Noise experts refute each other’s evidence at Armow Wind hearing

QUIET noiseKincardine Times
The final days of testimony became a bit “noisy” at the Environmental Review Tribunal into an appeal against the Armow Wind development in Kincardine. The evidence Tuesday (Jan. 14) at the hearing, held in Toronto, saw noise experts for the approval holder refute noise experts for the appellants.

Speaking as an expert witness for the approval holder, Samsung Pattern Armow Wind Ontario GP, was Shant Dokouzian, project manager, GL Garrad Hassan, Canada. A professional engineer, Dokouzian is licensed in Quebec and Ontario, and has extensive experience in wind developments. He explained that he worked on the Armow Wind development, completing the Noise Impact Assessment, as required under the 2008 Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) guidelines.

Using the information provided by Siemens, he reproduced the sound levels, incorporated low and high frequencies, determined the receptors and noise sources, and adjusted for summer and winter wind shear. That resulted in the maximum sound power level of the turbines, he said. Dokouzian also considered the nearby wind farms – Underwood, Cruickshank and Ripley – which were reassessed under Renewable Energy Approval (REA) guidelines. Read article

3 thoughts on “Noise experts refute each other’s evidence at Armow Wind hearing

  1. Anyone that is working with the wind industry, cannot be trusted. They need to start hiring only unbiased auditors, with no ties to any wind weasels.

  2. Talk about a bunch of bull sh*t. Dokouzian’s testimony is nothing but babble garb. He said he did this, checked that, according to whatever. Rip the testimony apart and ask how he did this; how he did that. It wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t have a clue. Using a model? Lmao We all know how credible these are. Haven’t we been through this before? Dokouzi is doing nothing but regurgitating this crap and again, it’s being shoved down the throats of the people of Ontario. The tactic being used here is “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.” Dokouzian choke on your own sh*t. By testifying as such, you are aiding and abetting and are responsible for development that creates serious problems for many people, which goes against our constitution; harming and killing people. This is a serious criminal offense.

  3. There is an ERT Hearing being heard in Wainfleet at this time. It is focussed specifically on the issues of the safety of skydivers, with regard to two IWTs being planned just 1.7km from an existing skydive business that has operated from the same airport for over 40 years.
    The skydiver owners are appealing the wind project approval and are asking that the two IWTs be resited.
    1. Witnesses from the Canada, the UK and US all stated that as far as they are aware there are no IWTs as close as these to a skydive landing area anywhere in the world.
    2. In the UK the Skydive Association, asked to submit recommendations to the UK government, are recommending a minimum 24,000 mtrs(2.4kms) from any skydive operation.
    3. The 8 turbines that Transport Canada have said should be taken down that are close to a Chatham Kent airport are within the 4 km safety zone Transport Canada require, where no obstructions higher than 45 mtrs should be permitted.
    ‘Experts’ from both sides have been heard over the past few days.
    The appellants ‘expert’ witnesses are all skydivers, all with many years experience, many thousands of jumps, and all with their own impressive collection of qualifications and certifications up to the highest levels in their own national as well as internationally recognized skydive associations.
    Additionally one,as mentioned above, has been asked to be a part of a government Committee in the UK, to advise, recommend and actually write specific safety parameters for skydiving with specific regard to proximity to IWT projects.
    Another who has a Mechanical Engineering Degree, with Honours, and who after 8 years working as an engineer made a career change, and now flies Boeing 767s for Air Canada, not only maintains his skydiving qualifications but also writes software that allows skydive operations to quickly and easily calculate the safest glide path for skydivers, based on the various predicted wind speeds at different altitudes.
    He was asked to give evidence regarding the amount of turbulence a skydiver might experience, once they have safely passed the IWTs. He cited his own experience of turbulence, the clearest being to have lost control of a Boeing 767, plus 200 passengers, when he was at his correct altitude and correct distance behind the closest aircraft flying ahead of him whose turbulence suddenly and without warning caused him to lose control. At 2500 feet he still had enough altitude to do whatever pilots do to regain control. His point being that at 50 feet, if a skydiver suddenly loses lift they have nothing they can do to prevent a 50 foot drop onto whatever there is below. Serious injury is a given and a fatal fall a possibility.
    We now come to the ‘wind lawyers’ expert – OK, I know I am biased……….. ๐Ÿ™‚
    He had an Engineering Degree with Honours.
    He had been a consultant engineer for 30 to 40 ‘wind farms’ including the one here in Wainfleet.
    His evidence was based on a ‘modelling’ of wind turbulence, from very ‘sophisticated’ tests carried out, using the most sensitive equipment and in an indoor wind tunnel environment.
    He claimed no practical experience of turbulence in any way.
    In direct contradiction to the appellants witnesses evidence he claimed that turbulence behind a wind turbine ‘decays’ quickly and would not be a factor at the skydive landing area.
    This is where it gets interesting!!! He cited his own studies and backed it up by referencing a GL Garrad Hassan(look at the above story!) report to back up his findings.
    The final witness for the Appellants had been questioned about this same report by the ‘wind lawyers’ with regard to the reports conclusions regarding the effects of turbulence.
    This, the same Engineer, commercial Pilot and Internationally recognized skydive instructor who had read that study.
    He was obviously uncomfortable at being asked to comment on other ‘expert’ opinion.
    When pushed by the ‘wind lawyer’ to give an answer he had nothing to say but that he hoped the authors had not actually meant what they had written in their conclusions based on their own study.
    And nearly the best until last.
    When asked by the Appellants lawyer what his mandate had been in investigating the siting of the two IWTs in question the ‘wind lawyer’s’ expert witness freely admitted that he had not been asked to consider the neighbouring skydive business or any safety issues with regard to skydiving.
    Hope you have managed to stay awake until the end and I apologize for making it so long.
    But yet one more example of how our our so called justice system has become so screwed up.
    This Wainfleet Hearing continues on January 27th. There is no evidence on earth that can show that if these turbines go up then it is only a matter of time before a skydiver will be killed.
    But bottom line is that a single ERT Chair, employed by us taxpayers, but representing the government who gave us the Green Energy Act, will be the only one to decide whether or not to uphold the appeal.
    On past ERTs, the evidence and common sense have little to do with protecting our interests!
    Just keep your fingers crossed as we will for you………… ๐Ÿ™‚
    Andrew Watts

Leave a Reply

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