Colby can’t hide his bias

By Muriel Allingham

Although Dr. Colby professed throughout his testimony yesterday, at the Chatham Kent Tribunal, that he was in no way an activist for turbines, his view points, in addition to his association with CANWEA and AMWEA contravened that claim.

Dr. Colby has a huge repertoire of accomplishments, within his field of medicine, and is duly proud of his accomplishments, as he let the tribunal know. What he lacks however appears to be integrity, and an understanding of exactly what his role as Chief Medical Officer should be.

The good doctor believed very firmly that evidence based on medicine, one founded on the basis of facts as opposed to opinion was the only standard for determining whether or not turbines presented any health risks. Unfortunately, he did not supply any empirical evidence to support his claims to negate the health concerns; I imagine medical evidence didn’t apply to him or his opinions.

Instead he chose to denigrate those who have completed studies contrary to his opinion, such as the one completed by Dr. Nina Pierpont, whose report he said was ‘the worst selection bias’ that he had ever witnessed. He inferred that her involvement was rooted in the fact that one of her specialties is ornithology, and concluded his assault of her study by stating that in his opinion wind turbine syndrome does not exist. Did he prove his asseveration? No, of course not.

Dr. Colby spoke at length about the structural integrity of the wind turbines, and of how it is remotely possible that a blade could throw ice, or a tower could collapse, and of course in his opinion this would be very serendipitous. Akin to a natural disaster, such as an earth quake, or through vandalism, or some type of rare occurrence. He compared the structures integrity to that of buildings and bridges. Dr. Colby’s alleged knowledge of engineering standards was remarkable—considering he was at the hearing to discuss the health risks of turbines, as a medical doctor.

According to Dr. Colby, those who experience wind turbine syndrome are actually prone to suggestibility. He compared the health issues experienced by some to that of odour related vomiting; that it is the suggestion of the turbines that creates the syndrome, just as the introduction of an odour can stimulate the gag response. According to Dr. Colby, the suggestion of illness leads to the ‘nocebo affect,’ similar to the placebo affect, a symptom that does not exist. Another aspect of suggestibility, he concluded was the pejorative term ‘Industrial’ that is associated with Industrial Wind Turbines; just wind turbines would be much better, he stated. Another pejorative term that the Doctor dislikes is ‘noise,’ as he prefers to use sound stimulus. Although he admitted that he didn’t like the look of the turbines, he thought that people shouldn’t pretend that there are adverse health affects surrounding them. Not only are we, the public, very susceptible to pejorative terms, and suggestibility, we are prone to sensory integration dysfunction, which, according to Dr. Colby, causes us to manifest physical symptoms from a psychological cause. In other words those suffering presently are just down right crazy.

Dr. Colby also addressed the noise, or as he prefers ‘sound stimulus.’ The sound of the turbines is equivalent, according to the doctor, to that of a furnace fan, or a refrigerator motor, and nothing more. He did not supply the tribunal with any concrete evidence of what the sound levels are at ground level from varying distances from turbines. He did not site different wind conditions that produce different ‘sound stimulus levels, he merely spoke about how sound waves were transmitted through the air, and also informed the tribunal that a whisper would be approximately 35dB—very scientific and relevant. The sound of a wind turbine cannot harm human tissue, and therefore does not damage the structure of the ear—case closed. Although, he did state that noise creates annoyance, but according to him, there are many other factors that create annoyance, such as a dripping tap. Don’t they use dripping water as a form of torture? The turbines will only annoy us, if we let them. It’s all about attitude, according to Colby. Sleep disturbance is multifactoral, and the noise level of a normal urban environment is not enough to cause sleep disturbance. But what about a rural environment, where there are wind turbines? Is that enough to cause sleep disturbance? He didn’t address the issue that he was on hand to address, and flipped through an array of similes, provided for the entertainment of the tribunal.

Dr. Colby did agree that there is approximately 2.5% of the population that have a 12dB hearing acuity, which increases their sensitivity to noise; however, you can’t accommodate everyone. You wouldn’t build a storm sewer to accommodate the once of a lifetime storm, so why worry about the minority of the population, another unrelated comparison. Any sound studies that the Doctor did site were for transportation noise, or industrial noise. By extrapolating information from other sound sources, I assume his intention was to confuse the tribunal into thinking he had conducted actual studies about turbine noise.

