Defunct Wind Turbines to be dismantled on Sable Island

Sable Island – such a ridiculous place to even think of putting wind turbines, but the Feds went ahead and did it. Canadian Press describes how the turbines never really did anything… they were dead from the get go.

“The harsh conditions and extreme isolation of Sable Island have forced Ottawa to abandon a wind project on the iconic crescent-shaped sandbar — more than 15 years after it launched the initiative. Parks Canada said wind turbines don’t meet the needs of the wind-swept Nova Scotia island, famous for the wild horses that have roamed there since the 18th century.”

“When asked for the total cost of the project to date, Environment Canada said just under $1 million had been spent on the project as of 2006. It will cost another $150,000 to decommission the turbines, it said. The original budget for the wind project was $669,000.”

“Parks Canada said it hopes to develop “a reduced facility footprint, more efficient operations, reduced electricity demand, and renewable power generation” on Sable. The decommissioning will happen in two phases: The battery and switch gear were removed in 2015, and the towers and turbines are scheduled to be dismantled and removed this fall, Parks Canada said.”


It’s news that they are taking the turbines down, but it isn’t news that the damn things never worked. Here’s a CBC story from 2011. Remember – components started arriving at the island to be assembled way back in 2002. By 2011 they still weren’t producing power for the island!

“Officials estimate it will cost another $660,000 to refurbish or replace what is now aging or obsolete equipment. It took years to assemble, secure and properly connect the five towers that now hold the wind turbines. In the summer of 2005, just after the turbines were hooked up and generating power, a piece of equipment called the inverter malfunctioned.”

“Environment Canada said in an email to CBC News that “during commissioning, it was discovered that a manufacturing defect —improper software — resulted in improper currents, and some transistors were damaged.” Even though the damaged equipment was replaced and the proper software installed not long after the test, the system remains offline.

“Although the wind turbines are generating electricity … other improvements are needed to create a system that effectively uses the electrical power generated by the turbines,” said Environment Canada spokesperson Mark Johnson. Environment Canada said it has completed an assessment of the entire system to determine whether any of it needs replacement.”
———

It was broken. They tried to fix it and it still didn’t work. So they just let it all rot away, because – thank God! – they had diesel generators going the whole time!

Say NO to Double Standard on Species at Risk Penalties!

In the last few days these three stories came out. Please read them, and then respond to those who are failing to protect these Species at Risk below. 

1. Penalty for Canaport songbird deaths

…The deaths of thousands of songbirds at the Canaport LNG terminal more than three years ago resulted in a $750,000 penalty against the company… In September 2013, thousands of birds were drawn to a 10-to-15-metre gas flare during a period of fog and low cloud. Twenty-six species of migratory birds died, including four Canada warblers, a threatened species…

2. Former Liberal Pres. Crawley built worst ‘bat killing wind farm’ in Canada: 85 bats killed/turbine/yr

…This was an AIM PowerGen/International Power Corporation project – whose president is none other than the past Federal and Ontario Federal Liberal Party President Mike Crawley. It was approved  in 2009, and pretty much nothing more was said about it since. Which is so wrong. Let me explain. The “five” reports stuck out because usually (if the project is not killing over the ‘limits’ set by the government) there are only three reports. That means some ‘mitigation reporting’ was happening, for some reason. Well that reason became pretty obvious within seconds of looking at the 2011 report. How does 85.42 bats killed per wind turbine strike you? Or how about 53.1% of them being the Endangered Little Brown Bat?…

3. Minister says thanks but no thanks, to wind energy review pleas

…McKenna wrote that current research shows wind turbines kill relatively few birds when compared to cats, windows on buildings, vehicles and transmission lines.”Monitoring studies of existing wind farms in Ontario have shown that while some birds are incidentally killed, mortality rates as well as cumulative mortality of species that have been found incidentally killed to date are not likely to have a biologically significant impact on provincial population levels of those species,” McKenna wrote. “However, it is possible that turbine sites in areas with important populations of some species at risk could have impacts on those populations.”…


***Send a message to the key decision makers by filling out the form below with your own comments or copy and paste the following message into the comment section below:

The other day I read that LNG was fined $750,000 for killing 4 Species at Risk (SAR) in New Brunswick. Fair enough.

