by Harvey Wrightman –
It was a relief to have Eric Gillespie take the floor – Ms. Harris, the MOE layer, dressed-down in a smock and designer jeans, acted more like a student presenting a paper that needed more polish and irritated by the master’s remarks.
With Eric, we were back to analysis and logic.
He pointed out that it’s rather premature to consider dismissal of this action when there has only been one decision, Kent Breeze, which did establish the concept that wind turbines can cause serious health effects. He went on to say that even Dr. Leventhall has accepted all the symptoms of WTS (Wind Turbine Syndrome) as stated by Dr. Pierpont. The argument now is only how much separation between man and machine is required and what percentage of the population may be affected – somewhere in a range of 5% – 30%. The current state of scientific investigation does not specify what causes the malady; but, we know noise, EMF, light flicker are involved. The evidence that has been presented is as much as science allows, so far.
However, one can say that irrespective of:
1) the make or model of wind turbine
2) the number of wind turbines in a project
3) the type of receptor; i.e., whether young or old, educated or not, whatever the occupation
4) whether the topography is flat or rolling
…you still see the “effects” that Dr. Leventhall happily accepts as caused by Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT’s).
Perhaps, since there are effects from previous wind projects, the MOE should speak about that to us; and, the MOE should provide both the predictive noise modeling for those projects and the post-construction noise testing (the little that they actually have.)
Instead the MOE and NextEra are seeking from us (the appellant), 10 years’ worth of victim medical records, most of which are not pertinent to the investigation. It’s not surprising that the appellant has not procured all this evidence as such evidence is not needed to make the appellant’s case, because:
- the vast majority of “effects” are subjective – only the patient can describe them.
- there are no tests for nausea or the degree of nausea experienced
- there are no tests for dizziness
- Explanations can be suggested, but exact causes can be unknown.
- basically, the patient is the most sensitive measuring instrument available.
So far, the recognized experts in this field are non-medical: Dr. Leventhall is an acoustical engineer. Dr. Thorne is a psycho-acoustician. The regulator (MOE) has not relied on medical science for its decisions on regulations, and the wind companies haven’t used medical science for design or for operating protocols. The question is then:
Why all the sudden interest in patient medical records when no medical studies were ever used in development? You can’t have it both ways.
Mr. Gillespie went on to state that medical records that are relevant to the case are available. What the appellant won’t provide is the huge amount (10 years) of unuseful detail that the MOE and NextEra want. He went on to say that the Courts long ago developed a way to handle such requests – relevancy – the request must meet the standard of relevancy. If it doesn’t, then the asking party pays for the research. That soon puts an end to what is euphemistically called, “fishing expeditions.” And when he said that I could detect smirks and face coloration of the lawyers on the other side of the room. They knew very well what they were doing, and now they were being called on it. As Mr. Gillespie said, the ERT doesn’t have to copy the exact same rules as the Court, but the same principles should apply. Each party pays for its own case.
The problem with medical records is the examinations of patients and what it reveals. There are very few medical experts for what is known as “wind turbine syndrome” or WTS. The average GP doesn’t have the experience and even the Chief Medical Officer of Health admitted, under oath, that only direct health effects (hearing loss) were considered in her report. Nothing about effects through secondary pathways.
Comically and sadly our pool of experts consists of:
1) the subject/witnesses (that makes sense) and
2) the few acknowledged expert witnesses such as Dr’s Leventhall, Thorne and McCunney who will review and analyze the subject/witness testimony in this case.
These people are all available and the relevant medical records are too. Mr. Gillespie concluded saying, it’s only the unreasonable demands of the MOE and NextEra that stands in the way. The appellant is ready.
In reply, Ms. Harris weakly restated that the appellant must come to an appeal with all the medical records on hand – or, said another way, the appellant must be able to read the MOE counsel’s mind.
Next up, Bill Monture
Please support these appeals: