A stampede to the exits

08bryce_1-popupby Harvey Wrightman
In the 6 years and 6 Environmental Review Tribunal appeals we have been appellants to, there has been a bagful of issues connected with wind projects and how they are “imposed” upon ordinary working communities without the express consent of the communities –  in newspeak, that would be “social license.”  Yet the one issue that drew us to actively oppose wind projects (health effect), remains at the top of the list and all other issues really come as a result of the harm to health that occurs, picking its victims at random, that one cannot say, “It won’t affect me.”

So the recent study done by acoustician Steven Cooper for Pacific Hydro has set a bomb off  amongst the….umm, the wind wankers – an all inclusive category for the acousticians, $800/hour lawyers, PR people, the smirking engineers and administrators of the MOECC and the ERT, the clueless politicians, the sleepy investment bankers.

But success leads to outrageous behaviour. Pac Hydro was assured by its “experts”  that nothing would be found; so, acting the bit of the good, green corporate citizen it agreed to have Cooper do the study, and agreed to provide the operational co-operation that is essential to producing accurate data. Curiously they refused to have the study submitted to a professional journal for peer review – perhaps an afterthought – what if he does find something??? No matter, peer review can be done by, well, peers in the field. And so two of the most respected names in the American acoustical community, Paul Schomer and George Hessler, have published their review of Cooper’s study. Hessler has done numerous noise assessments for wind companies. Schomer is Standards Director Acoustical Society of America.

None of what is published will come as a surprise to the many individuals I encountered who experienced the same sensations resulting in the same symptomatic responses and the entirely rational response of fleeing the scene. Now your observations have been validated by two of the most prominent acousticians in the US.  With an ethical obligation to protect the public, one awaits the stampede of engineers to the exits. Some have already done so.

The Results of an Acoustic Testing Program, Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm
Prepared for Energy Pacific by Steve Cooper, The Acoustic Group
A Review of this Study and Where It Is Leading

Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.; Schomer and Associates, Inc.; Standards Director, Acoustical Society of America
George Hessler, Hessler Associates, Inc.
10 February 2015

Recently Cooper has completed a first of its kind test regarding the acoustical emissions of wind turbines. His is the first study of effects on people that includes a cooperating windfarm operator in conjunction with a researcher that does not work exclusively for windfarms. This study makes three very simple points:

  1. There is at least one non-visual, non-audible pathway for wind turbine emissions to reach, enter, and affect some people
  2. This is a longitudinal study wherein the subjects record in a diary regularly as a function of time the level of the effects they are experiencing at that time
  3. This periodic recording allows for responses as the wind-turbine power changes up and down, changes not known by the subject

The results are presented in a 218 page report augmented by 22 appendices spread over 6 volumes so that every single detail in the study has been documented for all to see and examine. The methods and results are totally transparent. The 22 appendices and the main text exhaustively document everything involved with this study.

Six subjects, 3 couples from different homes are the participants in this study. They do not represent the average resident in the vicinity of a wind farm. Rather, they are self-selected as being particularly sensitive and susceptible to wind farm acoustic emissions, so much so that one couple has abandoned their house. Cooper finds that these six subjects are able to sense attributes of the wind turbine emissions without there being an audible or visual stimulus present. More specifically, he finds that the subject responses correlate with the wind turbine power being generated but not with either the sound or vibration.

Although the very nature of a longitudinal study provides for a finding of cause and effect, some will undoubtedly argue that a correlation does not show cause and effect. In this case they must postulate some other thing like an unknown “force” that simultaneously causes the wind turbine power being generated and symptoms such as nausea, vertigo, and headaches to change up and down together. But that is the kind of “creative” logic it takes to say that this correlation does not represent cause-and-effect. So, rather than making such groundless arguments, perhaps something like an “expert statistical analysis” can be expected “proving” this is not a “valid sample” of the public at large, or proving the study does not do something else it was neverintended to do.

So it is important to sort out what, by design, this study was intended to do and does do, and what, by design, it was not intended to do and does not do. This study is not in any way a sample of the general population nor is it in any way a sample of the general population in the vicinity of windfarms. According to Cooper’s report, this study was intended to address the issue of complaints from residents in the vicinity of Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm. Pacific Hydro requested the conduct of an acoustic study at 3 residential properties to ascertain any identifiable noise impacts of the wind farm operations or certain wind conditions that could relate to the complaints that had been received. The study was to incorporate three houses that are located between 650 m and 1600 m from the nearest turbine. This research represents a case study at 3 houses, each with one couple, 6 people. This is one sample, and only one sample, of a small group of people who are all self-selected as being very or extremely sensitive to wind turbine acoustic emissions. A similar group could be assembled elsewhere such as in Shirley Wisconsin, USA or Ontario Canada.