But I also read the 2011 Bird and Bat Mortality Report for the Mohawk Point Wind project in Haldimand County. It appears that this wind company killed around 270 SAR, in just one season. To be more specific – it was the Endangered Little Brown Bat that was all but wiped out by this project’s 6 wind turbines.

And I’m left wondering why this wind company wasn’t fined. In fact, I’m wondering why they were allowed to continue to operate year after year ever since. Even with mitigation measures, they were only able to bring the kill rate of the bats down to 24.27 bats/turbine/year by 2013 – over double the allowed limit in Ontario. Several years later now, it appears no government agency is even counting the deaths there anymore – they are just happening, and those who know, turn a blind eye.

This project continues to operate, and kill SAR, with impunity. Please explain to me the reason for the double standard. Or if it isn’t a double standard, and somehow the government just missed this violation, I might as will give you this link (below) to all the other wind turbine Bird/Bat mortality reports in Ontario, because there are hundreds of SAR that have been killed in these reports, and none of the operators have ever been penalized at all. So of course they continue their operations as usual.

Canadian Wind Turbine Bird and Bat Mortality Reports https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B24A4SH_cewXV0VhTENxTGp3LVk

I’m frankly sick and tired of watching wind developers get off scot free for this kind of slaughter that’s happening before our very eyes. If it’s wrong for LNG to kill endangered species, it’s wrong for all the wind companies in Canada to kill them as well. Apply the law consistently!

Awaiting your reply,

Subject: No Double Standard on Species at Risk Penalties! 


Form will be sent to:

  • Fed. Min. of Environment: Catherine McKenna
  • Fed. Min. of Natural Resources: Jim Carr
  • Fed. Conservative Environment critic: Ed Fast
  • Fed. Conservative Natural Resources critic: Candice Bergen
  • Ontario Min. Natural Resources: Kathryn McGarry
  • Ontario Min. of Environment: Glenn Murray
  • Ontario PC Natural Resources critic: Todd Smith
  • Ontario PC Environment critic: Lisa Thompson
  • Ontario PC Leader: Patrick Brown
  • Ontario PC Energy critic: John Yakabuski, Energy Critic,
  • Ontario NDP Natural Resources critic: Gilles Bisson

Tribunal rules against Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens in lawsuit over Ontario wind projects

t-boone-pickensJohn Miner, London Free Press
A lawsuit by a Texas oil tycoon that alleged political interference at the highest levels in the awarding of Ontario wind farm contracts has been rejected by an international tribunal.

In what sources say was a split decision, the tribunal confirmed Canada complied with its obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The decision left a spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli boasting that Ontario is a global leader in clean energy development. He said Ontario will continue to work with the federal government as it considers the tribunal’s decision and next steps.

T. Boone Pickens had sued under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, claiming damages of $653 million plus interest after his company, Mesa Power Group LLC, lost out in its bid to build four massive wind farms north of London.

Mesa said it would have spent $1.2 billion in Ontario.

The tribunal, in the decision released Friday, decided Pickens’ company should pay for all of the arbitration costs. It also awarded the Canadian government $2.9 million for legal costs. Read article

Health Canada wind turbine raw data ‘1/2 price’ for Suncor

M'Chigeeng Protest June15,2012(5)Petrolia Independent, Heather Wright
A Plympton-Wyoming family trying to stop Suncor Energy from building industrial turbines will have to shell out $10,000 to look at data they think will help prove turbines hurt human health.

Lawyers for the Bryce family have asked the Environmental Review Tribunal to adjourn the hearing into the appeal of the project for six months so they can study data collected by Health Canada.

The federal agency recently released the preliminary report and the family’s lawyer believes there is evidence that can link some of the noise caused by industrial wind turbines to problems such as headaches and sleeplessness.

But Asha James told the ERT Stats Canada will only allow a researcher 22 days to analyse the data for $10,000. Lawyers for Suncor also told the ERT adjudicators they had applied to see the raw data as well but had been told it would cost $4,500. Read article

Transport Canada rescinds turbine order

plane chatham airportBy Trevor Terfloth, Chatham Daily News
With several changes to ensure flight safety, eight wind turbines that Transport Canada had ordered removed near the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport earlier this year can now stay. Transport Canada had said the turbines, owned by Erieau Wind, violated height limits on lands at the airport, which are subject to the airport zoning regulations (AZRs).

However, the agency said it is discontinuing the enforcement action that commenced in July. “We’ve stated all along the airport’s been safe and it’s proven in the order,” Mayor Randy Hope told The Daily News on Wednesday. “Now it’s just about moving on. … One more hurdle behind us.”

