June 29, 2011

Health effects from wind turbines? Ontario government doesn’t know (and didn’t really try to find out)

This comes from a blog written by Dr Carl V. Phillips, en expert in epidemiology and related health sciences, who also has a PhD in public policy. He writes on the so-called “experts” who prepare reports based on questionable research and refers to the report by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, released in 2010, with the conclusion that there are no health effects from the noise and vibration produced by industrial wind turbines.

Not a single person living near turbine arrays was interviewed by the Ontario research team. Dr. Phillips:

The problem is that the further away someone is from understanding a scientific matter themselves, the more likely they are to believe someone who is not giving them accurate information, either out of ignorance or a hidden agenda.

You have to know something to even know who you should believe.

A policy maker who has absolutely no clue about scientific epistemology will depend on Wikipedia or 24-year-old aides (who will go to Wikipedia) to tell them what to think.  Even if it is not literally Wikipedia, it is some other source at that level, like news reporters or a local advocacy group, that interprets science at the level of what shows up in the conclusion sentence of research papers abstracts.  As readers of this blog know, such claims are not reliable in health science.  Indeed, Wikipedia and most news outlets intentionally cultivate this kind of uncritical-acceptance-based behavior. 

On a few occasions I have tried to correct errors in Wikipedia where something was once widely believed to be true, but was now shown to not be true (and, I think in all those cases, was never actually based on evidence – it was just one of those conventional wisdom problems).  But even if I made the change in terms of “it was once believed that but now it has been shown/established that….” the editor who controlled the page quickly changed it back.  I was informed, in effect, that most of what is out there on the web still presents the old view and does not acknowledge a controversy, and since science is democratic in the Wikipedia world, the old versions stands.  Given that experience I choose to focus on forums where most readers know enough to recognize at least the basic credibility of what I argue, even if it is contrary to what they thought they knew and what others claim.  My project in this blog is to figure out how to help people skip a few steps on this knowledge ladder, but that does not help much for those who do not even seek that knowledge.

The problem with knowledge at the news or Wikipedia level is that the people compiling it do not know who they should believe, or even how to distinguish when there is legitimate controversy.  Wikipedia is truly great at what other non-expert encyclopedias were always quite good at, getting non-controversial factoids correct, and it dramatically broadens the coverage (from “when did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address?” to “who were the finalists in American Idol”).  It is pretty good with scientific controversies that do not have much of a worldly political angle (“when did humans arrive in the New World?” “what is the definition of ‘species’?”).  But it and newspapers fail when it comes to current controversies in active politicized sciences that public officials need to wade into.

The Wikipedia-level authors get their information from anyone who can publish an authoritative-seeming paper.  This gets pretty close to maximum current expertise in many sciences, where people authoring study reports mostly know what they are doing and generally know who look to when they do not.  There might be disagreement over ultimate conclusions and best methods, but not complete ignorance about best methods or who the leading thinkers are.  But this is not the case in health sciences.  Most people writing the epidemiology papers, the sources of the summary “knowledge” that is used in policy, have no idea what constitutes expert thinking in epidemiology.  Thu there is yet another layer of not knowing enough to really know that makes uneducated faith in experts and “common sense” that much less likely to identify good advice.

For example, on the question of whether there are health effects from industrial wind turbines, the government of Ontario, Canada (a major hotspot in that fight) seems to put a lot of stock in the thin report on the subject by their Chief Medical Officer of Health.  (CMOH is a strange Canadian institution wherein a physician administrator type is always the province’s chief public health advisor.)  I was reminded of this a couple of days ago when I saw a newspaper cite that report as if it were authoritative.  The problem is that the CMOH and her staff were in way over their heads in writing the report, and not only did not know what constitutes the available evidence, but did not know whose analysis to believe.

Funny story:  I was cross-examined by a lawyer representing Ontario at a proceeding where I had presented testimony that the CMOH report was a joke, albeit in a less combative and more detailed way, of course.  She asked me something along the lines of, “since you know so much, did you ever contact the CMOH to try to provide useful input into the writing of the document?”  It boggles the mind.  I expect it would require more search and processing power than Google has to be able to identify any time someone is writing a supposedly expert report that is beyond their capability, and then direct the real experts to proactively contribute to it.  It seems more promising for report writers to track down the experts and ask for input.  Of course, they have to know who to even ask.