Shadow flicker, he agreed was a visual stimulus, and only rare individuals are affected by shadow flicker. Epilepsy is triggered above 2.3 hertz, but turbines produce less than 2.3 hertz. According to Dr. Colby, it would take a series of turbines at the correct hertz for a person, who is staring directly at them to be affected by flicker. Again, where is the evidence to support this? Had he either conducted an actual study himself, he would have realized how wrong his assertions were.

Annoyance the doctor stated is not a disease. Why if it was a disease, he claimed, he would have it, along with thousands of others who get ‘annoyed.’ He was flippant and jovial in his delivery, which I believe was an insult to everyone in the room. He did believe that some people would definitely get annoyed by the turbines, but the key, according to this renowned Doctor, is to teach them how to cope. Coping skills, yes that’s it. That will be of definitive help to those currently suffering.

Mention was made by the Doctor, about the sensation of vibration that some people complain of, but he discounted the experience, as having nothing to do with the turbines themselves. According to Dr. Colby, vibration cannot penetrate interfaces, and described how vibration travels through water—very relevant. Again here, he volunteered his theory of how perception can be triggered, urging everyone to suppress the itch suggestion that he put forth. The vibration of wind turbines is not noticeable anyway, but how did he arrive at that information? We don’t know, as he did not provide empirical evidence to support his hypothesis. And mainly that is what he provided the tribunal with—his hypothesis, nothing more. A hypothesis is a concept that is not yet verified, and nothing that Dr. Colby provided to the tribunal came with verification.

Dr. Colby provided his follow up opinion in 2009, to his initial report, because he wanted to dispel the negative reactions of people from around the world. He wanted to prove that there was no causality between turbines and health issues. People believing that there is a relationship between the two doesn’t make it so. In fact, he believes that there is nothing to investigate regarding wind turbines and health issues. The expert panel, of which he was one, was comprised of individuals who were above reproach—even though they were bought by CANWEA and AMWEA.

To conclude, Dr. Colby loved to use similes, and had obviously consulted his thesaurus prior to testifying, but his evidence was lacking one thing—proof. He was unable to substantiate any of his claims with evidence. There had been no scientific studies to prove without a shadow of a doubt that wind turbines don’t cause harm. There were no statistics provided, and the body of Dr. Colby’s evidence rested on his attempt to disrepute other studies that negated his opinion, and those that are suffering with negative health issues related to wind turbines. He had the audacity to state that funding for wind turbine studies would take away money needed for other research.

According to Dr. Colby, ‘real problems’ such as health issues resulting from coal fired, and nuclear plants. Finally, when asked about the ‘quality of life’ definition stated by the World Health Association, he discounted their standard, stating that it was an unattainable ideal. An ideal that could not be realized, by anyone.

Frankly, Dr. Colby provided the tribunal with nothing more than his ‘expert’ opinion. He validated none of his claims, and most of his rhetoric was based on opinion and showmanship. Was he a wind turbine activist? Me thinks he protests too much. He had McGuinty stamped all over him, and probably the Suncor logo tattooed to his chest.

46 thoughts on “Colby can’t hide his bias

  1. Tell Dr Colby to go and live in a wind farm for 6 months then he would be able to get his facts straight.

  2. Colby is a “prime example” of why there should be an absolute “cleaning house” of all “Medical Officers” in Ontario!

    These so-called “Doctors” are nothing more than spokespeople for a “mad man” who has done more harm to a Province in his short term of Leadership than all the damage done in the “dirty 30’s” Depression!

    Along with this “gang of goofs” throw in the LHIN’s which have sucked the public purse dry and basically ruined our local concepts of individual hospitals that should be run at a local level and not by a bunch of “bought and paid for” mouthpieces!

  3. Got totally lost and wasn’t half way thru the read. IWT’s are forever if you can live with them. This tribunal will be a joke in the end I bet. Good guys are questionable and money guys are are prominent experienced scientific people. Do the logistics. Hate to throw in the towel but yes I will see an IWT grow in my back yard soon and all will be over. Maybe I run a fan in my bedroom to kill any sound. The PC’s can’t stop this unless they willingly tell ppl that it will cost money. Please people. Give the PC’s time after this election to unravel years or Liberal screw ups.