According to a media release, the potential safety risks were “mitigated by Nav Canada with the issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which was later replaced with an altered Instrument Approach Procedure Chart so that pilots are aware of the wind turbines and can avoid them.” Read article

Contradictions and bias undermine credibility of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise Study

MULTI-MUNICIPAL WIND TURBINE WORKING GROUP

3 December, 2014
RE: HEALTH CANADA WIND TURBINE NOISE STUDY AN OPEN LETTER TO
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister pm@pm.gc.ca
The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Health minister_ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca

carpet truth liesThe Multi-municipal Wind Turbine Working Group is comprised of elected municipal councillors and appointed citizens from parts of Southern Ontario where approximately 30% of industrial wind turbines are concentrated. Over the past several years we have received a growing number of delegations from constituents whose health has been adversely affected by proximity to the wind turbines. It is not easy to listen to people who continue to suffer from ringing and pressure in the ears, pounding vibrations in the head and chest, nausea, dizziness and the ongoing inability to sleep. Their stories are especially disturbing because we know these people; we know they are not lying; and it is our responsibility under the Municipal Act to protect their health.

We are dismayed that the recently released Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study has ignored the distress of real people by hiding behind meaningless “estimated” noise projections and predictive modeling rather than first making professional clinical observations based on the histories of actual sufferers. Investigation of anecdotal evidence is the foundation of all medicine. The Health Canada study summary contains no reference to the growing body of research that contradicts the main theme of the summary. Our Grey-Bruce Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Hazel Lynn has found 18 peer-reviewed studies that “provide reasonable evidence . . . that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans”. The Brown County (Wisconsin) Board of Health has declared its wind turbines a “public health nuisance” and a “human health hazard for all people . . .  who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health”. Read letter here

Denise Wolfe: Review of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study

do no harm

Health Canada and Wind Turbines: Too little too late?

IMG_0914CMAJ Blogs
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm (retired), is a peer reviewed IWT health researcher and former Director of Publications and Editor-in-Chief of the CPS.
R Y McMurtry is Professor Emeritus (Surgery) of Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario). Dr. McMurtry was also an ADM at Health Canada 2000-02

Industrial wind turbines (IWTs) are being erected at rapid pace around the world. Coinciding with the introduction of IWTs, some individuals living in proximity to IWTs report adverse health effects including annoyance, sleep disturbance, stress-related health impacts and reduced quality of life. [i],[ii],[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix],[x],[xi],[xii] In some cases Canadian families reporting adverse health effects have abandoned their homes, been billeted away from their homes or hired legal counsel to successfully reach a financial agreement with the wind energy developer.[xiii]

To help address public concern over these health effects Health Canada (HC) announced the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study (HC Study) 2 years ago and brought forth preliminary results November 6, 2014.

Here we briefly comment on the HC Study results and provide some historical context.

Acknowledgement of IWT adverse health effects is not new. The term “annoyance” frequently appears when discussing IWT health effects. In a 2009 letter the Honourable Rona Ambrose, disclosed:
“Health Canada provides advice on the health effect of noise and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from proposed wind turbine projects…To date, their examination of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase of self-reported general annoyance and complaints (i.e., headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo).” [xiv] Read article

Health Canada Windpower Study: Playing Politics (Grubered up North)

health hazardMaster Resource, Lisa Linowes

“The Canadian government is correct that there is a need to understand ‘the potential health impacts and community concerns that underscore public resistance’ to wind energy. But Canadians and others will not be Grubered by phony studies.”
The Canadian government is trying to ‘Gruber’ [1] its residents on wind turbine noise. It will not work.

This story dates back two years ago when community resistance to industrial wind energy was impeding the expansion of projects in Canada’s rural areas, especially in Ontario. Turbine noise and the impact on human health were of primary concern for residents and for good reason. Documented cases of home abandonments to escape the ‘whoosh-thump’ of the blades were piling up (see here, here and here).

