Families keep battling turbines

CTV News


Falconers LLP
January 13, 2015Drennan, Dixon-Ryan & Kroeplin Wind Farm Appeals
The Drennan, Dixon-Ryan, and Kroeplin Appellants’ are seeking leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of the government’s approval process for wind turbine projects, and their effect on human health for those living in close proximity to the turbines. The Appellants, all of whom are represented by Falconers LLP, are Families who live in close proximity to pending windfarm projects.

Related Documents
Appellants’ Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal. January 13, 2015
Judgment. December 29, 2014

In the News
“MPP Upset With Court Decision.” January 12, 2015
“Challenge to Green Energy Act based on deemed breach of rights fails at Ontario appellate court.” January 7, 2015
“Turbine appeal tossed.” January 6, 2015
“Appellant Disappointed with Wind Charter Challenge Ruling.” December 30, 2014

 Further Documents on Drennan & Dixon-Ryan Families’ Cases

15 thoughts on “Families keep battling turbines

  1. MPP Lisa Thompson was misquoted by reporter Peter Jackson?
    Or is she looking at a different Health Canada study than I am?
    Or is her reading comprehension very poor?

    ‘[excerpt] She says she’s frustrated in the wake of the decision, and a Health Canada study that found there
    wasn’t enough evidence to support claims of harm to human health from wind turbines.’

    • http://www.falconers.ca/documents/DrennanetalNoticeofMotionforLeave.finalJan132015_000.pdf

      ‘[excerpt] 26.
      The Health Canada Study Summary provides the following findings as it
      relates to exposure to wind turbine noise and annoyance:

      “5 Annoyance
      5.1 Community Annoyance as a Measure of Well-being
      The questionnaire, administered by Statistics Canada, included themes that were intended to capture both the participants’ perceptions of wind turbines and reported prevalence of effects related to health and well-being. In this regard, one of the most widely studied responses to environmental noise is community annoyance. There has been more than 50 years of social and socio-acoustical research related to the impact that noise has on community annoyance. Studies have consistently shown that an increase in noise level was associated with an increase in the percentage of the community indicating that they are “highly annoyed” on social surveys. The literature shows that in comparison to the scientific literature on noise annoyance to transportation noise sources such as rail or road traffic, community annoyance with WTN begins at a lower sound level and increases more rapidly with increasing WTN.

      Annoyance is defined as a long-term response (approximately 12 months) of being “very or extremely annoyed” as determined by means of surveys. Reference to the last year or so is intended to distinguish a long term response from one’s annoyance on any given day. The relationship between noise and community annoyance is stronger than any other self-reported measure, including complaints and reported sleep disturbance.

      5.2 Community Annoyance Findings
      Statistically significant exposure-response relationships were found between increasing WTN levels and the prevalence of reporting high annoyance. These associations were found with annoyance due to noise, vibrations, blinking lights, shadow and visual impacts from wind turbines. In all cases, annoyance increased with increasing exposure to WTN levels.

      The following additional findings in relation to WTN annoyance were obtained:
      -At the highest WTN levels (≥ 40 dBA in both provinces), the following percentages of respondents were highly annoyed by wind turbine noise: ON-16.5%; PEI-6.3%.
      While overall a similar pattern of response was observed, the prevalence of WTN annoyance was 3.29 times higher in ON versus PEI (95% confidence interval, 1.47-8.68).
      – A statistically significant increase in annoyance was found when WTN levels exceeded 35 dBA.
      – Reported WTN annoyance was statistically higher in the summer, outdoors and during evening and night time.
      – Community annoyance was observed to drop at distances between 1-2km in ON, compared to PEI where almost all of the participants who were highly annoyed by WTN lived within 550m of a wind turbine. Investigating the reasons for provincial differences is outside the scope of the current study.
      – WTN annoyance significantly dropped in areas where calculated night time background noise exceeded WTN by 10dB or more.
      – Annoyance was significantly lower among the 110 participants who received
      personal benefit, which could include rent, payments or other indirect benefits of having wind turbines in the area e.g., community improvements. However, there were other factors that were found to be more strongly associated with annoyance, such as the visual appearance, concern for physical safety due to the presence of wind turbines and reporting to be sensitive to noise in general.