  4. He is not a doctor but a bought out person adding suffering to the slave man and his family.

  5. Let’s hope the tribunal saw through Colby and will see his testimony for the shallow attempt that it was.

    I would like to know if Gillespie took a strip off this guy. Sounds like there were all kinds of chances to do so.

  6. Every time this guy opens his mouth we are inundated with an annoying “sound stimulus” akin to fingernails on a chalk board. He is correct on one account concerning the “nocebo affect”. His testimony stinks worse than a pig farm. He makes me sick!…grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

  7. These structures are “industrial” and calling them “wind turbines” does not change anything. Colby is no doctor and has no integrity. He feels what he says means something even when he is far outside his scope of expertise. His scope of expertise appears to be extremely limited. Nothing reported on what he said sounds like it came from an expert unless you consider him an expert in telling non-truths. A sleazy person is a sleazy person no matter what else you may call them.

  8. Outstanding summary!

    I would like to add a few more points that Dr. Colby made:

    – Although Dr. Colby agreed that IWTs do produce LFN, it is unlikely to cause harm to human health. He claimed the thought that vibrations (from LFN) are going to travel through the air to resonate in the body is “extremely fanciful”
    – wind opponents use the term “industrial” when speaking about wind turbines and in his opinion, this word is intentionally used to create fear in people. They should just be called wind turbines.
    – Dr. Colby spoke about the “fear factor” … if you believe something will cause you harm, it will. Any physical symptoms are caused from a psychological issue.
    -He claimed studies/papers that have not been peer-reviewed should be given less weight. Apparently, we are not to apply this thought to his non-peer-reviewed reports.

    I found his testimony filled with personal opinions that far exceeded his “area of expertise”.

  9. So I have a question….

    Dr. Colby spoke at length about the structural integrity of the wind turbines, and of how it is remotely possible that a blade could throw ice, or a tower could collapse, and of course in his opinion this would be very serendipitous.

    Is he a Doctor of Medicine — or does he have a Doctorate in Engineering…??? Which is it? Does he study weather phenomena?

  10. Please ignore my above post… It was written in haste.

    I forgot that when Renewable Energy comes before the courts on Ontario that Doctors weigh in on Engineering, Engineers give Medical Opinions, Physicists are consulted on matters of Engineering and Statistics and Courts can ignore constitutional rights being trampled.

    Again, my apologies to all, I forgot the new Green Protocol.

    I will temper my opinions accordingly.

  11. – Although Dr. Colby agreed that IWTs do produce LFN, it is unlikely to cause harm to human health. He claimed the thought that vibrations (from LFN) are going to travel through the air to resonate in the body is “extremely fanciful”

    I wonder if I could prove that one way or the other…. hmmm.

    Let’s try a though experiment. Let’s stand next to an accelerating, heavily loaded train. Does our body vibrate? If I put sensors on the body –accelerometers day — would I see the vibration?

    Let’s put sensors on a structure (barn, house etc…) Would I see the vibration on the structure after the noise passed through the air — or the ground say…. Hmmm Good questions?

    Anyone have the answers?

    If I wanted to prove it — could my idea work? Any other thoughts you technical types?

  12. Opinions out of his expertise? Can anyone say Dr. Charles Smith, disgraced paediatric pathologist?

  13. I wonder how much professional liability insurance he has?

    (It would seem to me that there is lots of stuff out there showing that he was provided with sufficient material contrary to his “paid/bought” opinions.)

  14. A comment about ANNOYANCE:

    It seems to me that Dr. Colby proved the case that wind turbines do have a serious, adverse effect on human health when he admitted that they are known to cause “annoyance.” The problem is, Dr. Colby, like many others, misrepresented what “annoyance” actually is.

    There are 2 types of annoyance. Commonly people like David Colby only consider PSYCHOLOGICAL ANNOYANCE. For example, I am “psychologically annoyed” that our government isn’t concerned about the health effects of industrial wind turbines. Remarkably, I am able to control this annoyance and I find a way to cope with it — for example, by venting on this website.

    The other type of annoyance is a PHYSICAL ANNOYANCE, such as occurs when low frequency and infrasound from industrial wind turbines assault the body. The effects on the body by ILFN are not entirely understood though research in the area is growing rapidly. There are hypotheses (and some proofs) that parts of the body – like the skeleton, inner ear, and stomach organs are vibrated by sounds in the ILFN range. Does David Colby think it would be possible for someone to control their reaction to this kind of annoyance?

