Respite Home Established in Port Burwell Area

Thanks to generous donations, a respite home has now been established in the Port Burwell area for people unable to sleep and experiencing health problems who live near the Erie Shores wind project.    The accomodations are certainly not luxurious but it will give these people an escape when it becomes too hard to bear.

SHAME on the Ontario government for allowing this to happen.   SHAME on AIM Powergen (now International Power Canada) for turning their backs on these people while raking in obscene subsidies from our tax dollars.

Forced expropriation would have been much kinder.   Of course that might cut into the profit margin, wouldn’t it?     The McGuinty Liberal government, in their zeal to allow the wind industry free reign, has failed miserably to do it’s due diligence.

21 thoughts on “Respite Home Established in Port Burwell Area

  1. When it comes to health/property value
    issues McGuinty and his pathetic gaggle
    of fellow incompetents have their
    collective heads buried in the sand
    and/or up the butts of the wind industry
    executives. In the future there will be a
    point in time where these bureaucratic
    jackasses will have to acknowledge that
    the entire concept of this ‘wind energy
    business’ has been nothing but a very
    costly sham. Unfortunately for those of
    us who’s lives have been affected by
    these monstrosities, that will be too
    little too late.

  2. Dr. Colby has already been warned by the College of Physicians to make it clear that his background is very limited in the field of microbiology. LOL

    They couldn’t have picked a better guy to lead the study. What were they thinking?? This will be torn apart in a peer review. More to come…

  3. Mr. Sustainability. The fact that the ‘study’ was commissioned by huge wind energy lobby goups pretty much tells the story of how legitimate it must be. If no victims were interviewed regarding their experiences, then it can only be considered wasteful trash.
    The same old story; monster corporations vs the little guy. Money doesn’t buy class or integrity, but it sure can turn decent and intelligent people into cold and nasty players.

  4. Mr. Sustainability: You’re cherry picking your research and it is produced by the wind lobbyists, so do yourself a favour and read this:

    “New evidence released by the Dept. of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request shows that Government suppressed a recommendation by its own acoustics consultants to tighten current noise regulations on wind turbines in order to protect local residents from night time noise. This does little credit to the Department, and must be corrected immediately.”

    For the entire article read:

    and for further evidence read Dr. Nina Pierpont’s book: Wind Turbine Syndrome

  5. I’m not qualified to rebut anything, but if I were serious about a health study I would get out into the field and start interviewing the neighbors, including any victims, and their doctors.

    This study was another literature review. From the report itself, “Three steps form the basis for this report: formation of an expert panel, review of literature directly related to wind turbines, and review of potential environmental exposures.”

    Why wasn’t Nissenbaum, or McMurtry, or Pierpont, or Harry on the panel? They referenced Pierpont a number of times, strictly to discredit her. Not unexpected. I’ll be doing more research on it as I get the time, and posting it on my site.

  6. Based on the multidisciplinary panel of experts with solid academic and scientific credentials, I think that the report would stand up to any scientifically conducted peer review – i.e. the level of scrutiny used in a peer reviewed scientific journal (wherein reviews are made following systematic procedures, by recognized and practising academic researchers who are known and respected experts in their fields as deemed by their peers in the scientific community). Furthermore, any suggestions that the report would be ‘torn apart in a peer review’ is nonsense. The expert panel reviewed the body of existing peer reviewed science and created what could be called a ‘meta-analysis’ or synthesis of existing knowledge. Since the building blocks of the report are widely accepted peer reviewed scientific facts it is hard to understand how a so-called ‘peer review’ will tear it apart – such an assertion is illogical.

  7. I can not imagine how much suffering those affected by Wind Turbines are going through. I am happy to hear there is a small amount of respite away from the distress caused by the Wind Turbines. Thank you Wind Concerns for keeping us informed. It used to be that people went from the cities to go to the countryside for quiet; no more.
    I heard mention of a child of 19 in the U.K, who died from being too close to a bass speaker at a rock concert. Low frequency sound can kill. I wouldn’t want to gamble that my heart wouldn’t experience arrhythmia. How much stress can a body take before years are erased from a lifespan? Or severely affect the future of a little one? No amount of reports can negate the fact that people living by Wind Turbines are suffering.

  8. Tell me, Mr. Sustainability, why are you so enamored of credentials and peer review? I would think, if you are interested in science, you’d be more worried about evidence. And a bunch of guys, no matter their credentials, sitting around an office reading other people’s stuff doesn’t produce much evidence. Only going out in the field does. And this they did not do.

  9. Any research that infers IWTs do not affect the health of people is a sick joke. People’s health is affected from living near IWTs and the rest of us are sick of hearing fools say no one should be sick. Reality is people are sick from living near IWTs. The only reason we know is they don’t have a gag order and they are brave enough to speak out. That is reality. Research if done properly provides an insight to reality.

