Wind farm opponents determined to win their case if appeal granted

staublelMy Kawartha
The group Manvers Wind Concerns (MWC) and the Cham Shan Buddhist Temple filed the appeal on Dec. 23. Coun. Stauble said when five wind turbines for wpd Canada’s Sumac Ridge project were approved in December, the Province virtually ignored the 2,874 comments from the public opposing the turbines.

In an interview on Monday (Dec. 30), Coun. Stauble said she and MWC have received several inquiries from people who said they had not been “properly consulted by the developer” about the controversial wind turbines. The project will include five turbines, but the proposed locations are in direct conflict with the Cham Shan Temple, a potential $100 million project that has been planned for the area for 20 years. “The irony and tragedy of this is it was supposed to be that the Green Energy Act protected people’s health…now it’s sinking in,” Coun. Stauble said.

She pointed to a provincially appointed study by the University of Waterloo that links sleep disturbance and inner ear problems to wind turbine noise, saying, “It doesn’t matter if it is a direct or indirect link…if people are getting sick, they’re getting sick.” She said a car seat manufacturer is required to prove the seat is safe for children, but when it comes to wind turbines, “the community is required to prove there are no [adverse] health effects. “It’s backwards.” Read article

11 thoughts on “Wind farm opponents determined to win their case if appeal granted

  1. Kieran Michael Moore — is an IDIOT!
    a practising doctor and Ass. Medical Officer of Health too!

    WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR. KIERAN MICHAEL MOORE
    MD, CCFP (EM), FCFP, MPH, DTM&H, EMDM, FRCPC
    IN THE MATTER OF appeals by Sharon Kroeplin and Kenneth Kroeplin, filed
    on October 23, 2013, for a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal…

    ‘[excerpt] Compliance
    92. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has also developed a compliance protocol
    for wind turbine noise. [25] which is a guideline for acoustic assessment and
    measurement. This document outlines that the Ministry of Environment (sic) will review
    any complaints regarding wind turbine noise and investigate them fully, including
    taking into consideration the complainant, the nature of the noise, the timing and its
    impact, for example if it is disturbing sleep. The officers will also collect further
    information, such as the actual location of the turbines, the predicted values and
    noise assessment for the complainant’s location. As well, if required, they will take noise
    measurements at the receptor. The noise measurement process will follow the
    specific guideline in compliance protocol.

    93. Hence, if there is a concern, there is a process whereby any complainant can
    address these directly with the MOE to ensure compliance with the appropriate
    setback and noise specifications. Again, this calls into question the existence of a
    biologically plausible mechanism for the witness symptomology. Using the Bradford
    Hill criteria for causation, there is no evidence to support a causative association
    between the symptoms presented in the witness statements of the post turbine
    witnesses and exposure.

    94. Because of the lack of scientific evidence for a cause and effect relationship, and
    the lack of severity of the potential health impact, the application of the
    precautionary principle is not warranted in this instance. The present evidence
    supports the current regulatory regime for the implementation of wind turbine
    projects. Ongoing measurement should be conducted to document compliance with
    the noise levels at receptors.’

  2. Kieran Moore — is BIASED as ****

    ‘[excerpt] 104. The next question is whether it is a natural exposure, or industrial, and in many
    views, wind turbine positioning in a non-urban setting would be considered
    industrial. The subsequent question is whether it is familiar or exotic and clearly,
    wind turbine is a new technology being used in Ontario as a means of ensuring a
    cleaner environment. Further questions are whether it is chronic or catastrophic. As
    well, it is necessary to conisder whether it is controlled by the individual or by
    others. In this instance, the positioning of wind turbines is a provincial legislated
    evet where there is little municipal or local control over their placement. Many feel
    that this is not fair and as a result, there is a loss of trust in the process.

    105. Another key question in risk communication is whether the system is responsive or
    unresponsive. Sandman clearly lays out all of these questions in his book,
    Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. [35] I
    think it is important to counteract these major components of risk communication by
    being open, transparent, accountable, and having grassroots groups buy into the
    positioning and location of wind turbines.

    Conclusions

    106. In my opinion, appropriate evidence-based regulations to guide industry and protect
    the population from any significant exposure or harm from wind turbine noise have
    been put in place. The purpose of the Ministry of Environment (sic) setbacks at 550
    metres and 40 dba hourly average exposure at the receptor is to minimize possible
    health effected from this exposure.’

    “As a means of ensuring a cleaner environment.”

    Do you buy that?

  3. Kieran Moore — is a dangerous man!
    You should be frightened!!!

    ‘[excerpt] 23. Wind turbine syndrome and vibroacoustic disease are not recognized syndromes by
    the medical community nor coded in the International Classification of Diseases.
    This syndrome (sic) has not been tested or validated in any study. The significant variety
    of symptoms included in the syndrome defies biological plausibility of association
    and certainly provides no evidence of causation. Given that this information is
    available on the internet on various sites it may cause an anticipatory fear in the
    community similar to a nocebo response.’

    ‘[excerpt] 26. A recent article by B. Deignan et al., analyzed coverage of the health effects of wind
    turbines in Ontario Newspapers relative to the Green Energy Act using published
    risk communication fright factors. An analysis was conducted of articles on wind
    turbines appearing between May 2007 and April 2011 in Ontario newspapers
    serving communities where wind energy installations were located. 421 articles
    from 13 communityy and 4 national/provincial newspapers were reviewed. Fear
    evoking descriptions of specified health consequences (including ‘electrical
    pollution’) were found in 94% of articles and 58% asserted “poorly understood by
    science,” 45% reported involuntary exposure and 42% inequitible distribution.
    These fright factors were more frequently reported in community newspapers than
    in provincial/national newspapers. The authors concluded that Ontario newspapers
    contained fright factors in articles about wind turbines and health that may produce
    fear, concern, anxiety for readers. (Deignan et al., Fright Factors about Wind
    Turbines and Health in Ontario Newspapers Before and After the Green Energy
    Act). [12]’

  4. “Do no harm” ??? Nah…
    Kieran Moore — molests animals.
    (The “sacrifice.”)

    And he has a time machine too..
    It is “plausible”!

    ‘[excerpt] 82. Defining “serious harm to human health” should correlate with a serious functional
    impairment, a physiological impairment or tissue damage, and likely not be
    reversible. Table 21-1 below is from Public Health & Preventive Medecine, [4] and
    provides a spectrum of endpoints ranging from premature death to emotional
    disturbances. Typically, the endpoints at the top are treated as the most
    consequential in regards to risk assessment. However, defining “serious harm to
    human health” is ultimately a societal decision, as society must decide how safe it
    wishes to be and how much it is willing to sacrifice for that level of security. [4]’

  5. “and how much it is willing to sacrifice….”

    These are always the words that scare me. It’s who and what we are wiling to sacrifice, knowingly doing so.

  6. Did Moore have his newspaper medical research peer reviewed and published in a top rated medical journal?

  7. Using the Bradford Hill criteria for causation, there is no evidence to support a causative association between the symptoms presented in the witness statements of the post turbine witnesses and exposure.

    Wikipedia reference, pasted below. By this definition, the association is causal…

    Strength: A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
    Consistency: Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
    Specificity: Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.
    Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
    Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.
    Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
    Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that “… lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations”.
    Experiment: “Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence”.
    Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.

  8. the ERT process is just a hee haw court. the MOE is a hand holder with the proponents.

    I say the people should turn it around and ask the proponents to prove they wont do any harm to anything in the community. and using their own leases as references as to why the words are in there if harm is not there.

  9. NOT only have THEY taken it upon themselves on behalf of society to define what amounts to “serious harm to human health” at the ERTs, but they have the final say as to what level of harm is acceptable to society to produce electricity from wind when rubber stamping environmental approvals. I don’t recall any meaningful public consultation on what amounts to reasonable level of impact. To add injury to insult, they have lied and covered up what conflicts with their rubber stamping.

    Yes you have rights in a democracy to meaningful input but obvioulsy this is not the case in Canada. I say Canada cuz while the Feds were handing out WPPI money, the IWT developments were subject to the federal assessment regulations that required assessment of adverse impacts. The impacts from IWTs were whitewashed by the Feds also.

    Slave on Comrades.

  10. “white-washed” — is putting it mildly.

    R U able to find in the CEAA registry:

    ‘[excerpt] Environmental Assessment Screening Report for the
    Erie Shores Wind Farm
    Norfolk and Elgin Counties, Ontario
    June 16, 2005
    EAWA Reference No.: 2003-49
    RCM WPPI Reference No.: 5902-A2-2
    Prepared by
    Natural Resources Canada’
    http://docuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/2005-06-15-nrcan-lisa-jackson-environmental-assessment-screening-report-for-the-erie-shores-wind-farm.pdf

    or do U get the same dead end:

    ‘[excerpt] Can’t find what you’re looking for?
    To find environmental assessments undertaken under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, consult the Archives
    To find environmental assessments initiated before October 2003, contact the department or organization that may have had a responsibility to conduct the EA of the project.
    Date modified:2012-12-05’

    “before October 2003″…
    Would you call that “a coincidence” or something else?

Leave a Reply

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