    Consider it like this: if someone came up to you and poked you (gently) in the upper arm in the same spot over and over again–it would definitely be psychologically annoying, but it would also be physically annoying. Even if it was a light poke that didn’t hurt on its own, if you poked the same spot repeatedly and incessantly, your bicep would react to this unnatural stimulus. Your bicep would become “ANNOYED” or “STRESSED”. It would probably tense up, twitch, and bruise. If you developed a bruise, how much would it hurt if you kept poking it? And would you be able to fall asleep while experiencing “annoyance” like this?

    It’s ridiculous that David Colby would suggest that it is possible to control your response to the annoyance brought on by sound from industrial wind turbines. I can’t imagine a psychological regimen that would allow you to “control” your physical response, though prescription drugs might help.

    Not surprisingly, Dr. Nissenbaum’s study in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven DID reveal an alarmingly high rate of increased prescription drug use among people who live close to the IWT installation. It’s profoundly saddening: the only prescription for Wind Turbine Syndrome is to move away, or NOT BUILD THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    David Colby is a real disgrace. He is violating the Hippocratic Oath; he is misrepresenting what annoyance is; he is ignoring new research by Drs Salt, Nissenbaum and Hanning; he hasn’t spoken to or assessed a single victim and he has the audacity to call us all LIARS. He deserves all the professional and personal attacks he receives.

  15. Can anyone enlighten me regarding when/how the term “annoyance” came into being as a medical entity? I wonder if, somewhere along the line, the term “annoyance” was coined to replace “stress”, and thereby dismiss/ minimize the actual terrible, life-threatening effects of noise and infrasound on people and animals.

    “Post-traumatic annoyance syndrome” does not have the same connotation as the real thing.

    Does the convenient term “annoyance” obscure the inconvenient truth of the terrible, health-ruining, life-threatening effects of real stress?

    I will do some research.

  16. Right at this moment I am “Highly Annoyed” with Colby — is there a nearby treatment center which can cure me of this affliction?

  17. “Dear Mr Libby,
    There is no official registry for health complaints related to wind turbines… ”

    Guess where that came from.

    It is impossible to document health complaints if the medical officials and government refuse to accept them. Or even admit the POSSIBLITY that these problems exist.

  18. Here is the contact info for Mr. Colby. I will not give him the respect of calling him doctor.

    He is a legend in his own small mind.

    Email him your feelings on this issue .

    To contact Dr. Colby, please call the Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit at 519-352-7270 or by email at CKHealth@chatham-kent.ca

  19. “however, you can’t accommodate everyone.”
    Nice quote “doctor”. Tell that to all your patients?
    Obviously not a candidate for Industrial Planning either.

  20. people should write their complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. At least it would be on record.There should also be complaints registered against Dr. King. Both a disgrace to their profession and position not to mention the oath they took.

  21. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has already addressed Colby …

    “Furthermore, the Committee observes, Dr. Colby’s expertise is in medical microbiology and infectious diseases, an area quite distinct from audiology or other fields related to the physical impact of wind turbines on human health. Thus, the Committee wishes to remind Dr. Colby, going forward, of the importance of fully disclosing the extent of his qualifications in a field in which he has been retained as an “expert” and also to ensure that he fully disclose to the public the organization or corporation by whom he has been retained as an expert.”

  22. I wasn’t at the Tribunal to hear Colby but it reminds me of Dr Leaventhal’s testimony. I don’t know if both of them are training people to cope with unwanted noise free of charge.

    How does this testimony stack up with caution provided by the College of Physicians and Surgeons or did they not mean what they said. How many victims of wind turbines do we need before the College finds they have lost control of their profession. I think this needs to be followed up.
    How did the College get Colby off the hook as Colby says they did.

    As I sat listening to several days of testimony and keep wondering how the victims IWT’s feel where there are turbines already. They must feel pretty isolated not to mention the larger number of people that are going to be too close to them if Gov’t plans continue.

    I can’t imagine that the Tribunal doesn’t hear the false information but it will be interesting to see if they fall under the pressure of IWT developers and the present Ontario Gov’t. I hope they surprise us with an ethical response

  23. I have yet to hear of anyone “complain” that IWTs were an infectious disease and they are definitely not a microbe so why is Colby allowed to waste the tibunals time? The experts on living next to IWTS are living right next to turbines.

