Finally, after four years of enduring the harm and reporting the harm, more than half of Ontario’s largest wind turbine project was derated because the tonal noise was finally properly tested and the results showed non-compliance.
Despite the derating, the tonal noise continues along with the swooshing and whomping noise which is still ruining the environment of residents.
After repeatedly asking the Federal Minister of Health to enforce the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, absolutely nothing has ever been done to protect and prevent harm from LFN modulations and infrasound radiation.
Residents have gone to their medical doctors, reporting the symptoms of this harm and instead of doctors interceding on their behalf and going to the government to ask that the turbines be turned off, in fear of the ramifications for doing that, they have prescribed pharmaceutical medications to prevent the symptoms from recurring!
The relationship of trust between doctors and patients has been lost.
Also within the Nuremberg Code, in statement #7 it says that this code was established to protect the experimental subject against even the remote possibility of injury, disability or death.
This does not say that there has to be medical or scientific certainty in order to inform that there is a risk. So why is it that this government insists on having medical or scientific evidence of harm, after the harm has been done in this experiment?
Residents were not told about the risk of harm of having clusters of turbines surrounding their homes. This is the violation. These residents were told there would be no harmful acoustic emissions and yet as soon as the turbines were turned on, there were noticeable changes in health and residents started reporting them because they truly believed they would be protected. No residents consented to being harmed.
Who in their right mind would ever consent to being harmed?
The profundity of this violation must be seen in light of this statement from the New England Journal of Medicine, written by Evelyn Shuster, PhD, Nov. 1997-
-FROM HIPPOCRATES TO NUREMBERG-
Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects’ rights. The key contribution of Nurembergers was to merge Hippocratic ethics and the protection of human rights into a single code.