  10. The article in The Star mentioned ‘peer review’… This morning I found a blog mentioning ‘peer review’ on terms of global warming.. (IMO carbon trading and McGuinty and Ontario wanting to get into the carbon trading money game is what the green energy law all about)..

    from the article.. (She is writing about a magazine (New Scientist) that is denying all those who question global warming.)

    “They attack Christopher Monckton’s paper, not because they can summarize why it was in error, but because another group disagree, and there are some technicalities of whether it jumped through the right hoops to be called “peer review.” Attack the man and not the message eh? New Scientist stands up for the bureaucratic details of “peer review” (only some peers count), but they won’t stand up for the independent scientists, the whistleblowers who want access to data, just to check those “peer reviewed papers” didn’t turn out to be baseless frauds like the Hockey Stick.”

    …..and she finds (in the leaked emails) a mention of New Scientist..

    an email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones.

    “New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
    are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
    including the HS! (Hockey Stick)”

    We keep hearing (in Ontario) that the only study that is taken seriously by those checking out the health of the people living near turbines must be ‘peer reviewed’ in order to be taken seriously..

  11. What is happening here is the facade of manipulated, cherry picked “science” to gain points in a zealous ideological crusade.

    Not one of those people hired by CanWEA has done any independent, clinical research whatsoever. Not one of them has even talked to real human beings. Basically, this “literature review” is a glorified google search, using only those hits that support their pre-determined crusade.

    It is sad and pitiful. Sad for the principles of science and sad for the people being victimized by this type of propoganda.

  12. Mr. Sustainability if the oil sand industry produced a paper based on a “multidisciplinary panel of experts with solid academic and scientifific credentials” stating that the tar sands and their byproducts have no harmful effect on human health would you believe it? I know I wouldn’t. Industry funded studies and environmental assesments are a joke, and this was one commisoned by the wind lobby industry is no better. Lets be done with it and have an independant epidemiologcal study on potential effects of IWT’s on human health with real field research. If the wind industry believes that there are no health effects then should demand an independant study or are they scared?

  13. Be aware that a Google search has been reported to limit searchers to the “right” sites. Using another search engine shows different sites.

  14. First off……I have talked at least a dozen Toronto residents into cancelling their subscriptions to the Toronto Star because of the biased and unbelievable ramblings of Tyler Hamilton and his fixation on his “heroes” that are forcing this Wind Agenda on citizens of Ontario against all the true stories of health problems caused by these monsters.

    Secondly anyone who calls himself/herself “Mr. Sustainability” should go to Copenhagen tonight and join up with the “crazies” who are getting beaten up on the streets by the police trying to promote the asinine proposals of the “Lizards” like Gore and Suzuki in who lied their way into history books claiming that Global Warming actually exists!

  15. A literature review of existing peer-reviewed science is the furthest thing from a ‘glorified Google search’. While not new basic research, it is still valued as a synthesis or ‘snapshot’ of existing peer-reviewed scientific knowledge.

    Also, unless basic research is peer-reviewed in a scientific journal it really doesn’t meet the recognized standard and doesn’t earn the title of ‘peer-reviewed scientific research’.

    Interviews or books reviewed by colleagues outside of the science-journal review process, while perhaps interesting, still cannot be called ‘peer-reviewed’ science as it is conventionally defined within the broad scientific community.

    If any author of books or interview results has interesting findings – they are always free to write them up and submit them to a scientific journal for a detailed peer review following conventions as established and agreed upon by practising scientists.

    While not perfect (nothing done by humans can be), the process of peer-reviewing scientific papers by science journals it is the best standard that exists and one that has served well over time.

  16. The commissioned study by Colby et al
    has more to do with propaganda than
    science. It’s refreshing to see more and
    more people are starting to question some
    of the illogical and ridiculous claims
    promoted by the wind industry. The
    industry is digging itself a hole that
    hopefully it will not be able to crawl out of.

  17. Experts?? Ha ha ha ha ha! Pull my other leg.

    Colby is a paid flunkie who represented Skypower at one of their meetings. Do I really need to look at any of the, um, credentials of the other so-called experts. A high school kid could come up with better results.

    And, yes, this is the way Big Business operates. Big Tobacco, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Chemical, Big Oil and Big Wind all use their own versions of spin doctors. Open wide and say “ahhhhhh”. If the first dose of propaganda doesn’t work, they’ll shovel some more in.

    That “study” is laughable and only serves to make the windies look absolutley ridiculous. Especially since it was obviously timed to coincide with the publication of Dr. Pierpont’s book. What a bunch of buffoons!

  18. Are losses from wind turbines an insurable event or hazard or damage?

    How much would a private insurance (or gov’t.?) policy or a rider on an existing homeowner policy cost to compensate those from Sky High Industrial Towers destroying people’s lives and/or their home’s values?

Comments are closed.