Author Archive

What do we stand to lose?

* Our health, and our livestock’s health

* Our safety, (on roads and on our property)

* Our natural environment (and wildlife)

* Control of our agricultural lands

* Property values

* Affordable electricity

What have we done so far?

* Warned the MOE of the implications of wind projects

* Reviewed and commented on all the Province’s documents

* Requested Environmental Assessments for proposed wind farms

* Wrote letters

* Signed petitions

* Meetings… Protests…

Now we are taking the Green Energy Act to court.

Mail cheques to  Ian Hanna Fund

                                   c/o APPEC

                                   Box 173

                                   Milford Ont.

                                   K0K 2P0

ian-hanna-2011-donation-form1

Ray Beaudry compiled this list of useful facts taken from John Laforet’s presentation in Little Current on Dec. 5, 2010. There was a good crowd out despite the snowy evening.

Manitoulin is currently supplied by a renewable source. Water generation and
storage.
 
Major IWT projects here are for off Manitoulin Island use.
 
Practice shows that are very few long term jobs created by industrial wind projects.
 
“Wind turbines must be paired with fossil generators when attached to
the grid.”
 
Tactics used by the wind industry divide neighbours and communities. Lack
of transparency and opportunity for complete community input into developments.
 
“Wind turbines don’t do what they’re supposed to do. Since the Wind
Industry is not storing the energy created by wind so it must be paired with fossil generators when
attached to the grid.”
 
“Coal is not being replaced by wind. Since wind turbines must be paired
with fossil generators when attached to the grid, coal is just being replaced by another fossil
fuel.” Gas generation.
 
Wind needs fossil.Wind turbines must be paired with fossil generators
when attached to the grid, does it make sense to increase our hydro rates by at least 35% and
pushing industry out of the province.
 
High electricity rates due to a heavily subsidized wind “Green” industry
affect municipality costs also which in turn affect tax increases. Increases to arena,
curling club, water and sewer rates costs.High cost effects would be devasting to communities.
 
Industrial wind turbines kill thousands of birds and bats every year,
make people sick, etc.. for nothing?” The goal of getting off coal in this model doesn’t work.
Scrubber technology is not being implemented where lower coal emmissions could be controlled
more readily,effectively and economically.
 
Industrial wind turbines, with their finacial impact to humans also have
a human health impact.
There are at present 107 people with reported symptoms of suffering from
health related issues when IWT are placed within distances too close to their homes.Causes seem
to be related to inaudible or low frequency sound. Terms are wind turbine syndrome or
vibroacoustic disease.
 
The Green Energy Act and its continuous revisions for IWT development are
directly affecting non participant landowners rights of use and enjoyment.
 
“The hope is that “some day” the issue around the storage of wind energy will be resolved.
Right “now” wind turbines are being paired with fossil generators when attached to the grid.”
 
“Storing the energy from wind power might “some day” reduce the need for fossil fuels. Are we not
putting the cart before the horse by pairing wind turbines to fossil generators “now”?
Shouldn’t wind turbines be paired with a storage medium before they are attached to the grid?
 
Contact your MPP to hold them responsible for this development in this area as they will be
held accountable in the upcoming provincial election.
 
This message of contacting those MP’s and MPP’s with any concerns in relation to the GEA was
also stated to those in attendance from Michael Mantha, a representative from MP, Carol Hughes
office.

The Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects – A Summary
This international symposium was organized by the Society for Wind Vigilance (www.windvigilance.com ) and was held over the weekend of 29th/31st October 2010 at the Waring House Conference Centre in Prince Edward County.
Orville Walsh opened on Friday evening by reviewing the regulations on turbine noise limits in various jurisdictions. The limits covered a range from 35 dBA to 60 dBA with most at 40 dBA. Orville probably has the most extensive collection of these regulations.
John Harrison followed with a review of sound, its perception and how it is measured. He used a sound propagation model to demonstrate how sound varies with distance for on-shore and off-shore turbines. This enabled turbine noise limits to be converted to setback distances from homes. Typically, these are much smaller than recommended by health authorities. The reason for the disconnect is that the sound propagation modelling is inadequate.
Rick James, a noise control engineer, likened the present adverse health effects from turbine noise to the problem of 1980’s sick buildings. This earlier problem was eventually ascribed to inaudible modulated low-frequency noise from the ventilation systems. Rick has made extensive measurements of turbine noise and showed examples of noise spectra (noise level as a function of the sound frequency) demonstrating enhanced modulated low frequency noise. The problem is often aggravated by the build-up of the noise due to resonance effects in rooms.
Nina Pierpont, a New York State paediatrician, was the key-note symposium speaker and opened the Saturday morning session. Nina has published a book describing wind turbine syndrome, a set of diagnosed adverse health effects common to many of those subject to living in proximity to wind turbines. She started by describing the impact of noise on the learning ability of children. She then explained that there are multiple sensors of acoustic noise and vibration in the body, including the vestibular organs. Some of the problems of affected adults were described, including chest sensation, panic attacks, breathing problems, waking in a state of alarm. There was a correlation with motion sensitivity and motion sickness.
Alec Salt, a specialist in cochlear physiology at Washington University in St. Louis, made an interesting observation: there are many instances of intrusions on the human body that cannot be sensed and yet do harm. For instance salmonella cannot be tasted; carbon monoxide cannot be smelt; ultraviolet light cannot be seen; infrasound cannot be heard. The inner ear has both inner hair cells and outer hair cells. The 2
former respond to velocity and the latter respond to displacement. The inner hair cells respond to audible sound. The outer hair cells respond to low frequency sound and infrasound. Interestingly, activation of the outer hair cells shuts down the response of the inner hair cells. He described animal studies that demonstrate that the outer hair cells within the ear respond to infrasound that is 40 dB below that at which the inner hair cells respond. There is a separate nerve channel (type 2 nerve cells) from the outer hair cells into the brain; they do not generate audible sound. In addition, low frequency noise is detected by the vestibular system which is inherently a low frequency detection system.
Arlene Bronzaft, a professor at City University of New York and a specialist on noise impacts, talked about her work on the impact of noise on children. She has determined the impact on reading ability of living near airports and demonstrated that achievement in life is associated with growing up in quiet homes. Of especial significance was her work demonstrating the impact on learning and reading ability of children in classrooms in a school close to a New York City railway line. The evidence was so compelling that the City added rubber to the rail lines and added sound insulation in the classrooms. To her relief she was able to demonstrate reversal of the learning and reading problems after the changes were made. Other schools in proximity to rail lines were identified and the changes to classrooms and rail lines were adopted in these cases. Her message is that environments responsible for learning problems can be identified and remedies introduced. However, the process needs a high level of activism and plain hard work to overcome inertia and vested interests.
Chris Hanning is a renowned sleep specialist from Leicester in England. He started by reviewing the normal cycle of sleep modes during a night’s sleep. During the night there can be, typically, 4 or 5 arousals or very brief periods of awakening. In general these are too short to be remembered upon waking. The effect of noise on sleep is to inhibit falling asleep, to inhibit the return to sleep after an awakening, and to increase the number of arousals. People have different sensitivities to noise. This sensitivity is related to the spindle rate, the rate of bursts of high frequency brain waves during sleep. Nevertheless, for any spindle rate the probability of undisturbed sleep decreases as the noise increases. Chris discussed the character of turbine noise and its propensity to disturb sleep: there is the swishing, thumping, pulsing; it is “in your face” noise; it is not masked by background noise at the same sound pressure level (he quoted Hayes who reported detectability 10 to 15 dB below background noise). Referring to regulations, he noted that they were based upon outdated assumptions about noise, ignored modern research, used inappropriate averaging and were designed without the involvement of health experts.3
Michael Nissenbaum described his extensive clinical study of health impacts caused by the Mars Hill wind energy facility in Maine. The facility has 28 120-metre tall turbines on a ridge. There were 38 adults within the target area, a distance of 600 metres from the turbines, and 41 adults in the control area beyond the target area. The study used the internationally accepted SF-36V2 protocol in interviewing the study subjects. The analysis was blind; the analysts were independent of the interviewing team. Following standard epidemiological techniques, the data was corrected for age etc. The final results showed a clear dependence between both sleep quality and mental health and distance of the homes from the turbines. Interestingly, the dependence continued beyond the target area, for those in the control group.
Carl Phillips, director of an epidemiology research institute, addressed the symposium via video. He emphasized that there is ample credible evidence that wind turbine noise is indeed causing health problems. He decried the attempts by the wind industry consultants, mostly without credentials in epidemiology, to deny this evidence on the basis that it is anecdotal. Dr Phillips emphasized the significance of case-crossover evidence, the onset and then absence of adverse health impacts on living in proximity to the turbines and moving away. He emphasized the need for a large-scale study to determine the true nature of the health risk of living among turbines.
Carmen Krogh, a pharmacist who has held various executive positions within the profession, addressed the issue of social justice. She knows and has interviewed many of those suffering health effects and brought forward some of their stories.
Eric Gillespie discussed the legal avenues open to those suffering adverse health effects and to those under threat of having turbines put up in proximity to their homes. He covered private litigation, public litigation and proponent litigation. Private litigation would follow, say, a renewable energy approval for a new development. There is a very short time frame for this and therefore preliminary work would need to be in place. The Ian Hanna legal challenge is an example of the more general public litigation. This is a challenge to the noise regulations associated with the Green Energy Act and especially the seemingly arbitrary 550 metre minimum setback. The challenge is based upon the precautionary principle that nothing shall be done that could cause harm. Unlike private litigation, the onus is on the proponent and Ministry of the Environment to demonstrate that the regulations were designed in such a way that no harm would result. Proponent litigation refers to challenges to local government conditions for the issuance of building permits; an example would be the requirement for certification from Health Canada that there will be no adverse health impacts.4
The Sunday morning session opened with a devastating analysis of the pollution impacts on health in Ontario by Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph. First he demonstrated that in Ontario particulate matter, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide level have been dropping consistently since the 1970s and are now at or below recommended levels. Ozone has not decreased to the same extent largely because of the complex nature of its creation and the generation of its chemical precursors in the USA. By showing maps of coal generating plants in North America with and without the Ontario Lambton and Nanticoke coal plants he demonstrated the hopelessness of decreasing the pollutants by closing those plants. He next took issue with the economic argument for closing the coal plants and introducing renewable energy on a large scale as compared to retrofitting the coal plants with modern pollution controls. The economic argument adopted by the Ontario government was flawed by an unrealistic estimate of the health costs associated with the remaining pollutants. Associated with the Ontario governments plan to close the coal plants by 2014 was the abandonment of the retrofitting of pollution controls at Lambton and Nanticoke after retrofitting only 6 of 12 units. Dr. McKitrick then criticized earlier epidemiological work on the link between pollution levels and lung disease and presented the work of his own group. There was no correlation between hospital admissions and pollution levels. He finished with the sensible argument that if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases then price those gases directly.
Dale Goldhawk, a well-known and popular broadcaster was the final speaker and inspired us all with his “rally the troops” talk. He discussed the movement to prevent a dump over perhaps the best aquifer in Ontario. He used his radio station to make residents in Simcoe County and surroundings aware of what was proposed and why, scientifically, the project could be a disaster for the aquifer. Gradually the county councillors came onside and within a week of the first load of garbage being dumped at the site a stop order was issued. Subsequently, the politicians who had most pushed for the dump site lost their seats in the recent local government elections. The former Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen, had already been replaced over a separate matter. Dale is right behind those fighting to convince the Ontario government that there really are adverse health effects from wind turbine noise and will use his influential broadcasts to help our case.
Bob McMurtry closed the symposium with a brief summary and the promise that the work will continue. The main organizers, Carmen Krogh, Beth Harrington, Brett Horner and Bob McMurtry are to be congratulated on a very well organized symposium.