  24. Me

    Under what circumstances/ in what context did the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario address Dr. Colby?

    Was there a complaint against him to the CPSO?

    This seems very important to me. He could be skating on thin ice and his regulatory college may be quite open to hearing from others about concerns regarding his professional conduct.

    Concerned citizens of his jurisdiction should go the the CPSO forthwith.

  25. Again I raise this question: what in the world is the medical officer of health doing participating in a debate about wind turbines??

    People of Chatham-Kent, take this to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. And take it in numbers.

  26. The evidence Eric Gillespie and his team have put forward is solid and the cross examination has been brilliant. If there is any justice left, we will win the tribunal.

  27. Thank-you for this update, Lorrie.

    Thank-you for the “noise and health” link, Ian.

  28. I filed a complaint with the College over 12 months ago and it was rejected on the grounds that it was “Frivolous and Vexatious” and was similar to other complaints even though it contained mathematical proof that Colby was wrong along with validation between the work of Alex Salt and the hearing problems of a member of my family.

    Hope 6 ladies don’t file similar complaints against the same doctor for sexual misconduct because if these same “rules” apply the College will reject them on the grounds they are similar.

    In their rejection the College also “watered down” the warning to Colby and used that as another reason for rejection.

    This is now going to the HPARB (an arm of the health ministry, luckily within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman) and the process is excruciatingly slow and complex.

    I fully expect the complaint to be again rejected and at that time I will make all of the details public so that every Ontarian can see that the system is truly BROKEN!

  29. It would be difficult to establish “mathematical proof.” But advocating on behalf of the industry is a direct conflict of interest for the Medical Officer of Health whose job it is to protect the health and wellbeing of individuals and the community.

    Much of Colby’s reference material for “The Health Inpact of Wind Turbines” is taken from organizations which represent the interests of the industry. This in itself – science and mathematics aside – renders his review useless.

    I realize I am not saying anything new here. I just cannot comprehend how the conflict of interest , per diem payments notwithstanding, is not blatantly unacceptable to the CPSO.

    Politically Active, how strange that your complaint was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. I would like to have been a fly on that wall.

    Because the complaints have all, I gather, been dismissed, there is no public record of the proceedings. Too bad.

    It almost seems that very few people understand that CANWEA advocates for the wind industry. Perhaps the CPSO is also unaware of this. Otherwise how could they not intervene to end the conflict of interest to protect the public?

    I DON”T GET IT!!

  30. The HPARB should look at the conflict of interest. I wonder how per diem payment gets around this.

  31. Ian, I believe it is only the CPSO that can take disciplinary action against a member of that College. It seems that the individuals you contacted ought to have taken your concerns to the CPSO, or instructed/encouraged you to do so, and supported you in the complaint.

    I do not know how much information a regulatory College can gather about a member against whom there is a complaint involving conflict of interest. I doubt the member would have to divulge information about their stock portfolios, but who knows.

    The regulatory Colleges for Ontario health professions are responsible to the Ministry of Health, of course.

    What continues to elude me regarding Dr. Colby is how the CPSO could dismiss complaints about conflict of interest.

  32. Thanks very much, Ian.

    Barbara, this gives you what you asked Ian for.

  33. Dominion Paper, http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1473

    “Can Pew’s Charity Be Trusted?” , by Dru Oja Jay, Nov.25,2007

    Re: Dr. Colby,
    “and probably the Suncor logo tatooed to his chest.”

    “Under Pew,Sun Oil also founded Suncor,a Canadian counterpart to Sun Oil and currently one of the two largest operators in Alberta’s tar sands.”

  34. Lets get this out to the people we have to get onboard…

  35. Dr. Colby is one heck of a mathematician, and apparently he did all of this with computer modeling. Computer modeling as you know has been simulating the “warming” climate for over 20 years — and look how accurate it has been. Should we be afraid?

    I will just look at one thing to illustrate a point.

    Computer modeling was used to estimate the number of potential residential, vehicle, and person ice strikes within a typical wind farm environment in Southern Ontario. With a setback distance of 300 meters for buildings, 200 for vehicles, and 300 for individuals on the ground, the potential number of ice strikes to buildings is 1/500,000 years, vehicles 1/260,000 years, and 1/137,500,000 years for individuals on the ground.29 The minimum setback regulation in Chatham–Kent is 250 meters from an on-site residential dwelling and 600 meters from residential or institutional zones. This distance is within the generally accepted safety zones and concurs with safe levels of incident probability.