The situation in Ontario is that the lawmakers trust an authoritative sounding government official who knows more than they do but is far from an expert in science, and in turn she does not know who to believe or how to interpret it.  Perhaps those who she believed know who are really expert, but they have shown no evidence of that.  I am not sure whether Ontario legislators follow the same pattern of education as Americans, but it really would not take much scientific understanding, when coupled with a bit of partisan education (lobbying) in the subject matter, to realize that the CMOH report is worthless.  But if the local lawmakers do not have the skills to understand (when given some information and advice about thinking in the spirit of what I do in this blog) when their “experts” are giving them bad information, it does not really help much that true expertise exists, merely a few layers away.

May 16, 2011

The outcry over Hudak’s FIT announcement

It was nothing if not predictable: following Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak’s pledge to cancel the $7-billion deal with Samsung for wind and solar manufacturing and installation of facilities (a contract that as yet has never been seen by the public) and to halt the Feed-in Tariff or FiT program which pays exorbitant prices for power to solar and wind generators (power from hydro and nuclear in Ontario cost 6 cents a kWh; FiT pays 13.5 cents for wind and up to 80 cents for solar), the people who stood to benefit the most are now protesting.

They say “thousands” of jobs will be lost.

Not true. As Kevin O’Leary said on the Lang-O’Leary Exchange last week on CBC, “they weren’t real jobs and they should be lost.” Anything built on subsidies, the fund manager explained, is not sustainable. In other words, if the subsidy goes, so goes the business; “real” business, O’Leary said, is built on profitability. That’s not the so-called “green” energy manufacturing business.

Last year, the Ottawa Citizen’s Randall Denley calculated that–if the government’s numbers about job creation were even true–the cost to taxpayers of the jobs created was over $300,000 PER JOB. That is crazy. And not sustainable.

But now, these people, like the band of solar and wind companies in Ottawa, and like the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (in reality a government-funded lobby group) are claiming that we all must fight back and not lose Ontario’s green energy program.

The truth is, the number of jobs being created is a pipe dream, they won’t last, wind and solar can never do what the proponents say it will in terms of power supply, there are other costs in terms of the environment, lost property value etc., and–most important–everything that is being done is paid for by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers.

So, those people who claim YOU need the “green” energy business are really saying, “We want YOUR money.” You’re paying for their profits.

But don’t take our word for it: here’s what Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod said. “Dalton McGuinty is subsidizing these companies at the expense of people who pay for power, at the expense of families paying the bills…. There is nobody in town that thinks paying 80 cents for something that costs five cents is a good deal for taxpayers.”

March 10, 2011

North Gower resident writes a letter

One of the questions we are asked is, how do you know that your community group represents a wider view from the community? Well, aside from the several hundred people who signed the petition that went to the Ontario legislature via MPP Lisa MacLeod, and the 300+ families on our e-mail list, and the 125+ people who come to our information meetings, the countless volunteers working daily on this issue, I guess we don’t know what everyone is thinking.

In the Smith’s Falls EMC today is a letter to the editor from a North Gower resident. She writes:

Dear Editor:

I wish to volunteer my two cents into what is becoming an endlessly revolving argument about the wind turbine farms.

First off, not all of us in the North Gower area are against the Wind Turbine project being proposed for this area. I know from personal experience that wind turbines can perform well here. That being said, if viable scientific evidence can be established into the ill effects of this type of farm, then certainly additional precautions should be implemented – whether it be an increased setback from homes, or possibly smaller or fewer of the turbines.

The Ontario government has illustrated that it can change its mind if such evidence comes to light, as shown by the recent hold on the installation of off-shore wind turbines.

I certainly don’t think that this means that the whole concept or use of wind turbines should be scrapped – this would be extremely short sighted behaviour, given that we do need to stop relying on non-renewable resources for our hydro and energy.

Now is the time to be developing alternative energies to sustain our power requirements – when we can take the time to do it properly, and improve on them.

Debbie Gervais

North Gower

We’re not sure where this resident lives in relation to the proposed industrial wind development, and neither can we know how informed she is, but she has a few facts wrong:

-there is already valid scientific evidence that if the turbines are located too close to people’s homes, people can experience sleep deprivation and then ill health effects

-the Ontario government is standing firm that its 550-meter setback is “safe” despite evidence from around the world in countries that already have turbines, that a setback of 1-2 km is better (note that other countries such as Germany have setbacks between zones, not between the base of a turbine and the centre of a house, as Ontario does). The truth is, the 550-meters is more about geography than health: if we had a 1 km setback, there would be NO turbines in southern and eastern Ontario because of the way the roads and concessions are laid out.