This study finds that these 6 people sense the operation of the turbine(s) via other pathways than hearing or seeing, and that the adverse reactions to the operations of the wind turbine(s) correlates directly with the power output of the wind turbine{s} and fairly large changes in power output.

Attempts may be made to obviscate (sic) these simple points with such arguments as it cannot be proved that infra-sound is the cause of the discomfort. But that again is a specious argument. The important point here is that something is coming from the wind turbines to affect these people and that something increases or decreases as the power output of the turbine increases or decreases. Denying infra-sound as the agent accomplishes nothing. It really does not matter what the pathway is, whether it is infra-sound or some new form of rays or electro-magnetic field coming off the turbine blades. If the turbines are the cause, then the windfarm is responsible and needs to fix it. Anyone who truly doubts the results should want to replicate this study using independent[1] acoustical consultants at some other wind farm, such as Shirley Wisconsin, USA, where there are residents who are self-selected as being very or extremely sensitive to wind turbine acoustic emissions.[2]

Some may ask, this is only 6 people, why is it so important? The answer is that up until now windfarm operators have said there are no known cause and effect relations between windfarm emissions and the response of people living in the vicinity of the windfarm other than those related to visual and/or audible stimuli, and these lead to some flicker which is treated, and “some annoyance with noise.” This study proves that there are other pathways that affect some people, at least 6. The windfarm operator simply cannot say there are no known effects and no known people affected. One person affected is a lot more than none; the existence of just one cause-and-effect pathway is a lot more than none. It only takes one example to prove that a broad assertion is not true, and that is the case here. Windfarms will be in the position where they must say: “We may affect some people.” And regulators charged with protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry will not be able to say they know of no adverse effects. Rather, if they choose to support the windfarm, they will do so knowing that they may not be protecting the health and welfare of all the citizenry.

[1] Independent Consultants are those who have worked for both industry and communities, and or have espoused the need for research to sort out the issues of people reacting to non-audible non-visual stimuli.

[2] Cooper’s test shows cause and effect for at least one non-visual, no-audible pathway to affect people. If one only wanted to test for the ability to sense the turning on of wind turbines, and not replicate the cause and effect portion of Cooper’s study, this reduced test could be accomplished in one to two months with a cooperative windfarm where there are residents who are self-selected as being very or extremely sensitive to wind turbine acoustic emissions and who also assert that they have this sensing ability. This study, a subset of the full Cooper tests, would only prove, again, that non-visual, non-auditory pathways exist by which wind turbine emissions may affect the body and “signal” the brain.

Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.; and George Hessler


Also… As one would expect, superb commentary of Cooper’s study and the peer review of Schomer & Hessler on Stop These Things.

32 thoughts on “A stampede to the exits

  1. Pingback: Steven Cooper has Windweasels on the Run! Truth is the Windpusher’s Enemy! | "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

  2. “….Yet the one issue that drew us to actively oppose wind projects (health effect), remains at the top of the list and all other issues really come as a result of the harm to health that occurs…”

    True enough. But there’s an equally important point to be made to all thinking Ontarians: Wind Power does not provide any benefit to the Environment. To claim otherwise is the BIG LIE.

  3. Don’t mean to be cynical but there have been several times that I felt decisions or science should have been swayed in favour of the anti wind side because of the TRUTH. One of which was the constitutional challenge by Julian Falconer in London in November. The pendulum swings up with anticipating hopes for our side and then swings back down in favour of Big Wind. At some point this scam will collapse but the tragedy is the irreversible damage it will leave in it’s wake before it does.

    • To minimize the psychological torment experienced by so many people who are directly affected by these turbines in rural Ontario, is evidence of psychopathy…lack of compassion.
      The folks who have suffered /are suffering from this renewable energy experiment deserve/need a great deal of support. And yes, there has been serious damage. The word ‘tragedy’ is not an overstatement.
      When one considers that the alarmism and catastrophic predictions of climate change which led us into this experiment, is in serious question within the scientific community, the ethics of acceptance of ‘collateral damage’ /rural residents in close proximity becomes absolutely disgusting.
      All people supporting the Constitutional Challenge are consciously choosing to contribute to the use of proper protocol to get to the bottom of this. This is how they are coping with their rage.

  4. i like to say stand in truth and it will eventually come thru. Just like all this legal fraud.the legal names,this triple crown has duped us into. So has this wind scam that was so hard to penetrate because they use money to buy off your public servants to serve there best interests and bill you and me to fill there bank accounts. Nice ehe?