    It is unfortunate he did not show his statistical analysis I determine the numbers in his report. The analysis would be illuminating I am sure.

    Perhaps his code and data can be requested — only in the interests of transparency mind you.

    Ref[28] Says this about safety…

    Especially when installing wind turbines close to human activities (buildings, skiing resorts, roads, ship routes etc.) a special attention to the possibility of ice throw has to be given. In the WECO project a distance of 1.5(hub height + rotor diameter) between the turbines and the nearest object has been recommended [3] if no special precaution is foreseen at ice endangered sites. It is important to be
    able to monitor the status of the rotor blades and to observe the cases when the blades are iced. The safety demands are that the rotor blades are not allowed to move if there is a danger of ice throw and there is a risk to harm people and animals.

    It is apparently the reference for all those stats… There is lots of math in the paper — related to how much to heat the blades to prevent harm — to the blades…

    The seconf paper is a little more interesting. They actually did the simulations referred to based on an 80 meter hub height and an 80 meter rotor. see page 4 of 16…

    They used computer modeling (Monte Carlo Simulation — random numbers) and concluded that most ice would land withing 220 meters. They then validated their findings on the Tacke TW600 (In Kincardine) with the following specs — and concluded that most ice dropped off near the hub…

    General data

    * Wind turbine name : TW-600
    * Nominal power : 600 kW
    * Rotor diameter : 43 m
    * No more available
    * Offshore model : no

    Note the rotor diameter… See page eight of 16… where the turbine specs are not mentioned…

    The only known recorded and publicly available example of such observations in Ontario is from an existing Tacke TW600 wind turbine near Kincardine. The operator monitored the operation of that turbine since its installation in December 1995 until March 2001 [4.1]. In that period, approximately 1000 inspections were made, a manual note was made on each occasion. In these notes, some form of ice build-up on the wind turbine was recorded on 13 occasions during the December 1995 and March 2001 observation period, as reproduced in Table 4.1.

    Like many “scientific” studies it does not prove much of anything — but I am sure the pay is good.

    So is there validation for the claims? I would say no. The European study was done in 1996. The turbines are much larger and tip rotational velocity id much greater on the larger turbines of 2010.

    All in all I doubt that he could say what he did with any authority. But then, I am no medical doctor and maybe they have different rules.

  36. If people want to see how bad the research is and how shaky the claims on ice-throw for example see this paper…

    http://www.njwind.com/lempster/pdf/SEC%20Docs/24.%20Risk%20Analysis%20of%20Ice%20Throw%20-%20Seifert%20-%202003%20and%201998%20Papers.pdf

    Seifert 20003

    Note page 6 of 18 and the nice graphic which shows that ice will fall within less than 100 meters of a 120 tall turbine (rotor tip)

    Considering that turbines now are taller and the rotor tips spread over 88 meters typically this is hard to swallow — but then they don’t give rotor dimensions.

    Second conclusion? A medical doctor may not know how o read a paper about what is essentially a mechanical engineering issue and be able to conclude that the information is inconsistent with reality.

    For their simple equation and estimated to be true — the ice would have to fall off the rotor tips to the ground immediately below. Any takers for this theory?

    If I can pull one thing apart in less than an hour the rest of his references likely have conclusions that are opposite to the data as well.

    Colby, go Home!

  37. Because I stay away from my home which is surrounded by 18 Vestas 1.65 Mw INDUSTRIAL Wind Turbines, all within a THREE km RADIUS, I’m also here only briefly to use my computer, so my comments are going to be sparce and may belie the gratitude to those of you who have done the yeowo/man service above.

    Muriel: your article is absolutely brilliant.

    Andrew: in his very calm, logical quiet way, Eric Gillespie did indeed “take a strip off Colby” as you put it.

    politically active: please, PLEASE continue your correspondence and the legal avenues you discover to fight the fight which those of us who are left without a safe home can not do for ourselves. Our gratitude is bottomless.
    Shocked and Disgusted: glad to hear that you will be doing research.