-a proper scientific study is needed to have an evidence-based setback. Ontario now has such a research project ongoing, but it is headed by an expert in electrical engineering, and they plan to take 5 years to come to a conclusion. Ontario will be long done with populating its rural areas with turbines by then.

-industrial wind turbines are a flawed technology–they are intermittent and require fossil-fuel back-up; this is why Ontario is also building natural gas-fired power plants at the same time as it is encouraging wind power development.

-we’re not sure what the “personal experience” with wind turbines would be in this area, given that the Canada Wind Atlas states the area is “poor” to “marginal” for a wind resource. Since we don’t have any industrial-scale turbines here, her experience would have to be with a small wind mill. THAT, i.e., small scale, is an appropriate use of wind power development, NOT 626-foot industrial towers.

-this is industrialization of a rural community that, because of the Green Energy Act, is not getting to have its say. What it could do to property values is expropriation without compensation.

Last, of course everyone wants a clean and effective power system in Ontario. But wind doesn’t work. We don’t see why the people of North Gower have to participate in an experiment that will see no benefits to our community and which is really all about profits going to an offshore corporate developer. “Take the time and do it properly”? WE AGREE!!!!

And, we’re not alone: dozens of Ontario communities have now passed resolutions or motions objecting to industrial wind turbine projects and asking for their planning powers to be returned, AND for independent health studies.

View of turbines at Melancthon, near Orangeville, Ontario.

February 24, 2011

Gone with the wind: message to Queen’s Park

December 2, 2010

They’re not “farms”

It makes us cringe every time we read about an industrial wind turbine project in the media, when it is referred to as a wind “farm” or even worse, a wind “park.”

There is nothing bucolic about an industrial wind turbine installation, especially when they are in multiples. The turbines are HUGE machines, reaching up to as much as 100 meters in the air, with the rotor span equivalent to the wingspan of a 747. (The turbines proposed for North Gower-Richmond are 190 meters or 626 feet high.)

(Thanks to Beckwith Responsible Wind Action Group for the picture.)

This is an industrial use of the land, not agricultural; it is preposterous to have removed land use planning powers of municipalities for these developments, as they are industrializing rural and suburban communities–residents have no means of protecting themselves from the noise, infrasound, and effects on property value as a result of the Green Energy Act. The only means of reparation will soon be the courts (land owners leasing for turbine developments need to be aware of their liability–suits are being brought against them, not the corporate wind developers, all over North America).

Here is a picture of what has happened to pretty Wolfe Island, at Kingston Ontario. (Photo courtesy CSAGE.) Not very farm-like or park-like, is it?

Wolfe Island Ferry Dock.jpg

September 18, 2010

“Are you frying your eggs at 4 am yet?”

Lawrence Solomon, executive director at Energy Probe asks that question and a few more in his column today in The Financial Post. Noting that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is under fire for the smart meter program (which is supposed to cost $2 billion but is more like $ 10 billion) which, critics say, makes no economic sense for consumers. We can’t win in other words.

“Mr McGuinty isn’t in this for the money–if he was, he wouldn’t be closing economical coal plants while sinking cash into money-losing nuclear plants and money-losing long-distance transmission lines to carry power from money-losing industrial wind farms. These and his other money-losing initiatives will causeOntario’s power prices to double or triple should he get his way.”

Unfortunately, as Mr Solomon points out, the technologies are going against Mr McGuinty’s grand plans: “…power from wind turbines can’t be dispatched to customers when customers need it–the wind has a mind of its own. To make matters worse, the wind tends to blow best overnight when it’s least needed [Ed.: and when the turbines’ involuntary neighbours are trying to SLEEP].”

So, what he’s doing instead is using time-related power rates to “punish people and businesses,” says Solomon. But the punishment isn’t enough. “Too few people are frying their eggs before 7 a.m.–the time at which the punishment starts–and too many are cooking their dinners at 7 pm, smack dab during peak punishment period.”

Remember what ENRON stands for: Electricity Nightmare Ripoff Ontario Next.

Not added into this scenario at all is what the cost of declining property values will mean for communities throughout Ontario.

See the entire article here.