In 2012, the federal  government authorized Health Canada (HC) to investigate the validity of the complaints. “The continued success and viability of wind turbine energy in Canada, and around the world,” according to the feds, “will rely upon a thorough understanding of the potential health impacts and community concerns that underscore public resistance.” [2] Read article

The Solution To “Wind Turbine Study” Pollution Is Dilution‏

CirclesAs one reads the various comments about the Health Canada Wind Turbine Study, there’s so much that’s wrong/mangled/bungled that one gets bug-eyed with all the conflicting statements in the study summary. Is anyone doing quality control here?  Denise Wolfe wrote an excellent critique detailing the numerous errors and inconsistencies; but, one thing in particular caught my eye: the extension of the survey area to a 10 km radius beyond a wind turbine.  Why was that done? Dr. Alec Salt once neatly sumed up what this little trick is about. Read on:


Why pro-wind studies often use a 10 km radius

by Alec Salt, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine

Last week I was reading of an Australian study, by a Professor Gary Wittert, which had shown sleeping pill usage for those living near wind turbines was no greater than the general population . The study compared those living within 10 km of turbines with those living more than 10 km away. There have been similar studies with property values using a 5 mile or 10 km radius that showed property values are not affected by wind turbines.  Had you ever thought why they pick a 10 km radius?

Consider this graphic. It shows 1 km bands with the calculated area for each band shown in blue.  Let’s keep it easy and assume that households are evenly distributed and there is one household for every 10 square kilometers.

So, within 2 km (the two innermost bands) of the turbine, the area is 3.1 + 9.4 km2 (=12.5 km2) which would represent 1.2 households.

Now let’s consider the two outermost (9 km and 10 km) bands. The area of these bands is 53.4 + 59.7 km2 (= 113.1 km2) which represents 113 households. So the outermost bands have about TEN TIMES the number of households of those living within 2 km, making sure that the contribution of the inner bands is diluted, swamped, covered up or however else you would describe it. Continue reading

Wind turbine opponents reject study

DSCN4134London Free Press, John Miner
The legal battle to halt wind farms won’t be abandoned because of a Health Canada study released last week, opponents of the turbines say. The Health Canada study dismissed claims wind farms cause medical problems for people living nearby.

“It makes no difference at all,” said Anita Frayne of Safe Wind Energy for All Residents, a Huron County group backing a lawsuit that claims the Ontario government didn’t exercise due diligence when crafting the Green Energy and Economy Act. Frayne said the widely publicized Health Canada study was only a preliminary analysis of the data and it hasn’t been peer reviewed. “It doesn’t provide any ­definitive answers on its own. I think the real question is, why did they even decide to release this at this point?” she said.

In publishing the study on its website, Health Canada said it was trying to be more open and transparent.​ Despite the study’s findings, Frayne said, opposition to the wind farms continues to gain momentum. Read article

Health Canada Study flawed: Statement by Order of Canada physician Dr McMurtry supporting critique by Denise Wolfe

 

mcmurtryCV McMURTRY

Colette McLean on Health Canada Wind Turbine Study

'The viability of our farm is at stake,' said Colette McLean, who lives next door to the wind farm project and opposes it. (Tom Taylor/CBC)

AM 800
Colette McLean from Harrow has first hand knowledge of what it was like to be part of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Health Study. Listen here:

MOH Disappointed in Turbine Study

Photo-Dr_%20Lynn%20&%20Larry%20Miller%20Presentation%202Bayshore Broadcasting
The Medical Officer of Health for Grey Bruce is disappointed with a Health Canada report on wind turbines.  Doctor Hazel Lynn says the study leaves a lot of questions unanswered, including how the study was conducted.

Health Canada says it found no evidence linking exposure to wind turbine noise and health effects reported by people living near the towering structures. However, the study did find a relationship between increasing levels of wind turbine noise and residents’ annoyance related to noise, vibration and shadow flicker from the structures.

The year-long study included a detailed questionnaire to adults in more than 1,200 households in southwestern Ontario and P.E.I. living at various distances from almost 400 wind turbines. Read article

Health Canada wind turbine study released

health_canada_logo_01Health Canada Wind Turbine Study 2014

CJBK
TORONTO – A Health Canada study has found no evidence to support a link between exposure to wind-turbine noise and health effects reported by people living near the towering structures.

The Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study, conducted over a four-month period in 2013, involved more than 1,200 residents in southwestern Ontario and P.E.I., whose homes were located at various distances from almost 400 of the electricity-generating structures in 18 wind-turbine developments.

The use of turbines to generate electricity by harnessing the wind — whether clustered on land in so-called farms or anchored offshore in lake or ocean floors — is controversial, and reaction to release of the study findings Thursday reflected long-established divergent opinions.

