Please submit comments for off-shore regulations

We ask you once more to remember to comment on the Ministry of the Environment site, comment code 011-0089.  Brian Anderson of the Beach area has appended some easy steps…as the Ministry site does NOT make this easy. Easiest is still to pick up the phone! 416-325-7893
This is OUR opportunity (a very important one) to tell Minister Gerretsen that we do NOT accept turbines in our drinking water, period. No setbacks at all. 

  • lake bed ecology will be compromised, possibly fatally
  • the toxins that have naturally settled for 50 years on the lakebed will be disrupted, and affect our drinking water supplies
  • migration routes will be damaged, habitats fragmented
  • infrasound and noise over water is amplified, and there are no studies to determine safe distances
  • the fragile Bluffs and shorelines of the North Shores of all the Lakes will be compromised
  • turbines do not create reliable and reasonable amounts of power
  • turbines are themselves manufactured out of petrochemicals, and a host of other dangerous chemicals,  and house 1000 gallons of oil and lubricants each: imagine this in our drinking water!
  • boaters’, yachters’, recreation areas will be spoiled and dangerous in certain weather conditions
  • the cost offshore is prohibitive and the taxpayer will ultimately have power bills 2-4 times higher, for no benefit
  • turbines always require back up…no single coal plant has shut down internationally due to wind turbines: green turbines is a myth

Thank you so very much. 
Sherri Lange, Director of  Toronto Wind Action

7 thoughts on “Please submit comments for off-shore regulations

  1. I have been working with “Friends of Pike Creek” for the last 15 years trying to keep our watersheds healthy and clean. The last thing we need to see is giant windmills posing a hazard to navigation and creating environmental sediment washing upon our shores. We need to have input on all sides of the debate not just those with financial interests. A provincial goverment panel formed by all sides of the debate to establish guidelines is a first step.We all have vested interests in our beautiful waterways!

  2. Tyler our wee little green friend is at it again eh?………….maybe one too MANY beers?……….he is allowed to write absolute “tripe” and get away with it!………”if pigs could fly” and there were “two moons in the sky” I might just believe one sentence of this insane diatribe of garbage!

    Why doesn’t someone somewhere tell the truth…………we are 228th out of 239 in population densities in the World……why are WE in Canada expected to cut back on our usage of water, food, air and electricity when there are countries like China and India who don’t give a damn about pollution?……….not to mention they have all our jobs now thanks to our gracious leaders and Industry who’s only concern is the bottom line!

    Anyone who wants to write this little goblin can contact him at:

  3. Goblin….

    I laughed at that image. So fitting!. 🙂

  4. Star article is utter rubbish. The vast majority of journalists have no scientific education so they can’t check facts before they write scientific articles. They just rehash the science rubbish that’s handed to them.

  5. I laughed at “this little goblin” too Quixote…and Davids funny face. Miss you all …. I have been so busy fighting over here… beyond tired and frustrated, just like you folks. Good to get a chuckle in once and a while about Feckless goblins eh Randy?
    Take care all, Mel

  6. Melodie, I was kind of wondering where you have been, nice to see that you are back.

    Sherri Lange, how about no wind turbines period to go along with your ten WHY’s rather than “No setbacks at all.”

    Many may disagree with me on this but using the Environmental Registry (EBR) on the Ministry of the Environment web site serves no purpose with this government because they only use from it what best suits their purposes. The site has no strict guidelines that are to be adhered to. One of the biggest down sides of the site is the public has no way of knowing exactly who has said what. I believe with this government that if the comments were heavily weighted against whatever issue by the public and this did not fit into the agenda of this government that they would NEVER change their agenda in order to do what the public is asking them to do. The EBR may have originally started out with good intentions but with this government it is just used as a tool to make you think you are having a say and giving you the hope that you have some amount of influence. This is not what it is all about. Do not kid yourself. As we are all aware, the McGuinty government has chosen to do what it feels like with regards to the environment so there isn’t anything stopping them to use this site as a guise and load it up with comments that best suits their interests. Then later when things run amuck or there is public outcry from their decisions, regulations making or other the government can then blame the people who posted comments on the EBR. I ask, is there anything within the EBR to stop the government from posting their own comments in order to achieve their goals. Without rules and guidelines, this is possible. Where is the transparency? One also has to consider that there will be comments from the wind companies that best suit their interests. Given the number of wind companies presently in Ontario there isn’t anything stopping their employees from posting comments on the EBR that best suits their continued employment within this type of industry.

    As we are all aware or should be, what best suits industry best suits this Liberal government and what best suits this Liberal government best suits industry.

    Make your opinions known but do not have any illusions about the EBR.

    John Staley, I agree with your panel concept then the use of the registry may serve purpose as the panel will be able to distinguish as whether the comments posted on the Registry (EBR) are one sided or not?

Comments are closed.