Goldhawk Fights Back Podcast: Dr. Hazel Lynn

LISTEN_ICONGoldhawk Fights Back

Dr. Hazel Lynn, Medical Officer of Health for Grey-Bruce, says a new review of health literature indicates changes need to be made in the location of wind turbines–placing them a proposed two kilometers from homes, an increase from the current 550 metres.

19 thoughts on “Goldhawk Fights Back Podcast: Dr. Hazel Lynn

  1. WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have had a brief opportunity to look at the survey. It is a 32 – page booklet; 8 legal size papers, folded in half, printed front and back. Also included is a cover letter (1 page front and back) signed by Phil Bigelow, Tanya Christidis, Siva Sivoththaman, Leila Jalali MedicalDoctor, Mahtab Kamali, Susan Yates, Steve McColl, Laurie Hoffman-Goetz, Jane Law, Shannon Majowicz, Veronique Boscart, James Lane, Samriti Mishra, Claire Paller.

    Also included is a Contact Information Form on which you can select Yes or No about whether you are interested in being contacted for participation in the second part of this study.

    Also included is a self-addressed postage-paid envelope.


    Pass this message around.
    If you have filled out any part of the study, I advise do not provide it to anybody, and get copies made of it.
    If you have already sent your survey back,,,

    You can expect this survey will go down in infamy…

    This research is unethical.

    • Oops! I am referring to the University of Waterloo Renewable Energy Technologies and Health, “Quality of Life and Renewable Energy Technologies Study” survey that some folks have received in the mail.

  2. For example, the UW research study appears to violate the first principle of the Nuremberg Code, which requires the participant’s “informed consent” to be exposed to the risk/harm.

    More alarming is this obviously erroneous statement in the UW cover letter:
    “There are no known or anticipated risks to participation in this survey.”

    It will take a while to compile a more thorough response to these ethics violations. I encourage everyone to address these matters as thoroughly as possible.

    • I’m not quite as suspicious of the survey as you are, S&D, But nearly.
      However, you can’t help but wonder if someone’s tongue wasn’t in their cheek – “There are no known or anticipated risks to participation in this survey.”
      I mean, short of a paper cut or stabbing yourself with your pencil, what harm could come to you from taking the survey? Living near a turbine, OTOH…

      • Devaluing your property by admitting your home is toxic if you have been impacted ? Leaving you exposed to a future lawsuit if you were to sell ?

  3. I do not know all the details of this study, nor am I a lawyer. What I perceive is that there is an inherent conflict of interest in the way this study is set up. The Ontario Liberal government is, essentially, paying the University of Waterloo to do this study. It can be surmised, therefore, that it is in the best financial interest of those conducting the study to produce the results which the Ontario Liberals want – and I think we pretty much know what those results would look like – no proof of direct harm.

    I wonder if the Liberal government is advising UW on the way this study is conducted.

    Also, there is potential for those traumatized by industrial wind development to be re-traumatized by the skewed results of the study: that is, the “blame the victim” strategy would be used yet again.

    Perhaps some of those conducting the study will do so with the greatest of integrity and commitment to ethical methodology, and perhaps they are also unbiased. However, how can they find against the Liberal government? How can they bite the hand that feeds?

    Perhaps it is possible that this study may be a giant step forward – but for whom? As other posters have pointed out, it is vitally important to be fully educated and prepared so that the choice as to whether or not to participate is an informed one.

    I agree with “suspicious and dismayed” that the UW cover letter, with its waiver stating that there are no anticipated risks, is highly, highly unethical.

    • In theory, public academics are not beholden to their funders. But you’d be a fool to think that the results of a particular research project aren’t influenced by its form.

      One of the ethics considerations is that these researchers are “living off the avails of..” unrecognized negligence and ethics breaches.

      People are being exposed to known health risks. But, here’s the first sentence in the UW cover letter:

      “The Ontario Research program in Renewable Energy Technologies and Health (ORC-RETH) at the University of Waterloo is exploring if there is a relationship between quality of life and living within close proximity of renewable energy technologies such as solar farms, wind farms, and biogas plants.”

      By perpetuating the (disproved) notion of scientific uncertainty here, these researchers stand to gain more research funding to…

      • Exactly – problematic and unethical at so many levels. Appreciate your diligence.

    • “No cents, no feelings”

      “Ashley Smith worsened after witnessing prison hostage-taking: former warden”
      Colin Perkel, Globe and Mail, Feb 25, 2013

      “Before [Ashley Smith] would return to Nova, the facility requested another $88,242 from Ottawa for extra resources to help deal with her.”

      “Could living near wind turbines cause stress? Ottawa plans to find out”
      Steve Rennie, Globe and mail, Feb 15, 2013

      “Western University has been picked to do the study, worth $88,140.

    • “Shipping Stephen Harper’s armoured limos to India cost $1 million: DND”
      National Post, John Visser and Allison Cross, Jan 29, 2013

      It cost taxpayers exactly $1,061,448 to ship armour-plated limousines to India last year for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s official visit, documents from the Department of National Defence have revealed.

      “You know, many of these developing countries are not easy to crack in terms of investment,” Harper told Postmedia before the trip.


      “Taking into account operational requirements, including the protectee, public and offlcer safety considerations and a threat assessment of the events/environment, the ACMP determined there were no appropriate vehicles available in lndia.”

  4. A 2km setback is the least they can do, and that is for the smaller turbines. The setback should increase as the size does. And of course, this needs to be retroactive, either move the turbines, or fairly compensate, and assist affected people in relocation.

Leave a Reply

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