The study found no link between wind-turbine noise and respondents’ reports of sleep disturbances, dizziness, tinnitus, migraines or chronic headaches, increased blood pressure or ongoing health conditions such as heart disease, chronic pain or diabetes. Read article

Perth Wellington MP Speaks Out On Wind Turbine Impacts

SchellenbergerBy Janice MacKay, Blackburn News
Retiring Perth Wellington MP Gary Schellenberger says he will continue to fight for what is right when it comes to the way wind turbines are approved. Schellenberger spoke in the House of Commons Tuesday about the lack of consideration given to wind mill construction and the lack of proper consultation for rural Ontarians.

Health Canada began a study in 2012 to research the impact of wind turbines on health, but Schellenberger says when the results are released later this year, it will be too late for some. He says the turbines are going up in many rural areas despite countless objections and when the windmills go up, so does the price of electricity. At the same time, he says neighbouring residents are seeing their quality of life and property values decline. Read article

Turbine concerns near C-K airport

C-K airportBlackburn News, Trevor Thompson
Despite months of inaction regarding eight turbines near the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport, Chatham-Kent-Essex M-P-P Rick Nicholls says he’s confident a resolution is coming.

Nicholls admits there’s one scenario he’s worried about. “What I do not want to see is the municipal government say ‘well we have a certified airport, we’ll just decertify it, and therefore airport zoning regulations are no longer in effect,’” says Nicholls. “That’s like saying today I rob a bank and that’s against the law so I get thrown in jail. Next week the laws change and it’s okay so I guess I’m free now.”

Transport Canada asked developer GDF Suez to remove the turbines in question back in June of 2013.

MPP Anticipates Wind Study

health_canada_logo_01Bayshore Broadcasting, by Fadi Didi
The controversy surrounding the health effects of industrial wind turbines comes to a head this year when Health Canada releases their findings in later 2014. The Conservative MPP for Huron-Bruce says she expects the results will be in line with what she feels she has known all along.

Lisa Thompson tells Bayshore Broadcasting News she feels the Federal study will further suggest there are negative health implications associated with living near turbines. The Health Canada study is the first of it’s kind commissioned by the Federal Government. It was spurred by residents living near industrial wind projects reporting that the turbine noise was having an effect on their personal health. Read article

Senator says Amherst Island wind project approval ‘dereliction of duty’

amherst IslandThe Whig
KINGSTON – A Conservative senator is joining the chorus of opposition to the advancement of a controversial wind energy project on Amherst Island. Sen. Bob Runciman, a former Leader of the provincial Progressive Conservatives, said the decision to deem Windlectric Inc.’s Amherst Island Renewable Energy Approval application complete is a “dereliction of duty” by the provincial environment ministry.

“The government is riding roughshod over local objections, including by the duly elected council of Loyalist Township, and ignoring that this is one of the most critical areas for birds in North America, and home to 34 species at risk,” Runciman said in a release Friday afternoon. The energy created by wind projects like the one proposed for Amherst Island has created a surplus of electricity that is being sold off to neighbouring provinces and states at a fraction of the cost of generation, Runciman said.

Windlectric Inc. is proposing to build a 36-turbine, 75-megawatt wind energy project on Amherst Island. The public has 65 days — until March 8 — to file comments about the Amherst Island proposal. Opponents of the project call this the technical review phase, during which the different reports filed by the company in support of the development are reviewed. Read article

A Commentary on Industrial Wind Energy Facilities Policy and Risk to Health

Voluntary compliance requested

C-K airportBy Bob Boughner, Chatham Daily News
It appears Transport Canada hasn’t issued an official order to GDF SUEZ Canada to remove eight turbines south of the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. The company recently contacted The Chatham Daily News to state it has not received an “order” from Transport Canada. According to the latest response to The Chatham Daily News from Transport Canada, the agency is requesting “voluntary compliance” with the regulations and will work with the company to set a practical deadline. No decision has been made on a date.