September 13, 2010

“The Green Energy Act needs to be scrapped”

Here is a post from Paul McKeever (president of the Freedom Party) on his blog, about the state of power generation and politics in Ontario. The opinions are strident but the facts are there:

You’re in for a Shock: Disturbing New Facts About Ontario’s Green Energy Act

September 7, 2010 by Paul McKeever 

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is telling everyone that his decision to increase the price of electricity is “responsible” because it will force consumers to pay for the power they consume.  It will end an irresponsible old subsidy, he implies, but that implication is false.  In reality, his price hike is designed to pay for an irresponsible new subsidy.

Forty-two consecutive years of Progressive Conservative (“PC”) rule gave Ontario ridiculously expensive nuclear power generators.  To avoid voter backlash, the PCs hid the actual cost of nuclear electricity from consumers.  Billions of dollars in government debt were racked up so that electricity bills could be kept artificially low.

In 1998, the Harris government passed legislation to end that irresponsible subsidy by adding a debt retirement charge to electricity bills.  It also eliminated price controls on the retail price of electricity.  The resulting prospect of getting a reasonable return on investment led the private sector to begin planning the construction of privately owned and operated generators that would replace Ontario’s aging, government-owned fleet.

However, as the election of 2003 approached, vocal opposition to higher (i.e., actual) electricity costs led Harris’ PC successor, Ernie Eves, to again hide the actual cost of electricity.  He imposed a 4.3 cent price cap.  The remaining cost of electricity would be paid with government debt and taxes.  Within a couple of weeks, McGuinty, who initially condemned Eves’ new subsidy, supported it.

Eves’ re-imposition of price controls had a massively negative impact that continues to plague Ontario to this day. The price cap, and the evidence that Liberals and Conservatives were both willing to fiddle with market prices, scared the private investors away before their shovels hit the ground.

With prices being subsidized, consumers had no reason to reduce their electricity consumption.  The resulting black-outs and brown-outs of the summer of 2003 handed the McGuinty Liberals a majority government in October of that year.  At the end of that October, McGuinty largely ended the irresponsible subsidy by increasing the price cap.  He explained that, in the approximately 11 months since the cap was introduced, the subsidy had already cost the taxpayer $700M.

In 2003, Ontario often had to import expensive U.S. power to meet Ontario’s power demands.   Yet, in the face of such a shortage, McGuinty pandered to clean air advocates by promising to close Ontario’s workhorse coal-powered electricity generators by 2007.

In 2005, McGuinty introduced a new, irresponsible subsidy to encourage private sector investment in the construction of gas-powered electricity generators.  Specifically, he offered them contracts pursuant to which they would be paid for their electricity at a rate approximately three times that paid for electricity generated by coal-powered plants.  Rather than cranking up taxes to build new generators, McGuinty would crank up the cost of electricity to cover the cost of the subsidy.

Even with the subsidy, it would be years before the new gas-powered plants were operational.  Faced with the continuing threat of black-outs and brown-outs, the McGuinty government decided to buy time by imposing limits and penalties on electricity consumption.  Most symbolically, he vowed to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012.  He paid for “Power Wise” commercials in which David Suzuki steals incandescent bulbs from porches, and breaks into homes to steal beer fridges, all so as to convince us that such theft and coercion is necessary not so as to cope with a politically-caused power shortage, but to save the earth.

In 2006, McGuinty’s political time-buying would get some help.  Al Gore’s junk science thriller, “An Inconvenient Truth”, transmitted to the masses the green cult’s irrational fear that “human CO2 production” (a code phrase meaning “capitalism”) will kill us.   For every politician, that fear would be the gift that keeps on giving.  So long as a new tax or fee or regulation could be characterized as one needed to reduce CO2, many voters would support it.  McGuinty could now ban Edison’s bulb, and introduce “green” fees and regulations with political impunity.

By 2006, Ontario’s high taxes, high labour costs, and potentially higher electricity costs were driving industry and commerce out of the province.  The business exodus reduced power consumption more than a million light-bulb snatching Suzukis could ever hope to.  The dramatic reduction in demand left Ontario with more than enough electricity to meet its needs even during peak consumption periods.

