Prove there are no harmful effects of windfarms

St. Catherine Standard

There are now at least 60 municipalities in Ontario demanding the provincial government impose a moratorium on future wind farm development until independent investigations are completed that prove beyond doubt that industrial wind turbines do not pose any health threat to anyone in communities living in the vicinity of wind farms.

At least two such municipalities are initiating legal action against both wind energy companies and the government.

In Wainfleet, a municipality with a council too intimidated and scared to even question either the wind energy companies or the province’s Green Energy Act, we have two local companies who can’t wait to build Wainfleet’s first two wind farms.

IPC Energy has already been awarded a contract by the province to build a wind farm in Wainfleet. Rankin Construction, having lost its bid to be the first, intends to ensure it will be awarded the second wind farm contract in Wainfleet.

Neither has a problem with building wind farms in Wainfleet knowing that under the Green Energy Act, their Wainfleet friends and neighbours don’t have the right to even express an opinion about whether or not they want wind turbines in their township.

So, my challenge to both IPC Energy and Rankin is to put their money where their collective mouths are.

I want them to place one of their industrial wind turbines at the minimum set back distance from each of their private homes in Wainfleet.

I can’t think of any better way to show beyond doubt that whilst both IPC Energy and Rankin Construction should be in the business of making a profit, and I cannot fault them for that, their proposed wind farms are because they believe that what they are doing can only benefit all Wainfleet residents. And that these wind farms will never negatively affect the health of the community, the value of properties close to wind farms or, in fact, harm the Wainfleet community in any way.

Both IPC Energy and Rankin have the influence to do this, so I can’t wait to hear they have accepted my challenge!

Andrew Watts, Port Colborne

6 thoughts on “Prove there are no harmful effects of windfarms

  1. They don’t debate or accept challenges. They will simply ignore and dismiss you.

  2. Dear Andrew

    Please don’t hold your breath. AIM/IPC built ~ 56 Industrial Wind Turbines [please call them for what they are!] in the NW corner of Norfolk County starting in 2005.

    When my home was finally surrounded by 18 Vestas 1.65 MW IWT’s in Nov of 2008, the symptoms started popping up.

    Within the Clear Creek/Cultus/Frogmore IWT ZONE [please call it a ZONE – it is NEITHER a farm nor a “park” – don’t use the language of your enemy!], ~ 70 residents signed a petition saying that they were affected by these industrial machines.

    It will soon be 2 years since we started writing, telephoning and/or speaking face to face with AIM/IPC executives, Norfolk Council, MoE (Hamilton), MoE – Gerretsen, MoE&I – Slitherman/Duguid, MoHLTC – Caplan/Matthews/King and although I’ve been told to “get away from there as soon as possible”, I’m still here because NO ONE will give me the money I put in to build my home so I could “age in place”. These are my life’s savings which I will need to establish a home elsewhere.

    I have had to prevail on my son, who let’s me sleep in his trailer ~ 16 km away from the IWT’s. Last night I slept for 9 hours, soundly, without interruption and woke refreshed.

    Less than an hour after getting back to my home, my ears are stuffed up AGAIN, my brain is buzzing AGAIN and I am getting that jttery feeling AGAIN which tells me it’s time to get out of here. [I’m always looking for a useful reason to get in my car and drive away from my home.]

    So, I’m off to shop, get mail, have a cof, get gas……………………………………………………….

  3. Good idea, along with it, considering that there are enough abandon homes due to wind turbine farms throughout Ontario that these homes should be offered as free accommodations for Ontario MPP’s, who advocate what their party preaches, that there aren’t any health effects caused by Wind Turbines.

    Lets say they have to live in these homes with their families for six months. What is the worst that could happen to them, in fact I believe, there are some homes on Wolfe Island that they could choose from.

    In fact they could turn this concept into a reality show and call it “WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU”.

  4. Great idea, Mr, Alias, Free holiday digs for MPPs and their families. This is brilliant.

    I notice that the Wolfe Island website, WIRE, does not seem to be updated – anyone know what’s happening there?

  5. Here’s my question:

    Can someone point me at a paper, peer reviewed or not, that defines the questions to be asked in a good review of the health effects of wind turbines?

    For example :

    What frequency bands should we measure?
    At what distances would we measure?
    What should be the standard for a receptor when measuring infra-sound?
    What analysis techniques should be used for determining at what power levels any effects appear?
    What characteristic separates those who are affected from those who do not appear to be affected by proximity to turbines.

    What is the null hypothesis? (Perhaps for multiple questions)

    Anyway… if I were researching this I would start with these questions, talk to people affected, other researchers, technical sound people, audiologists, pediatricians etc and see if my questions were reasonable an organized into research areas (groups) then tackle what I could do.

    The Null hypothesis from link above…

    The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are falsifiable using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2] The term was originally coined by English geneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher.[3] It is typically paired with a second hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, which asserts a particular relationship between the phenomena. Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson formalized the notion of the alternative. The alternative need not be the logical negation of the null hypothesis and is the predicted hypothesis you would get from the experiment. The use of alternative hypotheses was not part of Fisher’s formulation, but became standard.


    Sample size

    Statistical hypothesis testing involves performing the same experiment on multiple subjects. The number of subjects is known as the sample size. The procedure depends on the size. Even if a null hypothesis does not hold for the population, an insufficient sample size may prevent its rejection. Minimum sample size depends on the statistical power of the test, the effect size that the test must reveal and the desired significance level. The significance level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis holds in the population. The statistical power is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it does not hold in the population (i.e., for a particular effect size).

    An Example:

    A Null Hypothesis for evaluating performance (at generating energy) for wind turbines might be:

    Power produced by Wind Turbines produce negligible additional power for the electrical grid in Southern Ontario when evaluated based on average output and on a yearly basis.

    — or —

    Power produced by wind power in Southern Ontario will always have several time periods of at least an hour every year when power production falls below one percent of name plate capacity and therefore cannot be considered to be reliable producers of power.

    Those are all made up quickly and may not be a good research topic — or they may be.

    I would think that the health effects hypotheses would be a little tougher to frame.

  6. Johnanna:

    If you are referring to my ideas — feel free to point the good doctor at this blog and this post.

    I am busy with another project now.

    …but researchers do typically suffer from NIH syndrome — so don’t hold out any hope.

Comments are closed.