The headline and first paragraph in Lindsay Kelly’s article in the Expositor May 26,2010 are both unfortunate misinterpretations of the report by Arlene King. Her report, and in fact even the industry sponsored material on which it is largely based, admits an association between illness and proximity to industrial wind turbines but states that “evidence to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link”. She at no time denies the possibility of adverse health effects. The reason that “a direct causal link” has not been clearly established is that the studies have not been done. On June 4, at the Northern Health Research Symposium at Laurentian University researcher Carmen Krogh and I will be presenting a paper which summarizes the current literature which is quite large and convincing. We will propose a methodology for a province wide study to answer the question “What is the safe setback distance for industrial wind turbines?”. The current evidence, which consists of hundreds of case studies, is rapidly increasing as industrial wind turbines continue to sprout up but must be characterized as circumstantial. It is only through a study that a guideline can be established which will guide the safe construction of IWT’s.
Unfortunately the government and wind industry prefer to use the greenwash approach. The wind industry has a fortune to spend on lobbying efforts (all of which is coming out of our pockets as lucrative subsidies from government). Ms Kelly can hardly be blamed for the misinterpretation of the statements because spin and rhetoric are everywhere. Dr. King is also confused. She uses the industry statement that “The sound levels are not sufficient to cause hearing problems” as if that was ever in question and she fails to understand that “annoyance”, rather than a symptom that merits dismissal, is a common first response to a human condition that leads, when the stimulus is chronic and unavoidable, to disease. As a result we are subjected to the Orwellian situation of having the wind industry salesman saying things like “people are getting inaccurate information” (read that as “they are getting the facts we don’t want them to have”), and characterizing advocates as “they really don’t understand the business” (read that as they understand that just because you repeat something a hundred times doesn’t make it true). Wind industry salesman love the word green – they try to include green in every sentence and love to plaster their little green signs across the country landscape. But what is there about an industrial wind turbine that is green? The steel tower from China? The epoxy blades from the sweat shop half way around the world? Hundreds of truckloads of cement? The electricity that is burned off as waste heat because it isn’t needed when the wind happens to be blowing? The 20% lost in the lines? Dead birds?… There is no evidence that wind generated power will be able to replace coal plants or nuclear plants both of which contribute to the basal supply. The only solution to our energy crisis which is based on greed is less greed, ie conservation.
To end on a positive note, a date has been set for the Ian Hannah case in which well respected environmental lawyer Eric Gillespie takes on the provincial government on the issue of the precautionary principle with respect to the health effects of industrial wind turbines. The judge has already reviewed the preliminary evidence, dismissed the wind industry request for intervener status, and stated that if successful the case will mean a moratorium on further wind development until the proper studies are completed. Perhaps the law will force the government’s hand. It is no doubt a case of David versus Golliath but we can all hope that victory will go to the side of truth. Anyone wishing to support the case should send a cheque to The Ian Hanna Fund C/o APPEC Box 173 Milford On K0K 2P0 Make Cheque to: APPEC Legal Fund or IWTB Legal Challenge Fund