      5.3 Annoyance and Health
      – WTN annoyance was found to be statistically related to several self-reported health effects including, but not limited to, blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, scores on the PSQI, and perceived stress.
      – WTN annoyance was found to be statistically related to measured hair cortisol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
      – The above associations for self-reported and measured health endpoints were not dependent on the particular levels of noise, or particular distances from the turbines, and were also observed in many cases for road traffic noise annoyance.
      – Although Health Canada has no way of knowing whether these conditions may have either pre-dated, and/or are possibly exacerbated by, exposure to wind turbines, the
      findings support a potential link between long term high annoyance and health.
      – Findings suggest that health and well-being effects may be partially related to activities that influence community annoyance, over and above exposure to wind

  2. Only part of this so called health study has been released with no documentations released yet.

    There may be a good reason why they are asking $10,000 to look at the details of this study? And already paid for by the taxpayers.

    You need to look at the other so called health studies that are available to learn the methods used, the authors, references cited and the sources of funding. Then follow the patterns that are there. Comparisons need to be done with these studies.

    Had profs who insisted that you look at the manner by which papers are produced.

    • I’d like to see Premier Social Justice –
      standing in her ‘red boots’ –
      with cameras rolling………..
      tell citizens they are crazy
      for abandoning their homes.

      Welcome to Ontario!

      • NO!!!

        But this might be a good reason for King to use.

        Is she in contempt of court is the issue?

        Just because this case has already been ruled on by the Court of Appeals does not mean this is a moot issue now.

        She never showed up as required by law?

  3. “Turbines may well blow an ill wind over locals, ‘first’ study shows”
    Credit: By: GRAHAM LLOYD. From: The Australian. January 21, 2015
    filed: January 20, 2015 • Australia

    ‘[excerpt] The study by acoustics expert Steven Cooper is the first in the world in which a wind turbine operator had fully co-operated and turned wind turbines off completely during the testing. […]

    Funded by wind farm operator Pacific Hydro, the study was conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria where residents have long complained about headaches, chest pains and sleep loss but have been told it was all in their minds.

    As part of the study, residents living between 650m and 1.6km of the wind turbines were asked to diarise what they were experiencing, including headaches, pressure in the head, ears or chest, ringing in the ears, heart racing or a sensation of heaviness.

    Their observations were separated into noise, vibration and sensation using a one to five severity scale.

    “The resident observations and identification of sensation indicates that the major source of complaint from the operation of the turbines would appear to be related to sensation rather than noise or vibration,” the report says. “For some residents experiencing adverse sensation effects, the impact can be exacerbated by bending over rather than standing, with the effect in some cases being reported as extremely severe and lasting a few hours.”

    Mr Cooper said it was the first time that sensation rather than audible noise had been used as an indicator of residents’ perception of nearby wind turbines.

    The report found offending sound pressure was present at four distinct phases of turbine operation: starting, maximum power and changing load by more than 20 per cent either up or down.

    Mr Cooper said the findings were consistent with research into health impacts from early model wind turbines conducted in the US more than 20 years ago.

    The relationship between turbine operation and sensation demonstrated a “cause and effect”, something Pacific Hydro was not prepared to concede, he said.

    Survey participant Sonja Crisp, 75, said the first time she experience discomfort from the wind turbines, “it was like a thump in the middle of the chest.

    “It is an absolute relief, like an epiphany to have him (Mr Cooper) say I was not crazy (that) when I am doing the dishes I feel nausea and have to get out of the house.”
    Pacific Hydro and Mr Cooper agree that more widespread testing is needed. Andrew Richards, executive manager external affairs at Pacific Hydro, said: “While we acknowledge the preliminary findings of this report, what they mean at this time is largely unclear.

    “In our view, the results presented in the report do not demonstrate a correlation that leads to the conclusion that there is a causal link between the existence of ­infrasound frequencies and the ‘sensations’ experienced by the residents.” Mr Cooper said the findings had totally discounted the so-called “necebo” effect put forward by some public health ­officials, who said symptoms were the result of concerns about the possibility of experiencing them.

    The Cape Bridgewater study included six residents over eight weeks in three houses.