By 2008, the drop in demand for power had introduced a new problem: “surplus baseload generation”.   When Ontario’s “baseload” nuclear, coal, gas, and hydro generators generate more electricity than is being demanded, the excess electricity must be eliminated from the grid.  One option is to reduce generation, but only coal and hydro plants are capable of getting back up to speed quickly enough to meet increased demand after a few hours of low demand, and McGuinty is closing the coal plants.  Another option is to export excess power to U.S. buyers at discount prices.  When the U.S. will not buy the discounted surplus electricity, Ontario now pays the U.S. to take it (i.e., it “sells” the electricity for a “negative price”).

In 2009, the McGuinty government introduced the Green Energy Act.  Echoing the misguided subsidy for gas-powered generators, the Act introduced even larger subsidies for private companies who supplied wind and solar power to the grid.  Specifically, pursuant to the “feed-in tariff” (a.k.a. “FIT”) system, they would be paid for their electricity at rates as much as 16 times higher than the price of conventional electricity.   Moreover, wind and solar power generators would be given priority: consumers would be forced to buy up all of the expensive wind and solar power before meeting their remaining power demands with relatively inexpensive electricity from coal, gas, hydro or nuclear generators.   With artificially high prices and priority, private investors could now make a killing on otherwise money-losing solar and wind power generation.  Not surprisingly, thousands of private sector companies – including many farmers located in ridings that have usually voted PC – have signed up to get their cut of the loot.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator is now predicting that the additional power from wind and solar generators will make those expensive and wasteful episodes of surplus baseload generation more frequent for years to come.  It is expected that, to cope with the more frequent periods of low demand/excess electricity, wind and solar power generators will be taken off-line from time to time.  However, consumers will still have to pay the wind and solar companies for the power they do not deliver while off-line.  In a nutshell: McGuinty’s Green Energy Act will leave consumers paying the US even more to ditch excess electricity while simultaneously encouraging the construction of even more solar and wind power generators whose owners will be paid not to generate electricity during the periods of excess electricity that their wind and solar generators cause.

To deal with public outrage over soaring electricity prices, McGuinty now falsely implies that Ontario consumers are guilty of not paying the full cost of the electricity they are already consuming, and that he is merely raising prices to put an end to that irresponsible practice; that he is being “responsible”.  The inconvenient truth he thereby tries to disguise is that, for purely self-serving political reasons, his government is jacking up our electricity bills to pay for unneeded energy that we will not consume.

If we are to have an affordable and reliable supply of electricity in this province, we must learn from Ontario’s political history.  For electoral reasons, PC and Liberal governments have imposed price controls that have scared away private investment in power generation.  The result has been government debt and the payment of outrageous subsidies to the private sector.

Going forward, a system of affordable and reliable electricity requires elected officials who will not repeat the politically self-serving fiascos of Ontario’s past and present governments.  The Green Energy Act needs to be scrapped.  It is plain to see that the contracts made pursuant to it are immoral and unconscionable: they should not be honoured. Ontario’s government needs to allow prices to be determined by supply and demand.  And, to end the discouragement of private investment in affordable electricity generation, Ontario’s government needs to establish guarantees that it will not regulate prices, that it will not subsidize any form of generation, and that priority will be given to purchasing electricity from generators who offer it for the lowest price.

None of these desperately needed steps will be taken by a Liberal or PC government.  One cannot expect McGuinty to repeal his own Green Energy Act.  PC leader Tim Hudak is not about to alienate thousands of new wind and solar power-producing voters in PC-friendly ridings by repealing the Green Energy Act.  Instead, he is promising to repeat a PC fiasco of the past: sticking the taxpayer with the cost of even more unaffordable nuclear generation.  Fortunately, the least expensive power of all is the ballot.

Paul McKeever is the leader of the Freedom Party of

July 12, 2010

Take THAT: CanWEA and Dr David Colby!

More opinions—

Anyone who has been involved in health research knows what a travesty the Candian Wind Energy Association/American Wind Energy Association report on potential health effects from industrial wind turbines was, particularly the suggestion that people reporting effects are really just “annoyed” and upset (i.e., it’s all in their heads) and then, amazingly, something NEVER seen in medical research, the conclusion that not only are there no effects from exposure to industrial wind turbines, there is no reason to do any further research.

Appalling. Insulting. Unprofessional. And, you could say more, like politically motivated, deliberately obtuse, and more.

Well, now someone has said more and coming from him, the criticisms carry a lot of weight. You can download Dr Carl V. Phillips’ full report from Wind Concerns Ontario, but his comments about the report written by a panel of “experts” headed by Ontario’s Dr David Colby are amazingly to the point, and very critical not only of the quality of “research” behind that report but also the motivations for it.