    Slowly but surely truth wiggles it way threw like a shining star lighting up the darkness they hide in.

  5. So, again, proof is obvious to those willing to listen, but the money makes the pro wind people see green. There is non so blind as he who will not see!

  6. Hey Ontario!

    ‘[excerpt] But success leads to outrageous behaviour. Pac Hydro was assured by its “experts” that nothing would be found; so, acting the bit of the good, green corporate citizen it agreed to have Cooper do the study, and agreed to provide the operational co-operation that is essential to producing accurate data. Curiously they refused to have the study submitted to a professional journal for peer review – perhaps an afterthought – what if he does find something??? No matter, peer review can be done by, well, peers in the field. And so two of the most respected names in the American acoustical community, Paul Schomer and George Hessler, have published their review of Cooper’s study. Hessler has done numerous noise assessments for wind companies. Schomer is Standards Director Acoustical Society of America.’


    Sometimes –
    – you just have to say – ‘Thank You’

    Good News!
    – a new CEO – Mr. Michael Fuge

    The world is watching!

    • Another example of following “paper” trails.

      Some “paper” trails are long and some are short while other trails are circular. And there are different kinds of “paper” trails in this “green” energy fiasco.

      Many posters at OWR have followed these different kinds of trails but just didn’t call them trails.

  7. I sure hope your theory holds true in this case ‘farmer’.
    My worry is that it’ll be too late for most of us, we’ll never be compensated for our losses, but will become / remain forgotten sacrificial lambs.
    If Christine Elliot becomes the next PC leader & the next On. premier, she isn’t saying that she’ll do anything to help those of us whose lives have been devastated by IWTs placed way too close to homes, schools, etc, but will only stop Wind projects in future with a moratorium on new builds.
    Monte McNaughten on the other hand, promises to not only stop future builds, but also cancel all IWTs in operation and tear them all down. But is that too extreme to win an election? It’s definately the right thing to do but….. Patrick Brown, probably the smartest, most experienced of the three, is somewhere in between. So, do your homework before selecting your choice for the next Ontario PC leader & premier of this destroyed (totally by these incumbent Liberals) province. You have only until Feb. 28 to join the PCs & get to vote for the next premier, our only hope of saving Ontario for future generations.

  8. It’s absolutely unacceptable to think that people whose lives have been ruined by industrial wind turbines will be abandoned. Where in this province do we stand by and watch such things happen? The fact that there has been very little media coverage of this story is very significant. Once we can fully expose this crime, people will be outraged to learn what has happened because of this government’s wilful blindness and intransigence.

    • The MSM is so busy protecting the money people, IMO

      Most of the time information has to be obtained from other sources outside of the Ontario MSM. Even outside of Canada for information sources.

    • From WCO Link


      Ottawa Citizen, Feb.17,2015

      ‘Gordon: the future cost of Canada’s oil over-dependence’

      “All of this should be a little frightening if you’re a Canadian, because while we continue our march toward climate change pariah status on the global stage and reject progressive ideas like a carbon tax, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper put it recently, it would be ‘crazy’ not to, a sustainable energy revolution is no longer just a fantastical fantasy of the ‘elite’. It has already begun.”


      Note the use of the words: pariah,reject,sustainable, revolution and fantacy in one short paragraph.

      One can only hope that competent climate scientists can turn this situation around as soon as possible.

      When a major news paper publishes this kind of thing, is it any wonder that the public believes this?

      • Sommer, last week I was following a discussion at Watts Up on gases and whether or not water vapor is a “gas” or liquid when in the atmosphere/air.

        Also about the molecular lattice work of solids as water can exist in the solid, liquid and “gas” states. All of this in relation to greenhouse gases.

        Just how many people can understand and or follow discussions such as these were in relation to “climate change” if they don’t have a science background?

        Easy to fool the public about scientific issues.

      • Scientists live from one batch of grant money to the next batch of grant money just as some people live from one payday to the next payday.

        Universities get a percentage of the grant money for administering the grant money. So it pays to keep issues going.

      • It may take a combination of competent scientists and the courts to turn this around. Some scientists are calling for the alarmists to answer rigorous questioning under oath.
        Right now major newspapers are complicit, so it doesn’t surprise me at all to see an opinion piece like this published.
        I’ve been following many major stories where MSM has consistently published lies long after the truth has been exposed. Their complicity will be deemed criminal eventually.

      • The Guardian, Feb.18, 2015

        ‘What pushes scientists to lie? The disturbing but familiar story of Haruko Obokata’

        Most experiments are never reproduced as there are too many of them. And researchers prefer to take on new scientific issues.

