30 Tuesday Jun 2015
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
community opposition wind farms, Land O Lakes wind farm, NextEra, Not A WEilling Host, wind far, wind farm environmental damage, wind farm noise, wind turbine noise, wind turbines bird kills
Property owners in Addington Highlands are reminded that the deadline to register your opinion on the issue of the proposed wind power project by U.S.-based NextEra is midnight TONIGHT.
Have your property tax roll number at hand and go to www.addingtonhighlands.ca
23 Tuesday Jun 2015
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
animal health wind farms, Curries Aerodrome, East Oxford Community Alliance Inc., Environmental Review Tribunal, health impact wind farm noise, Juan Anderson, Prowind, wind farm appeals, wind farm legal actions, wind power, wind turbine noise
Prowind was the wind power developer based in Germany that had a proposal for the North Gower-Richmond area of Ottawa. The company failed to qualify for bids for new projects in 2015. Norwich Gazette, June 22, 2015
Editor’s note: the community group found that there were numerous errors and omissions in Prowind’s submission to the Ministry of the Environment.
19 Friday Jun 2015
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
an, Australia senate inquiry, Chris Young, community opposition wind farms, green energy, North Gower, Simon Chapm, wind farm, wind farm noise, wind power, wind power generation, wind power lobby, wind turbine, wind turbine noise, wind turbines
As you may know, the Senate in Australia (which is an elected body) has been conducting a review of wind turbines and problems associated with wind power generation in that country for several months.
Although the final report is not due out until August, the Committee felt it necessary to release an interim report and the “headline recommendations.”
They are very interesting…and refreshing in that here is a body that has listened to both sides, and has concluded there is cause for concern.
Of particular interest are these three paragraphs from the report.
Why are there so many people who live in close proximity to wind turbines complaining of similar physiological and psychological symptoms? As with previous Senate inquiries, this committee has gathered evidence from many submitters attributing symptoms of dizziness, nausea, migraines, high blood pressure, tinnitus, chronic sleep deprivation and depression to the operation of nearby wind turbines. The committee invites the public to read and consider the evidence of people who have experienced these symptoms and who attribute their anxiety and ill health to the operation of turbines.2
1.13 These health affects should not be trivialised or ignored. The committee was particularly distressed by renewable energy advocates, wind farm developers and operators, public officials and academics who publicly derided and sometimes lampooned local residents who were genuinely attempting to make known the adverse health effects they were suffering.
1.14 The committee is aware of people complaining of these impacts who have since left their family home. Some now live a nomadic and uncertain existence. In one case, the now deserted home had been in the family for five generations—since the 1840s. These are not decisions taken lightly. Having left the turbine vicinity, several witnesses noted that the symptoms had faded if not disappeared.3
The Committee quite rightly observed that the decision to leave the family home, and often hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment, to say nothing of farm operations and property, because they HAD TO.
The recommendations listed by the Senate Committee include the need for independent clinical research, and continuous independent monitoring of wind power project noise and infrasound (oh, and we need standards and regulations for infrasound–Ontario doesn’t have these and is dragging its feet on this issue)—the Committee also vindicated the effort and methodology of acoustician Stephen Cooper whose Cape Bridgeport study and finding of unique “sensation” resulting from the turbine emissions.
Several months ago, Ottawa Wind Concerns was subjected to a barrage of insulting Tweets one evening from Australia from a pro-wind power physician, and acolytes of sociologist Simon Chapman. Mr Chapman is mentioned specifically in the Senate Committee report, presumably as one of the disappointing “academics.” (Mr Chapman also functions as a paid consultant for the wind power industry.)
The commentators that evening included one Chris Young of Ottawa who works in the renewable energy field (former Board member of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, and former employee of NorSun Energy). Mr Young, at the end of a trail of increasingly insulting posts claiming that people who reported health effects from turbine audible noise and infrasound were essentially nuts, said that Ottawa Wind Concerns, people like us, and specifically me, were “irrelevant.”
Now that we have a government body stating that there is cause for concern, that the wind power industry’s behaviour has been lamentable, and that the way forward is research that is actually intended to find out what’s going on, we ask, who is “irrelevant” now?
Jane Wilson, RN
Chair, Ottawa Wind Concerns
ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
P.S. The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association is supported significantly by taxpayers. See funding information here.
P.P.S. Mr Young now enjoys the position of being the only person blocked from our Twitter feed.