At the same time, the response reads: “Transport Canada requires the lowering or removal of the eight wind turbines that were constructed in the area protected under the Chatham Airport zoning regulations.” David Timm, GDF SUEZ Canada vice-president, told The Daily News on Wednesday: “We’re in discussions with Transport Canada on the matter and the other agencies that have jurisdiction over the issue.” He said those discussions will continue, adding he can’t get into the specifics of the discussions “because of the sensitivity of the issue.” Read article

Company says it never received order

C-K airportBob Boughner, Chatham Daily News
Transport Canada is being asked to clarify why it hasn’t taken action against a wind turbine company advised in June to remove eight turbines near the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. Chatham-Kent Essex MPP Rick Nicholls said Friday the turbine company – GDF Suez Canada – is dragging its heels “and the longer it stalls the more money it makes from the turbines.”

“It irritates me, especially since this is a safety issue,” said the MPP. “I’m constantly being asked by people why the turbines haven’t been removed and I’ve written to Transport Canada to get answers.” Chatham-Kent Essex MP Dave Van Kesteren said Friday he is also concerned over the lack of answers and intends to follow up with the agency in Ottawa. Meantime, David Timm, vice-president of the turbine company, insisted Friday his company has never received an “order” from Transport Canada to remove the eight turbines.

“It’s not a safety issue, but rather a zoning issue,” said Timm. “We are working with Transport Canada, just as we have for the past five years.” Timm said his company is convinced it has satisfied all concerns of Transport Canada and is continuing to hold talks with the agency. But he again stressed that the company has never received an order from Transport Canada to remove the eight turbines. A spokesperson for Transport Canada told The Daily News in June that the eight wind turbines south of the airport violate height limits at the airport, which are subject to airport zoning regulations. Read article

No decision on date to remove turbines

C-K airportLondon Free Press
Transport Canada officials will work with a wind turbine company to set a practical deadline for the removal of eight turbines south of the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. Brooke Williams, a spokesperson for Transport Canada, told The Daily News Monday no decision has been made on a date.

She did say that on at least two occasions prior to installation of the wind turbines, Transport Canada advised the wind farm representatives that height restrictions were in effect in the area around the airport. The Daily News learned in June that Transport Canada was enforcing safety rules and requires the removal of eight wind turbines that are impeding height restrictions imposed by the airport zoning regulations.

Dave Timm, vice-president of GDF Suez Canada Inc., claims the company complied with all the rules and regulations regarding the placement of turbines near the airport. Timm said his company is asking for a meeting with Transport Canada officials to discuss the matter. Read article

Watch CTV: Transport Canada orders removal of eight wind turbines in Chatham-Kent

Windsor CTV Newsctv

Transport Canada has ordered the removal of a number of wind turbines in Chatham-Kent. They’re a hazard to aviation, as pilots fly in and out of the airport. The machines may also violate federal zoning regulations.
“If you are coming in to land and you are unfamiliar with the area, especially if clouds are starting to get low, then you could end up much closer to them then you would like to be,” says 30 flying veteran Jeffrey Pyefinch. He says the 8 turbines Transport Canada has now ordered removed, should have never been built in the first place. “The airport is protected by a federal zoning law regulation and the turbines were infringing on that area, so they should have never been allowed to go up in the first place,” says Pyefnch. Read article

Pilots sounded alarm about turbines

C-K airportLondon Free Press
A long-time Chatham pilot says everyone involved was made aware of concerns about erecting wind turbines around the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. Jeff Pyefinch, who has been a pilot since 1984, said local pilots voiced their opposition to having turbines built near the airport when the project was in the initial stages during a meeting with interested parties nearly 10 years ago. “We had concerns with it the right from the start,” he said on Saturday.

On Friday, The Chatham Daily News reported that, in an unprecedented move, Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines near the municipal airport for exceeding height restrictions. A company official with GDF Suez Canada – owners of the turbines – told The Daily News on Friday, it hasn’t been contacted by the federal agency about this order. Pyefinch recalled that when these turbines were proposed, “the municipality was very pro-turbine. They wanted to position the municipality as a leader for wind turbines.”

He believes political motivation may have caused the municipality to not seek the protection of the airport, to the extent that was available to them, to prevent turbines from being located nearby. Pyefinch said it was clear the turbines would be within the four-kilometre protected radius around the airport, which is a federal airport zoning regulation. Read article

Transport Canada: “The illegal turbines must be removed”

falling turbineSimcoe Reformer
In an unprecedented move in Ontario, Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines in close proximity to the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport because of height restrictions. However, the company that owns the turbines Transport Canada wants dismantled – GDF Suez Canada – claims it hasn’t been contacted by the federal agency.