        Alexis Carrel, New York City c.1912, was a Nobel Prize winner for medical research and his fraud was not discovered until after his death


      • The Museum of Hoaxes

        Select Hoax Archives and scroll down to Scientific Fraud.

        ‘The Piltdown Chicken’ (Oct 1999)

        Even The National Geographic Society got taken in.

        There have been many cases of scientific fraud down through the centuries. And the public should become informed about this.

  9. https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015/02/15/media-watch-just-skimmed-my-report-researcher/
    By SONIA KOHLBACHER | The Australian | February 16, 2015

    ‘[excerpt] The study by acoustics expert Steven Cooper measured the sensations felt by a group of residents who had complained of health concerns, and matched their diary records with the wind farm operations. The study found a correlation between severe sensations experienced by the small group of residents studied and the power output of the turbines at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria.

    The Cooper report has been hailed internationally as representing a breakthrough in the study of wind turbines and possible impacts.

    The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd has extensively reported on the findings of the study after they were released last month and has been the subject of inquiries by Media Watch journalist Flint Duxfield.

    Media Watch has asked The Australian to justify the prominent coverage it gave to the study.

    Mr Cooper was critical of Duxfield when contacted by The Australian yesterday, and said the journalist had failed to properly read his report before making inquiri­es into its fair and accurate representation in the media.

    Mr Cooper said he was appalled by the ABC’s attempts to contact his office, which he said was “hounded” by hourly calls over a four-day period.

    “In the end I spoke to them to answer questions and I wasn’t overly impressed,” he said.

    “They were after Channel Seven and Graham Lloyd, and in the end his inquiries were about people not reading and reporting incorrect information.

    “It got to a point where he was asking questions and I said, ‘You haven’t read the report’, to which he replied, ‘Oh, I’ve skimmed the report’, and I said, ‘Well that’s a problem, you’re here about talking about people misrepresenting but you haven’t read the report’.

    “He just tried to talk about people misrepresenting. I did tell him that what Graham Lloyd had presented was correct. “

    Media Watch host Paul Barry, responding on behalf of Duxfield, said he was not party to the conversation, “but I can tell you that he is always unfailingly courteous and never hounds anyone — and yes, Flint has read the report”.’

  10. With renewable energy there is the primary financial market which supplies the food chain with money. Now there is a secondary financial market developing off from renewable energy such as bundling, YieldCos and sale of royalties and land leases for example.

    Then there all the grants to organizations, universities and colleges.

    Ontario has become a “gold-mine” for renewable energy interests.

    • U.S. Department Of Commerce
      International Trade Administration, April, 2014

      ‘Opportunities for U.S. Renewable Energy and Smart Grid Exports in Canada’s Electricity Market’

      Key Players in Canada’s eEectricity Market include:
      At the National Level:

      Natural Resources Canada
      Environment Canada
      National Energy Board

      Also has lists down to the provincial level.


      If you, foreign company, want to do energy business in Canada these are the places to contact.

      • But if you’re an Ontario citizen, and inquire with your (federal) Member of Parliament, she’ll tell you that IWTs are a provincial issue, and send you on that run-around.
        Maybe she’s a liar.

      • Canada’s Economic Action Plan

        ‘Tax Support for Clean Energy Generation’

        “Through Canada’s Economic Action Plan the Government is committed to supporting clean energy by encouraging businesses to invest in clean energy generation and energy efficiency equipment.”


        An example of government tax policy being used to promote an industry.

        Then Ontario also has tax incentives to promote renewable energy.

    • Energy and Mine Minister’s Conference, Yellowknife, August 2013

      ‘Canada-A Global Leader in Renewable Energy’

      P.7, Canada’s Tax Measures

      In 2006 the Government of Canada extended to 2020 the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance.
      Start-up expenses may be done quickly as Renewables and Conservation Expenses and be fully deductible in the year they are incurred, carried forward for deduction in later years or can be renounced to shareholders through a flow-through share agreement.


      Canadian Government tax policy in favour of renewable energy.

      “Renounced to the shareholders” through flow-through agreements is where the new secondary renewable energy projects markets fits in with bundling, selling yieldcos, and etc.

      Also the reason some of these renewable energy companies pay little or no federal taxes.

      • Barbara, in response to your comment on scientific information and the difficulty the average person has in understanding the fraudulent information we’ve been given by the alarmists—Here’s an example of an excellent attempt to show people how important C02 is to the growth of plants.

        I highly recommend that everyone takes a look at this time lapse video.

        Efforts are being made to educate us on such matters.

Leave a Reply

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