19 Tuesday May 2015
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Don McCabe, Jane Wilson, legal actions wind farms, Ontario, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, surplus power Ontario, wind farm, wind farm leases, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind power, wind turbine leases, wind turbine noise, wind turbines
The following is a letter sent by Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson to OFA president Don McCabe, in response to remarks made by Mr. McCabe at a wind farm information meeting in Finch, Ontario. Several of Mr. McCabe’s comments to the audience, such as that there is no surplus of power in Ontario, were not correct, WCO said in the letter.
As well, while Mr. McCabe’s advice to landowners to “get a lawyer” is sound, Wilson said, the attitude that landowners need to concentrate only on getting everything they want in a lease is isolationist and archaic, and is helping to divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.
“Not one word was said about responsibility to community, and neighbours. This [attitude] does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others,” Wilson said.
The letter was sent to Mr. McCabe, and the Board of Directors for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Dear Mr. McCabe:
It was interesting to meet you last week in Finch, Ontario at the Lions’ Club event, where we both spoke, along with Mr. Levy of CanWEA.
I was relieved to hear your strong advice to those attending and contemplating signing a lease with a wind power developer, to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.” This is excellent advice: as you know, these contracts typically contain dozens of pages of various clauses outlining requirements and limitations…many people do not understand what they are being asked to sign.
I was disappointed, however, in other aspects of your presentation. First, there were a couple of statements made that are not correct and may even be misleading.
Power surplus in Ontario: in my presentation I had suggested that more wind power projects were not necessary, especially not for a form of power generation that is intermittent, produced out-of-phase with demand and is expensive, causing Ontario electricity rates to rise. You countered by saying that Ontario has no surplus of power. This is not correct: the Ontario Energy Minister himself admits that Ontario has surplus power and also says that the province will have a surplus for years to come. See his quotes and the forecast for power rates in a Globe and Mail article here.
“Net metering”: you told the audience that they should arrange in their lease to share in the wind power produced by any turbines on their land. This is not correct—it is unlikely one could get power from the wind turbine on a farm, and moreover, it would be in violation of the contract the wind power developer has with the Ontario government to obtain the Feed In Tariff to do that.
Turbine noise: you suggested to the audience that if the noise from turbines were to bother them, they could make sure that there is a clause in the lease so that the power developer would have to address that. This is extremely unlikely; at present, there are thousands of noise complaints in Ontario that go unresolved by either the developer or the Ministry of the Environment.
Community input to power projects: In response to several questions from the floor, you did advise people to go to the government website on the new Large Renewable Power Request for Proposal process, but you also suggested to at least one audience member that there is nothing communities can do, if a power proposal comes forward. That is not correct: people can work with their municipal governments, members of their community, and also choose not to sign the agreement required of adjacent property owners.
Contracts: I believe you also suggested to a farm owner who had signed a contract/option and was now having second thoughts that there was nothing he could do. This also is not correct, and would have been another opportunity for you to advise him to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.”
That brings me to the second area of disappointment in your presentation: the overarching theme of your remarks was that if people are going to sign a lease for a wind turbine project they should make certain that they get concessions from the power developer that benefit them. There was not a single mention in your remarks of the need for responsible consideration of other members of one’s community, including fellow farm operators, and neighbours.
This was a very narrow view that demonstrates no balance and instead indicates an archaic, “I can do whatever I want on my land” view. This does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others.
Our concern with this isolationist view of farm ownership is that it will further divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.
OFA needs to clarify its position on this matter, and further, consider advising your membership that when it comes to deciding whether to participate in a wind power project, the responsible course of action is to balance their financial opportunities with the economic, health and social needs of others around them.
We would be pleased to meet with the OFA Board to discuss our concerns.
Thank you very much.
Jane Wilson
President
Wind Concerns Ontario
13 Wednesday May 2015
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Big Wind, documentary films wind farms, documentary films wind power, Down Wind, health impacts wind farms, health impacts wind turbine noise, Ontario communities, TVOntario documentaries, wind farm, wind farm neighbours, wind farm noise, wind power project, Wind Rush, wind turbine noise
As the residents of Stormont Dundas and Glengarry come to terms with the proposal for a large wind power project in their communities, they are interested in receiving more information, and learning about the experience of other Ontario communities.
Several important documentary films have been made in recent years.
Wind Rush was aired in 2013 by the CBC and may be viewed online here. In the new documentary film WIND RUSH, produced for CBC Doc Zone by Toronto’s 90th Parallel Productions, the battleground for the pro and anti wind forces is southern Ontario. The government there pledged to wean the province off coal fired generation plants and replace them with green wind energy.
But as soon as the turbines went up in places like Wolf Island, Amaranth and Bruce County, people realized they could hear them. Sometimes it was like a whisper, but other times it sounded more like a jet taking off.
And then it got worse.
New turbines started coming in at two and three times the size of the old ones. And they were even louder. It led to chronic sleeplessness for many people living close by—and that can lead to diabetes, depression and heart disease. Others were affected in their inner ears by low-level sounds that set off their equilibrium. Doctors started seeing patient after patient complaining of the same sets of symptoms. And then people started to realize that no one had done any significant human health studies before giving the green light to the turbine farms.
WIND RUSH takes viewers to southwestern Alberta, where wind has been an energy staple for more than twenty years. There is plenty of room for humans and windmills to coexist—a stark contrast to Ontario, where the same prairie technology was installed in a dramatically different landscape. The film then moves to Denmark, a country long considered the poster-child for the wind energy movement. But as WIND RUSH reveals, the relationship between the Danes and turbines has soured.
WIND RUSH talks to people on either side of the turbine divide, and then turns to scientists to try and determine what has gone wrong. In the next several years the turbines will double in size again—bigger, louder and more powerful. But without sufficient research have the people who live among the wind farms been forgotten?
See this film here.
“Big Wind” explores the conflict over the controversial development of industrial wind turbines in Ontario. It is a divisive issue that at times pits neighbour against neighbour, residents against corporations, and the people against their government.
See a preview of this video and purchase/download here.*
The green energy scam: how corporations are making millions while Ontario communities are being changed forever.
*Ottawa Wind Concerns owns a copy of this DVD and would be pleased to offer it in a public showing. Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
11 Monday May 2015
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Dr Hazel Lynn, Dr Ian Arra, Hazel Lynn, health impacts, health impacts wind farms, health studies wind turbine noise, infrasound wind turbines, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Rural Ontario Municipalities Association, wind farm, wind farm noise, wind power, wind turbine noise, wind turbines
Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn, together with several associates, have now published a peer-reviewed article based on their literature review of studies on wind turbine noise and health impacts.
Their conclusion: we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association.
Read the complete article here.
The wind power development lobby insists there is not relationship between wind turbine noise, inaudible noise/low-frequency noise/infrasound, and often implies that people who claim such effects are actually ill-informed or not receiving money. A spokesperson for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture told an audience at this year’s Rural Ontario Municipalities Association meeting that anyone claiming to experience health impacts from turbine noise had questionable mental health stability and that the listener should “just cough on them.” His remarks were withdrawn by the OFA with an apology shortly thereafter.
11 Monday May 2015
Posted in Wind power
Tags
Brinston, Crysler, Eastern Ontario wind farm, EDP Renewables, Finch, Finch Lions' Club, George Crisp, Health Canada, Health Canada study, health impacts wind farms, health impacts wind turbines, North Stormont, wind farm, wind farm Stormnont Dundas Glengarry, wind turbine, Wind turbine health effects, wind turbine noise, windmill noise
Two information events were held in North Stormont last week; a panel discussion on wind power issues, hosted by the Lions’ Club in Finch on May 6, and in Crysler on May 7, the first Open House on the North Stormont wind “farm” hosted by power developer EDP Renewables.
We have already reported on the Lions’ Club event and doubtless the media will be along shortly, too; we have reports from people who attended the EDP event.
Apparently, the power developer had brochures available on health and property value impacts. Here is the “other side” on these issues.
The wind power lobby is focusing on the Health Canada study which, they say, claims no “causal link” between wind turbine noise and health effects. The truth? The Health Canada study was not designed to find a causal link, so, surprise! What it DID find, however was that significant numbers of people are distressed by the turbine noise and infrasound (low frequency or inaudible sound). In Health Canada’s PowerPoint presentation of its results, the following points were made:
In fact, the Health Canada study found,16.5% of people within 1 km of a turbine experienced annoyance/distress, and at 550 metres, that went up to 25%
More recently, the Council of Canadian Academies released their report, a literature review on wind turbine noise, with the following important findings:
Did EDP Renewables present these facts at their Open House?
We’ll keep this short: we’re betting EDP brandished the recent study done by Richard Vyn of the University of Guelph, which is supposed to prove that property values around wind turbines don’t change. Aside from the fact that this is nonsense, and Vyn’s study was poorly structured—that’s not what he says!!! In fact, Vyn cautions the reader that there were significant limitations in how he went about his study and this [his conclusion] does not preclude any negative effects from occurring on individual properties. Read more analysis of the Vyn report at Wind Farm Realities.
The wind power developer is taking care to be seen to address the issues of health and property values, but they are being very selective in their choice of reference material (and in the coming federal election, you might ask candidates WHY the federal government used taxpayer money to create a misleading, attractive colour brochure to help the wind industry)
Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
NOTE: This post certainly got us a lot of attention from the wind power industry. A wind industry communications officer from the UK accused us of causing harm to people by putting this information out there (he claimed people with real illnesses would not seek treatment because they will think instead it’s just wind turbine noise–absolutely unjustified and frankly, stupid); he was seconded by pro-wind physician George Crisp from Australia, and they were joined on Twitter by Chris Young, board member with the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and employee of NorSun Energy in Ottawa. Mr Young pronounced us as “irrelevant.”
16 Thursday Apr 2015
Posted in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
acoustic emissions, CFREE, Council of Canadian Academies, environmental health, Green Energy Act Ontario, Health Canada, health impacts wind turbines, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Canada, Joan Morris, Ministry of Health Canada, radiation emissions, Radiation Emitting Devioces Act, Rona Ambrose, wind farm, wind industry, wind turbine noise
Here is a statement from a citizens’ group, Canadians for Radiation Emissions Enforcement (CFREE), which posits that wind turbines’ acoustic emissions are covered under federal law, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.
The group has responded to the recently released report on wind turbine noise and health by the Council of Canadian Academies. Their full statement is available on CFREE’s weblog, available here.
An excerpt follows:
It is prescribed in the REDA [Radiation Emitting Devices Act]that if an importer or operator of a device such as a wind turbine is made aware of risk of personal injury or impairment of health they must “forthwith notify the Minister” [of Health for Canada]. CFREE asks why wind developers did not follow this law seven years ago when people first reported problems to them about the impacts of the noise emitted from turbines operating in their vicinity.
“If developers had complied with the law and reported the complaints to Health Canada, investigations would have been carried out back then before the Green Energy Act. This could have advanced the understanding a long time ago and avoided risk of harm to those living close to these facilities” said Joan Morris, an epidemiologist and Chair of CFREE.
10 Friday Apr 2015
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
adverse health effects wind farm, annoyance, Council of Canadian Academies, definition annoyance, environmental noise, wind farm health, wind farm wind farm noise, wind turbine health, wind turbine noise, wind turbines
Ottawa (April 9, 2015) – A new expert panel report, Assessing the Evidence: Wind Turbine Noise, released today by the Council of Canadian Academies provides an in-depth examination of 32 potential adverse health effects linked to wind turbine noise. For most of the identified symptoms, the evidence is inadequate to draw a direct link between wind turbine noise and a negative health effect.
However, there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to such noise and annoyance.
Determining whether wind turbine noise causes adverse health effects is an important issue as demand for renewable energy, including wind power, is expected to grow in Canada and around the world. The wind sector has expanded rapidly since the 1990s, and Canada is now the fifth-largest global market for the installation of wind turbines. With this demand, however, come concerns that the presence of wind turbines may pose a public health risk to nearby residents. In response to public concern, Health Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct an in-depth expert panel assessment to evaluate the evidence and identify gaps in knowledge.
“The Panel looked at what had been written on the potential health effects of exposure to wind turbines, in the scientific literature, legal cases, and the most informative public documents,” said Dr. Tee Guidotti, Expert Panel Chair. “We identified 32 health issues and then analyzed the published peer reviewed studies on each problem to determine if there was evidence for a causal relationship with wind turbine noise.”
The Panel’s report stresses that, given the nature of the sound produced by wind turbines and the limited quality of available evidence, the health impacts of wind turbine noise cannot be comprehensively assessed and further information and study are required.
The Panel outlined 11 main findings discussed in the full report. Some findings include:
1. The evidence is sufficient to establish a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and annoyance.
2. There is limited evidence to establish a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and sleep disturbance.
3. The evidence suggests a lack of causality between exposure to wind turbine noise and hearing loss.
4. For all other health effects considered (fatigue, tinnitus, vertigo, nausea, dizziness, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc.), the evidence was inadequate to come to any conclusion about the presence or absence of a causal relationship with exposure to wind turbine noise.
5. Technological development is unlikely to resolve, in the short term, the current issues related to perceived adverse health effects of wind turbine noise.
6. Impact assessments and community engagement provide communities with greater knowledge and control over wind energy projects and therefore help limit annoyance.