    All: I have to leave as soon as I can, having been at the house for < 2 hr, doing a few chores left for me by my son who sometimes stays here because he WILL NOT see the house abandoned, my head feels as though it wants to explode. If I were forced to stay overnight, the analogy for the effects of the vibrations from those 18 IWT's, if you can put your imaginations to work, is like having 10 000 butterflies fluttering with their wings brushing every cell. Whether being awakened or aroused in the scientific meaning of those terms, my sleep is NOT RESTORATIVE, my immune system HAS broken and I am battling a bacterial assault on my respiratory system. I'm hoping massive doses of vitamin C [a la Linus Pauling] will fill the breach. I will be spending my day on the road, plan to hear McMurtry/Colby in Woodstock and back to my son's trailer hoping to have a restorative sleep.

  38. Wayne:

    The 250 Meters is from this:

    4 SAFETY
    Especially when installing wind turbines close to human activities (buildings, skiing resorts, roads, ship routes etc.) a special attention to the possibility of ice throw has to be given. In the WECO project a distance of 1.5(hub height + rotor diameter) between the turbines and the nearest object has been recommended [3] if no special precaution is foreseen at ice endangered sites. It is important to be
    able to monitor the status of the rotor blades and to observe the cases when the blades are iced. The safety demands are that the rotor blades are not allowed to move if there is a danger of ice throw and there is a risk to harm people and animals.

    Nothing to do with noise…

    Seifert — 2001 — nothing to do with noise…
    http://www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Publikations/seifert_ewec2001_icing.pdf

    Bad Science? From a doctor? Do you expect us to believe that Wayne?

    I quoted it above as well.

    It wasn’t just the Medical Science that was bad… Not to mention that they seemed to have looked for papers with outdated information — it makes the justification easier…

    According to them it is safe to be within 255 meters of a Vest V90 (3.0MW). This figure is being quoted as the safe distance for noise and mechanical (ice throw) safety. It seems to an inadequate number form either. But who checks references? That would be impolite and non-collegial… at least in climate science.

    and d = v m/s * (Dm/2 + Hm)/15

    v = wind velocity in m/s; D= Rotor Diameter; H = Hub Height.

    So the distance ice will fall from is V90 is mostly contained within…

    6 m/s * (45+ 80)/15 = 6m^2/s * 8.33(Note that units don’t work so this fundamental check fails) or about 50 meters from the hub….

    12 m/s — 100 meters from hub

    20 m/s 166 meters from hub

    25 m/s == 208 meters from hub.

    But you see the wind here is mostly 6m/s — yeah right…

    Anyway — these numbers are for a STILL STANDING turbine — you have to notice that — Rotors not spinning…

    What they don’t say is that do do not discuss thrown ice…

    So that is how you get the safe distance… pretty funny eh?

    The Garrard Hassan report seems to build on that result — though it claims otherwise. (By implication — you have to do “careful reading” to decode the “careful speaking”.

  39. windfarmrealities.org as well as all the other Member Sites and Other Sites are so full of relevant information, each group needs a dedicated member to find the information needed by their particular group to be disseminated.

    Again, many thanks, Wayne.

    Claire: in everyday language, annoyance is considered petty, inconsequential, of little importance, showing weakness of character.
    The medical definition is, as you say, closer to the idea of stress. Maybe you could address the editors of medical texts, asking them to relace the confusing word annoyance with a more incisive word which gets across the actual effect a substance or action has on the human body.

  40. Johana

    In my online research of medical dictionaries and encyclopedias, I have, so far, found only one reference to “annoyance” – relating to sand flies, not industrial wind turbines.

    I will keep looking.

  41. I am going to say that using the equations from here..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

    That likely the furthest piece of ice would be 330Meters if flung from a Vesta-V90 operating at a tip speed of 62.8 m/sec noting that the tip speed could be as high as 80 m/s and the blade tip speed could be in Km/h 305 km/h. SO maybe that is low… by 20-30%

    But hat is how they got the “safety setback” — not noise. It was based on mechanical issues.

  42. ICE THROW:

    Anyone that has a snowmobile trail on their farm or land should close it if the turbines planned will be beside them. I have given notice to the Snow mobile Association in our area that our trail will be closed next year if the 8 industrial wind turbines get the go ahead. I placed ads of notice to close in local papers. These people should be protesting with us to keep their trails safe.

Comments are closed.