Federal wind turbine rules coming

New guidelines will recommend minimum safe distances between homes and wind towers
By Dave Hutton And Jeff Davis, Ottawa Citizen
Health Canada is drafting national guidelines for electricity-generating wind turbines that will establish a recommended minimum safe distance between the structures and homes.  Across Canada, many are concerned about “wind turbine syndrome,” a suite of symptoms suffered by some living in proximity to wind turbines. Anxiety, sleeping problems and headaches are among the negative health effects some think are caused by the low frequency hum emitted by wind turbines.  Read article

14 thoughts on “Federal wind turbine rules coming

  1. “At this stage, they’re looking very similar to Ontario,” said McKinnon. “There will only be minor discrepancies (to Ontario’s regulations).”
    Hang on to yer hat, Ontario is a sinking ship for any sort of true regulations. Ontario still doesn’t have the tools to measure the inaudible sound from Industrial Wind Turbines, can you Govt. of Canada?

  2. “Health Canada has been working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to draft voluntary Canadian Guidelines for Wind Turbine Noise,”

    If they are not working with the people who have abandoned or moved away from their homes
    nothing will change. What they are looking at is how many turbines will the wind companies and province lose if they go higher than 550 meters , 800 or 1000 or 1500 meter setbacks? Nope can’t do that, too many turbines will not fit in between rural concessions and occupied dwellings.

  3. You can bet that Wind Corps will be in with the talks with our federal public employees and leaving the bosses at home to deal with the effects of there mishandling of our best intentions. We have another federal government which is called the Harper government and not the Canadian government which is another dictator working to please the others.

  4. Expect zero beneficial from “health” canada (hc), adding their name to the list of “authorities”
    deaf to people’s complaints will exacerbate matters. In my area of strong involvement, the grave dangers of wireless communications, “safety” code 6 of hc is at the crux. Provinces’ right to legislate re health is worthless when they all in co-ordinated fashion (via fptrpc) defer to hc “expertise” as expressed in code 6. This appeal to hc is meant to diminish heat on provincial governments, by spreading the blame for inaction around, pointing to a “higher authority”, adding a layer for distraction, etc.

  5. I am not convinced this is a positive step, especially if they propose setbacks similar to Ont, The point in all the controversy is that Ont, setbacks are much too close, and based on trial and error.
    There has never been a thorough study in Ont. on safe distance to minimize health risks This is what is required. I suspect that such buikding codes come under provincial legislation. Federal guidelines based on Ont. would simply justify the existing codes. The real fight remains with Ont,.not the federal government.

    • It’s not a positive step as Health Canada could end up using Ontario guidelines. Questions are. Which Ontario Ministries are providing Health Canada with guideline proposals? Why has this been kept from public view?

      • Presumably Ministry of Environment, which has the lead hand for dealing with turbines in Ont. I was present at a meeting with MOE staff and no one could state what studies prompted the 550 m setback guidelines. As i said they are based on trial and error with residents serving as the guinea pigs..

  6. “If the public is feeling there are effects, we need to look into that,” McKinnon said. “There has been an extensive consultation process for these guidelines, but the work doesn’t stop in terms of continually examining the evidence.”

    Extensive consultation with who exactly? Not those already affected!!!!

  7. Well, from everything I’ve been able to learn, 550 metres is more than enough to be sure a turbine tower that falls over, won’t hit your house. I heard a big wind lawyer say that “ice throw” won’t go 550 metres. That’s all he seemed concerned with–their liability for physical damage. That setback also maximizes turbine density in a given area, knowing that the turbines can’t be spaced too closely. The turbulent air currents, or wash, downwind of the blades reduces the efficiency if turbines are too close together. A maximum setback of 550 metres maximizes turbine density when a wind farm is erected with homes around the perimeter.

  8. In a letter written by Mark Wales ,President of OFA printed in the Simcoe Reformer on Dec. 19 ,one of the points he made was that the OFA working on the Green Energy Act had raised the setback limit from 420 to 550 meters.
    On Fri. Jan. 20 on the Dale Goldhawk radio talk show Carmen Krogh stated that she had offered her input to the Health Canada panel in setting guidelines on wind turbines. It was not accepted. One would think that with all the years of research and personal dialogue that Ms Krogh has had with people suffering from the effects of Wind Turbine Syndrome (and some of them are heartbreaking ,she stated) that she would be a valuable asset on the panel. She also asked who was on the Panel and that information was not given to her . Should this information not be transparent ?
    How effective are voluntary guidelines ? If developers do not have to comply with the guidelines , then this is just another diversionary exercise .

    • Even the 550 m setback is not strictly adhered to, see the story on these pages of the CAW tower in Port Elgin, which is closer to existing homes.
      How is it that some European countries have setbacks 2 or 3 times as great, though land is far scarcer than in Ont.?

      • Ontario Ministers of Health and Long-Term Care, Source Wikipedia
        George Smitherman, Oct.23,2003-June 20,2008
        David Caplan, June 20,2008-Oct.6,2009
        Deb Matthews, Oct.,7,2009-Present

  9. What I see –
    The OFA – a huge lobby group ‘squirming’!
    The bigger question is:
    Why are they coming out ‘with concerns’ now? – after years of supporting
    the ‘Green Scam’!
    Wasn’t the Green Energy Act supposed to bring
    great wealth and prosperity to farmers, and, add security for
    future generations of farmers?

    In the grand ‘Green’ scheme – the OFA it’s a big FAIL.
    Good Luck @ Queens Park!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *