Local farmer’s presentation to OFA contributes to policy statement

By Susan Hundertmark, Mitchell Advocate
A recent presentation to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture board by two HEAT (Huron East Against Turbines) members contributed towards a recent OFA position statement calling on the provincial government to “suspend the invasion of rural Ontario with industrial wind turbines.”

Mark Wales, OFA president, said in a phone interview last week that a power-point presentation by St. Columban farmer Tom Melady and his sister Jeanne is an example of what he’s been hearing from farmers across Southwestern Ontario. Read article

18 thoughts on “Local farmer’s presentation to OFA contributes to policy statement

  1. Wow! and they heard it just from a couple of farmers? Do they not listen to others and all the protest going on for months on end ? Do we not have good enough credentials to warrant our voices being heard? Something still stinks with the OFA. also i heard that the Wind baggers want to have a meeting with OFA will they cave in to them now to?

    • Unless people are prepared to present documented information on IWT issues they will not be taken seriously. Opinion is just that, opinion, against what the government and wind developers say.

  2. Who is they? And what and who gives them authority to say what is true and not a lie. Are they in the same level as God? Are we not suppose to be equal? maybe that is the biggest problem in our society when we think we have to listen to “they” who think they have authority to make claims what is right especially when it is harming others. They are no better than you or me. Our voices are document enough when we are being tortured.

    • “They” are ordinary rural Ontarians. As in a great many instances opinions of ordinary people must be backed by reliable sources of information.
      For example, the unsafe distance from an IWT was a matter of opinion but when the company document was found and the safe distance was revealed as 400 meters this became fact backed up by a reliable source being the company’s own word. Right out of the horse’s own mouth!

    • Hey Protest voter,
      The government – that includes ‘local councils’ –
      has to respect the rights of the people!

  3. So as far as safe setbacks go, the recently released study, by Hadden and Frey, should be considered the most up to date, relevent, reliable document available, to follow when setting safe setbacks for IWTs. Wouldn`t you agree? I believe it recommends a 3 km setback for these larger turbines, now being installed. It varies of course with the number of turbines, their size and their placement.
    If I`m not mistaken, I believe ‘they’ said it`s being peer reveiwed right now and will soon be published. Then ‘they’, (ordinary rural Ontarions), should be able to introduce this new, compelling, peer reveiwed study, to demand safe setbacks. Should be able, unfortunately doesn`t mean will be able, because McGuinty isn`t stopping for anything. He couldn`t care less about anyone but himself. He`s the lowest lifeform on the planet.

    • Safe from infrasound or safe from flying debris? The 400 meters is safe from flying debris according to the discoverd document and that information can be used now. But the larger/taller IWTs would need more of a setback than the 100 meter turbines, now in use, from property lines. Fire departments say 500 meters for flying debris.
      The issue is that property owners have the right to the safe use and enjoyment of all of their property and not just some of their property. Otherwise this is infringement of property rights. At present there are violations in Ontario of these property rights.
      Land severance rights have also become part of the land property rights issues caused by IWT installations.
      The Green Energy Act also removed property rights along with local planning. Land property rights go way-way back in law.

  4. Take that ‘500 metre safe zone’ for flying debris with a grain of salt. Is the origin of that: Norfolk County Fire Dept? If so, it has no credibility. In Norfolk there are many non-participants closer than 500 meters and I bet the bozos at NC Fire Dept don’t even realize it. Or if they do, it’s simply reckless that they haven’t issued a position statement on it, and a protocol about what to do if it happens.

    • Agreed, each town should have written protocols for dealing with IWT safety issues which involve their fire services but the local councils may have been kept in the dark as well. Same with lightning issues & IWTs. The higher these IWTs are the more danger there is for lightning strikes.If local councils were told there are no safety issues then there was no need for protocols to be developed.
      As present there is the 400 meter safety setback that was uncovered which can be used if non-hosting neighbours want to. People should be able to walk right up to their property lines in safety and so should their children.

      • Setbacks are not an issue. No
        IWT’s anywhere.
        For what its worth OFA’s position statement
        is far too ambiguous.Possibly by observing
        our politicians, OFA must have figured out
        how to both suck and blow at the same time.

      • Agreed,but safe setbacks are an issue when it comes to property rights and so are land severence rights another issue.
        By now most rural Ontarians know they are regarded as collateral damage and so it’s ok to deceive them.

  5. Here we go again! How did we come to this “500” number? Is this another number pulled out of…thin air?! From my own experience, 400 meters is not a safe distance from flying debris. A large piece of ice propelled from a turbine hit my house with a terrific force. The impact was loud, shaking the house. I thought the chimney had fallen.
    Should I have been hit by the ice; I would have been severely injured or possibly killed.
    Allowing the wind companies to continue operating the turbines is criminal negligence. Put that in your pipe and smoke it McGuinty and Crawley.

    • The 500 meters was from a local fire department as an evacuation zone around IWTs in case of accidents.
      The 400 meters came from an IWT operational safety guidelines instructions for employees.
      The central issue here is that the public was informed,as far as I know,that IWTs are safe to be near even up to the base allowing farmers to work their land that close. This is not the case so this is deceit.
      How far away are you from the nearest turbine to your house?

  6. Fire departments are not engineers, with something new like this it should also be tested on a precautionary note,So all this crap of 500 meters is guess work . Which is a set back for us living next to these honk-en big pieces of machinery in speeds of who know how fast near humans which is a nightmare. Stick the 500 meters up you know where and again this should not be debatable until problem solved.A precautionary principal needs to be applied,PERIOD!

    • How do you propose to test this? Lab results don’t always jibe with what nature can throw at people.By the way it may have been engineers who determied this to be 400 meters.
      At at present there is the 400 meters written information that was uncovered and can be used now. Indeed, more information can be gathered as the larger turbines may be even more dangerous.
      The central issue here is that at least one company knew of the operational safety issues with IWTs. Did the present government not look into the operational saftey issues of IWTs or did they just take the wind developers word on safety issues? That there were no safety issues?
      Crazy train is being denied the safe use of his property and is an infringement of his property rights.

      • Maybe the company that uses the 400 meters should have a compentent lawyer inquire as to how they determined this 400 meter figure to begin with?

Leave a Reply to barbara Cancel reply

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