Please submit your comment to the EBR.  Deadline: November 21, 2010.
The Ontario government plans to make it easier to get industrial wind projects approved.  They are pandering to the wind industry again. They are changing the rules of the game to make it harder for you to protect your interests.

Application Eligibility
This amendment is intended to provide greater flexibility to the Director in the processing of applications and reduce unnecessary burden (for whom?)
Definition of Noise Receptors
Structures without servicing built to allow temporary or intermittent uses such as hunting, trapping or other similar uses are not intended to be considered noise receptors for the purposes of measuring setbacks.
Vacant Lots
a future building would normally be constructed near an existing road to facilitate access and servicing (550 metre minimum setback would be measured to a site near the road, not the property line, allowing turbines to be much closer to property lines)
Noise Receptor Setback Prohibitions
Proposed amendments in sections 54 and 55 of the regulation would require proponents to consider only noise receptors that existed at the time of application.
that consideration be given only to those noise receptors that existed at the time the draft site plan was issued
These proposed amendments will provide additional certainty to proponents in planning wind projects.

Picton, Ontario, July 17, 2010- The First International Symposium on the adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines will be held October 29-31, 2010 in Picton, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada.
 
Hosted by The Society for Wind Vigilance and supported by the County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy, this groundbreaking two day event will feature prominent expert speakers from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada who will provide important information relating to health issues reported by people living too close to industrial wind developments.At the invitation of the Chair of The Society for Wind Vigilance, Dr. Nina Pierpont, M.D., PhD, New York, will be the key note speaker. Dr Pierpont is recognized as one of the first health specialists in the world to identify the pattern of symptoms that manifest themselves when people live too close to industrial wind developments.
 