The Expert Panel’s assessment was extensive; they considered a wide range of evidence and developed a rigorous methodology for their work. The resulting report provides key information and insights on what is known and not known about wind turbine noise and its possible impacts on human health. The foundation of knowledge contained in the report can support all levels of government, the scientific community, industry, and community stakeholders as future policies, regulations, and research agendas are considered.
For more information or to download a copy of the Panel’s report, visit the Council of Canadian Academies’ website, http://www.scienceadvice.ca
About the Council of Canadian Academies
The Council of Canadian Academies is an independent, not-for-profit organization that began operation in 2005. The Council undertakes independent, authoritative, science-based, expert assessments that inform public policy development in Canada. Assessments are conducted by independent, multidisciplinary panels (groups) of experts from across Canada and abroad. Panel members serve free of charge and many are Fellows of the Council’s Member Academies. The Council’s vision is to be a trusted voice for science in the public interest. For more information about the Council or its assessments, please visit www.scienceadvice.ca.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The wind industry works hard to demean the use of the term “annoyance” which is in fact an accepted medical term denoting distress, or stress. Find a definition of annoyance as it applies to environmental noise and degradation of health, here.
17 Tuesday Mar 2015
Posted in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Alun Evans, Health Canada, Health Canada wind turbine noise and health study, indirect health effects wind turbine noise, Ireland wind farms, Ontario wind turbine noise regulations, sleep deprivation, wind farm adverse health effects, wind turbine, wind turbine noise, wind turbines, World Health Organisation
Here is a story from the Irish Examiner, fitting on St Patrick’s Day.
By Conall Ó Fátharta
Irish Examiner Reporter
Leading doctors have called on the Government to reduce the noise levels of wind turbines — which they claim are four times that recommended by World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.
The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association also said the set-back distance of 500m is not enough, that it should be increased to at least 1,500m.
Visiting Research Professor at Queen’s University, Alun Evans and lead clinical consultant at Waterford Regional Hospital Prof Graham Roberts have both expressed concerns over the current noise levels and distance of turbines from homes.
Environment Minister Alan Kelly is currently reviewing the wind energy planning guidelines and the group is calling for both issues to be examined closely in the interest of public health.
The association has called for the introduction of a maximum noise level of 30 decibels as recommended by the WHO and for the set-back distance from inhabited houses to at least 1,500m from the current 500m.
Prof Evans said the construction of wind turbines in Ireland “is being sanctioned too close to human habitation”.
“Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature, the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep,” he said.
“The young and the elderly are particularly at risk. Children who are sleep-deprived are more likely to become obese, predisposing them to diabetes and heart disease in adulthood. As memory is reinforced during sleep, they also exhibit impaired learning.”
Prof Evans said adults who are sleep-deprived are at risk of a ranges of diseases, particularly “heart attacks, heart failure, and stroke, and to cognitive dysfunction and mental problems”.
Prof Evans, attached to the Centre for Public Health at Queen’s, said the Government should exercise a duty of care towards its citizens and exercise the ‘precautionary principle’ which is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.
“It can achieve this by raising turbine set-back to at least 1500m, in accordance with a growing international consensus,” said Prof Evans.
In a statement, the Department of the Environment said that in December 2013 it published draft revisions to the noise, set-back distance, and shadow-flicker aspects of the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines.
These draft revisions proposed: 1. The setting of a more stringent day and night noise limit of 40 decibels for future wind energy developments; 2. A mandatory minimum setback of 500m* between a wind turbine and the nearest dwelling for amenity considerations; 3. The complete elimination of shadow flicker between wind turbines and neighbouring dwellings.
A public consultation process was initiated on these proposed revisions to the guidelines, which ran until February 21, 2014.
“The department received submissions from 7,500 organisations and members of the public during this period. In this regard, account has to be taken of the extensive response to the public consultation in framing the final guidelines,” the department said in the statement.
“However, it is the department’s intention that the revisions to the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines will be finalised in the near future and will address many of the issues raised in that bill.”
*Editor’s note: Ontario’s wind turbine noise regulations, which are based on geography and wind power lobby group instruction, not science, work out to 550 meter setbacks. Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health study revealed that problems exist at 55 meters, with 25% of people exposed to the turbine noise and low frequency noise being distressed; 16.5% were distressed at 1 km. The Health Canada research results suggest that a setback should be a minimum of 1300 meters, which means Ontario’s existing noise regulations are completely inadequate to protect health.
Ottawa Wind Concerns 