Editorial: Turbines should be studied

Barrie Advance 

The Board of Health for the Grey Bruce Health Unit wants the government of Ontario to undertake studies into the issues identified by Grey Bruce Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Hazel Lynn, in her report reviewing potential avenues of investigation into the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines.

“Municipal Councils are struggling with the issue of large Wind Farm developments,” said Board Chair, Mike Smith. “I would like to thank Doctor Lynn for her work and insight on this topic; it provides the Board of Health and municipalities some important additional information on the affects of Wind Farms in our communities.”

The Board’s position is in response to a report reviewing the potential avenues of study on the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines by Medical Officer of Health, Hazel Lynn. On November 19, 2010, the Board passed the following:

“That, on behalf of the Board of Health, the Medical Officer of Health investigate initiating a study to examine the effects the installation of Industrial Wind Turbines in close proximity to residential homes, or residential areas, has had on residents in Grey and Bruce Counties.”

Key findings:

1. Many people, in many different parts of Grey Bruce and Southwestern Ontario have been impacted by the noise and proximity of wind farms.

2. Wind farm noise does not bother most people who hear it or live near it. Worldwide, the majority of wind developments do not generate substantial ongoing noise issues.

3. The nature of the sounds made by wind turbines make it especially difficult to measure or report.

4. Communities and individuals are facing difficult social choices. A determination has to be made as to what level or extent of negative impacts is tolerable; how many such affected neighbours are we willing to accept?

The report lays out nine standards used to measure evidence of whether exposure to wind turbine technology causes symptoms that people are experiencing. It identifies that any studies undertaken to demonstrate a link with exposure must also recognize additional bias, causal and supporting factors.

The report provides eight areas for further exploration and research:

1. Determining the prevalence of susceptibility – what portion of exposed people suffers distress.

2. Comparisons of the prevalence of susceptibility between various Industrial Wind Turbine technologies, designs, size and siting.

3. Improving field measurement of the broadband noise including low frequency noise.

4. Finding a biomarker for susceptible individuals.

5. Collecting econometric data to assess the real costs of the new technology.

6. Examining technological changes in design, operation and maintenance of Industrial Wind Turbine installations to reduce the noise and impact on residents.

7. Community and social research to determine the best way to introduce new technology to a variety of communities so that the community and social disruption is lessened.

8. Looking at what specific community research and consultation should be undertaken before installation of an Industrial Wind Turbine development in order to ensure that everyone in the community can tolerate the new technology and all will benefit.

The report also reviews the role and responsibilities of the Board of Health. It also notes the lead ministries regarding this issue are the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Energy.

5 thoughts on “Editorial: Turbines should be studied

  1. “Wind farm noise does not bother most people who hear it or live near it. Worldwide, the majority of wind developments do not generate substantial ongoing noise issues”

    The majority of wind developments around the world are FAR AWAY FROM PEOPLE!

    WITHOUT EXCEPTION those that are not GENERATE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS BY MOST PEOPLE!

    “The nature of the sounds made by wind turbines make it especially difficult to measure or report”

    BULLSHIT!

    ANY standards for measuring industrial noise can be applied to wind turbines. Furthermore, there are international standards and standardized equipment and methods for measuring environmental anthropomorphic noise pollution. These have ALREADY been applied to wind turbines with the expected un-supportive [of wind turbines] results!

    “Communities and individuals are facing difficult social choices. A determination has to be made as to what level or extent of negative impacts is tolerable; how many such affected neighbours are we willing to accept?”

    WHAT? Wind turbines are a “social” program now? These are being forced upon the downtrodden for some greater societal benefit? Can someone PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THAT IS?

    As for the “eight areas for further exploration and research”…

    What granola crunching, cappuccino sucking, leftist leaning socialist focus group dreamed these up?

    INDUSTRIAL GREEN ENERGY DOES NOT WORK!

    PERIOD!

    GET OVER IT!

    We are governed by mendacious IDIOTS!!!

    B.B.W.

  2. “Finding a biomarker for susceptible individuals.”
    What might this be? Considering it affects all ages infant, teens, young adults middle aged and up to seniors, affects both sexes, affects perfectly healthy people and some with preexisitng conditions what more evidence do you need to show that the damage is coming from the turbines, not from damaged people?
    This is disgraceful.

    “Wind farm noise does not bother most people who hear it or live near it.
    Worldwide, the majority of wind developments do not generate substantial ongoing noise issues”

    Why isn’t the good doctor referencing her claims?

    This whole article is another campaign to smear the credibility of the victims who have had the courage to make public statements. No wonder so many are still afraid to talk about it. Shame on her and anyone who supports this phony effort. Enough of the revictimizing already!

  3. Just what is meant by a “biomarker”? Is this to be a human genetic study?

    It’s working. Just add more confusion tot he wind turbine mix.

    Wind turbines are “horse & buggy” wind machines and anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows this. Fool the people by calling wind turbines new technology.

    Councils need to be challenged as to how much they know about the science behind wind turbines. Let them explain to the people why they believe this is new technology and just where did they get their information from.

  4. I have a question…

    If this study is credible…

    *******************************
    http://www.wheels.ca/article/793438

    “f you live near heavy traffic, you might want to invest in a sturdy pair of ear plugs.

    It could be good for your health.

    A new study from Denmark suggests exposure to road traffic noise boosts stress levels and increases the risk of stroke for those 65 or older.

    The survey of more than 50,000 people was published online Wednesday in the European Heart Journal. The report found every 10 additional decibels of road noise led to an increase of 14 per cent in the probability of a stroke when averaged for all age groups.

    But the risk of a stroke jumped to 27 per cent for those more than 65 years old. The risk, however, was not significant for those under 65.

    A busy street can generate noise levels of 70 or 80 decibels. By comparison, a lawnmower can produce 90 or 100 decibels, while a jet plane taking off measures in at 120 decibels.

    Experts say noise acts as a stressor and disturbs sleep, which results in increased blood pressure and heart rate.”

    ************************************

    Why are the calls for reasonable studies based on empirical data rejected? Then why are wind turbine noise studies using fake model data credible? Is reality too tough for these people?

    Note that this story is accessed via wheels.ca — and linked from the Toronto Star Website. This is the same bunch of clowns that have been pooh-poohing concerns about IWT’s.

    Incredible…

Comments are closed.