Experts including Christopher Hanning, M.D. (U.K.), Michael Nissenbaum, M.D. (U.S.A), John Harrison, Ph.D. (Can) and Arline Bronzaft, Ph.D. (U.S.A) are also among the outstanding roster of speakers. Topics include sleep disturbance, impacts on children, incorrect diagnosis leading to increased medication use and the urgent need for human health research.
 
The Society for Wind Vigilance is an international federation of physicians, engineers and other professionals formed in response to the growing number of serious human health issues that appear when industrial wind developments are located in close proximity to homes.

The Society advocates for a full clinical study into these health problems, mitigation of existing problems and a moratorium on further industrial wind development until these actions have been completed

Who should attend

• Rural health specialists
• Engineers and Acousticians
• Health reporters
• Renewable energy specialists
• Policy advisors for Government health departments
• Public medical officers of health
• Policy advisors for Government Renewable Energy strategies
• Interested members of the public

What will happen

• International experts from a number of disciplines will describe the increased reports of and their assessments of the adverse health impacts of industrial wind turbines.
• There will be a number of sessions grouped by theme. Each presentation will be followed by a question and answer period to allow attendees to delve deeper into each topic.
• During the two day symposium, a poster/multimedia session with video statements on other areas of concern.

Northland Power had submitted their REA, Renewable Energy Application for the McLeans Mountain
Project around May 13/10. The REA application was returned about June 14/10 as the application
does not have a enough info and it was deemed incomplete. The REA must include all documents in
table 1 of the REA and all requirements of a class 4 wind farm project. A detailed list has
been provided to Northland Power to complete.Their project does have a comencement date
requirement under their contract with OPA but the REA can continue for 3 -5 years.

Raymond Beaudry
mcsea.ca

manitoulin-permaculture-intro-course

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

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

On May 4^th, 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 30^th.

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

Posted to Environmental Registry
1. Draft – Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Windpower Projects -posted to Environmental Registry Deadline is May 21,2010 for this one. The REA regulation describes the requirements for wind power projects related to significant natural features, including significant wild life habitat.Bats are an important part of Ontario’s biodiversity. To provide further clarity and certainty on the renewable energy approval requirements for wind power, MNR has prepared updated draft 2010 Guidelines for application to both Crown and private lands. MNR’s ‘Guideline to Assist in the Review of Wind Power Proposals:Potential Impacts to Bats and Bat Habitats. Developmental (Working DraftAugust,2007)’ no longer applies to windpower projects being reviewed under theREA regulation. As interim direction until final Guidelines are approved,the criteria and procedures identified in this proposed draft 2010 Guidelines will be deemed to be acceptable by MNR for windpower projects being reviewed under the REA regulation. The draft version of *”Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for WindpowerProjects”* is now posted on the Environmental Registry.   Search using number 010-9521. Bat mortality is very high near industrial wind turbines causing lung collapse due to pressure changes and internal hemmoraging. This is an unacceptable risk to biodiversity and key habitat. Affecting micro ecosytems has its effect on the entire ecosystem. For wind companies to do a body count does not assist those that have been impacted and removed from the environment.Body count surveys from wind companies are not in their best interest as well as those bats that may have been removed by predators before the count is done. 2.Required Setbacks for Wind Turbines under O.Reg.359/09 Deadline is May 30, 2010 Search using EBR Registry Number: 010-9235
To provide further clarity and transparency on the Renewable Energy Approval, the ministry has prepared six draft technical bulletins. These bulletins are intended to assist proponents of renewable energy projects in preparing reports for the Renewable Energy Approval submission and in interpreting the regulation. The draft technical bulletins will also assist the public, other interested persons, aboriginal communities, and other regulatory agencies in understanding the approval process and the roles they may have in the new Renewable Energy Approval process. The proposed draft technical bulletins are presented for public comment.They are: Technical Bulletin #1 Guidance for preparing the Project Description Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #2 Guidance for preparing the Design and Operations Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #3 Guidance for preparing the Construction Plan Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #4 Guidance for preparing the Decommissioning Plan Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #5 Guidance for preparing the Consultation Report as part of an application under O.Reg.359/09 Technical Bulletin #6 Required Setbacks for Wind Turbines under O.Reg.359/09 Also,7. Renewable Energy Approval InformationThis link above on the doc page allows exemptions for setbacks if the wind company does a noise study. It also does not address should turbines be added later which increases noise.The tech bulletin 6 is very important to comment on as the recommended setback should be in our opinion two km from a receptor ( residence, etc,) or land that has the potential for a receptor or severence. The least minimum is that non participants in the wind farm project should not have their vacant land used as a buffer affecting future use. The setback should be kept within the fenceline of the land being leased.This also should be two km’s. Please send in your comments on these listings.
click here for website
Thank you
Raymond Beaudry
mcsea.ca