David Timm, vice-president of GDF Suez Canada, told The Chatham Daily News late Friday afternoon: “We can’t comment or provide any information, because . . . we haven’t spoken with Transport Canada at all this week.” When asked if the company has turbines near the airport, Timm reiterated: “I don’t know whose turbines are involved, because we have not been contacted.”

Chatham-Kent Essex MP Dave Van Kesteren confirmed the action Friday morning. A Transport Canada spokesperson told The Daily News eight wind turbines violate height limits at the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport, which are subject to airport zoning regulations. “Transport Canada is enforcing safety rules and requires the removal of the turbines,” said Tina Morris. She emphasized the turbine company was advised of height restrictions on two occasions prior to turbine construction. “While Transport Canada is willing to work with the wind turbine company to set a practical deadline, the illegal turbines must be removed,” she said. Read article

Transport Canada orders REMOVAL of eight C-K wind turbines

airportLondon Free Press
In an unprecedented move in Ontario, Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines in close proximity to the Chatham Municipal Airport. Chatham-Kent Essex MP Dave Van Kesteren confirmed the action Friday morning. Chatham-Kent Mayor Randy Hope deferred comment to Don Shropshire, the municipality’s CAO, but he could not be reached by phone Friday morning.

John Norton, the municipality’s chief legal office, also said he preferred not to comment on the report and deferred comment to Shropshire. Chatham-Kent Essex MPP Rick Nicholls said he complained in a recent letter to the federal transport minister of the turbines that were in close proximity to the airport. “Not only do they make it unsafe for pilots but I’m told the spinning blades affect radar,” he said.

Nicholls said he is also concerned that the turbines would limit use of the airport by larger companies that might consider locating in Chatham-Kent and make use of company planes. The MPP said the turbine company and not Chatham-Kent taxpayers should be billed for the cost of removing the turbines. Read article

UN Convention on Rights of the Child & Canada’s Role: Part 6- The Right to Rest & Leisure

Wind Victims Ontario
Canada played an instrumental role in drafting and promoting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention outlines the responsibilities governments have to ensure a child’s right to survival, healthy development, protection and participation in all matters that affect them. The four general principles of the Convention are: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. [1] Public Health Agency of Canada

DSCN2225Convention on the Rights of the Child [2]
Article 31
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure,

The Right to Rest and Leisure

  • For years people have been suffering the detrimental effects from wind turbines that are operating too close to homes and schools. “Living with turbines for almost 5 years, we have become used to the lack of sleep and all of the side affects that go along with it. We live within 700m of two turbines, there are 6-8 within 1 km, and at least 12 within 2 kim’s. Yesterday was report card day and my eldest son’s report card broke my heart. It started with a glowing report “…is a very responsible student in every area within the school. He walks in the hallways in the manner that is expected, demonstrating to others what a responsible student looks like. He works hard to ensure…” but my heart broke when I read “…should continue to put his best effort forth in paying close attention to the teacher and his classmates when they speak, rather than resting his head on his desk surface.” My son complains often that he has a hard time at school because he is so tired all the time, and when I asked him how he handled it he said he tried to close his eyes on his desk from time to time, but it really hit home when it was there in black and white on the report card.”[3] Continue reading

“Protect my son from harm”

Health Canada_Risks to Children:  Correia May 15 2013Shellie

 

Will an economic policy take precedence over health?

conestogaDear Minister Aglukkaq,
Re: Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study

Attached is a noise report relating to a family in close proximity to industrial wind turbines. The Weaver/Rooney family is one of those for which a pre- and post-turbine submission was forwarded to Health Canada ” Health Canada submission_November 23 2012 FINAL” and “Pre_Post_Wind turbine submission_Updated February 4 2013” respectively.

The family is reporting serious health impairment which is associated with the start-up of the facility in December 2012. A noise study was conducted and the results indicate “that the IWT generated noise does not comply with the MOE noise guidelines ~50% of the time and that SPL’s are above the predicted “worst case” ~59% of the time.”

The family started a journal December 26, 2012 and have maintained it to date. The attached noise study file contains extracts for a period of time that the noise measuring equipment was established at the family residence. The journal records the quality of life and health problems experienced by the family [see attached Appendix B of the report]. The journal documents many negative sleep events where one or both members of the family could not sleep. In some cases, sleep medication was required or members had to sleep away from their home.

Continue reading:
Weaver_noise_report  May 2013
Health Canada submission_Weaver_Noise study May 6 2013