Here are some of the highlights:

-there is ample evidence to conclude that industrial wind turbines cause serious health problems; compelling evidence has been overlooked

-questions could be answered if resources were devoted to finding the answer

-reports that claim no evidence of health effects are based on a “very simplistic understanding of epidemiology” … “they do not represent proper scientific reasoning

-various attempts to dismiss the evidence appears to be based on a misunderstanding of epidemiology and semantic games

-“the dismissal of the evidence is sometimes so bald that it seems like parody. … Colby et al. go so far as to write ‘ There is no evidence that sound at the levels from wind turbines as heard in residences will cause direct physiological effects. A small number of sensitive people, however, may be stressed by the sound and suffer sleep disturbances.’ Even if the latter characterization did not comically understate the evidence, these authors, within the space of a two-sentence paragraph, claim there are no physiological effects but note that there are observed cases of turbines causing a physical problem.”

-“Some of the attempts to dismiss the importance of the observed health problems are semantic games and belittlement, cheap tactics that are typically used to obscure the lack of legitimate scientific arguments.”

-“Language games like these tend to suggest an attempt to avoid direct discussion of the evidence that there really is a problem.”

-“It is notable that the Colby et al. panel did not include any population health researchers, even though the question they claim the report addresses is one of population health. Their expertise seems to be limited to the relevant physical sciences and clinical medicine.” [ Editor: note that while Dr Colby’s specialty is in infectious disease, he does claim to have some experience with sound and safety issues.] ” … they seem quite anxious to claim that we have seen the cases but they do not really exist, very unphysician-like behaviour.”

-the “errors paint a picture of authors who are dramatically overstepping their expertise and hoping that no reader will ever have the expertise to notice, and a forum like the present report in which to expose it.”

Wow. Had enough?

Puts into perspective comments from CanWEA execs, corporate wind developers and politicians. Recall that Prowind Canada’s Bart Geleynse Jr said in a CBC radio interview that people reporting health problems from turbines had “psychosomatic” problems.

Bullying. Obfuscating. Deliberate manipulation of the truth.

It is time to demand that Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health revisit this issue (her 14-page report published in May being based in part on the Colby et al. very flawed and distorted “research”) and start fresh with proper medical research.

Contact your city councillor, your MPP, the Premier.

The North Gower Wind Action Group may be contacted at

March 12, 2010

“Without due care and planning”

In the current edition of Western News out of the University of Western Ontario is a letter to the editor commenting on Dr Robert McMurtry’s recent article in that newsletter on the harm being caused by industrial wind turbine developments, written by Wayne Hocking, professor of physicas and astronomy.

He says the health concerns associated with wind turbines are significant … but there are more issues than that. “If these major facilities continue to grow to the extent that they start extracting significant fractions of total available energy (typically 10 per cent) from the wind, they will unquestionably alter both the local micro-climate and potentially larger scale wind motions. The potential effects could be dramatic.”

“The decision to go ‘green’ on a massive scale, without due care and planning, is risky,” he continues.

Amazingly, he says that solar cells are also damaging to the environment–they deliver less energy over their lifetime than is required to make them!!

Finally, the coup de grace: “A planned approach is crucial. Kneejerk reactions simply demonstrate the impact of the ‘Peter Principle’ in modern politics.”

Could not have said it better.

December 13, 2009

The question is, WHY? (We know the answer)

A very disturbing news report out of the U.K. today, about the noise from industrial wind turbines and, worse, how noise limit recommendations were ignored…and now people are suffering from the noise and vibration.

The full article is here

and it can also be linked on

When you read the full article, take note of the distances that these people are living from the wind turbines and remember that in Ontario, the setback is now 550 meters from people’s homes. Not their property line, their homes. Homes that contain young children.

How can the Ontario government, our municipal government, our federal government, the wind developers and the people who let them use land for the operation of wind turbines allow this to go on?

-“it’s like having helicopters go over the top of you at times”

-“We abandoned our home …we couldn’t sleep. It is torture–my GP describes it as torture.”

-“Imagine a seven-ton lorry [truck] running on the drive all night and that’s what it’s like.”

Why are our governments ignoring this situation and the desperate situation of people with health effects from wind turbines ALL OVER THE WORLD now…it’s not about the climate or the environment, it’s about a different kind of green.

For shame.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at