    One hearing-impaired participant had been able to identify with 100 per cent accuracy the performance of wind turbines despite not being able to see them.

    Another Cape Bridgewater resident Jo Kermond said the findings had been “both disturbing and confirmation of the level of severity we were and are enduring while being ridiculed by our own community and society.”’

    • http://www.windyleaks.com/2011/09/26/another-environmental-officer-identifies-turbine-issues/

      DATE: October 14, 2010 – 2:36 PM
      FROM : Citizen of Clear Creek, Ontario

      Hi Tim,
      Could you please describe, in your words, the vibrations that you sensed at our house last week at Clear Creek. I was trying to describe those vibrations to friends last weekend in my words. The noise/vibrations were not present last weekend.

      Hi Martin,
      For your information:
      Yesterday at 12:30 noon I felt very strong vibrations with very little noise at the back of the property being generated from the turbine just north of the house. Wind condition was S 9km/h as per Weather Network, so N or NE are not the only conditions for the vibrations. I will try and pay special attention to this when I am at Clear Creek.


      DATE: October 14, 2010 – 16:10
      TO: Citizen of Clear Creek, Ontario

      I would describe it as a sensation that was neither a discernable sound nor a detectable vibration, but somewhere between the two. Definitely more felt than heard. If I concentrated very hard, I could sense something below the hearing threshold, but above what can be felt as a vibration. I have to say, though, that it takes an unusual amount of concentration to even notice it.

      Tim Webb
      Provincial Officer #125
      Hamilton District Office
      Ontario Ministry of the Environment’

    • Cape Bridgewater residents’ statement
      Credit: Participating Residents, Investigation of the Acoustic Impact of Pacific Hydro’s Wind Turbines at Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, Australia, 21st January, 2015 ~~

      ‘[excerpt] The Acoustic Group’s Principal, Mr Steven Cooper, was commissioned by wind developer Pacific Hydro to undertake an investigation into “noise” emitted from the wind farm as a result of our long unresolved complaints about the impact of Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind turbines on our health, on the habitability of our homes and on the quality of our lives. Symptoms we have experienced include severe nausea, headaches, ear pressure, inability to concentrate, and severe and debilitating sleep problems, which we have endured over the six years of operation of the Cape Bridgewater wind power facility. Our health and sleep problems had previously been independently investigated and confirmed by Dr Bob Thorne, in 2012.

      The project brief developed in conjunction with Pacific Hydro, required Mr Cooper to apply a lateral approach and to investigate any wind speed condition or noise levels that could be related to our complaints, rather than to assess noise impacts in terms of the standard dB(A) regression method. Mr Cooper was required to start with a clean slate and from our complaints work backwards to investigate.

      The inclusion of “sensation” as a descriptor of an impact describes exactly what we have ‘felt’ all these years, although the screeching of the turbines when turning, together with the incessant thumping is still noise that significantly and regularly disturbs us, especially at night.

      Mr Cooper’s report identifies there is a specific pattern of infrasound frequencies at the Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm when it is operating, which are not present when the turbines are shut down. These infrasound frequency patterns were measured in our homes, at levels up to 20 decibels higher than those at the Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin, recently declared to be a “Hazard to Human Health” by the Town Health Board.

      Mr Cooper’s investigations also found correlation between the “high severity” sensations we experience as noted in our diaries and his measurements of wind turbine infrasound inside our homes. “High severity” describes the times when the symptoms or sensations are so severe that we feel we have to immediately leave our homes. These high severity impacts happen regularly for those of us who live, stay or visit our homes at Cape Bridgewater. Some of our health practitioners have advised us to permanently leave our homes in order to escape the symptoms and regain our health. Unfortunately some of us have developed permanent health problems known to result from continuing exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise so that even permanently moving away will not restore our health to its pre-wind turbine level.

      The inclusion of complete shut-downs in the study clearly showed the wind farm generates specific infrasound frequencies that are directly related to the operation of the turbines.

      Our diaries and the concurrent full spectrum acoustic measurements inside and outside our homes clearly demonstrate that it is the operation of the wind facility correlating with our symptoms.

      The assertions made by others that our symptoms result from scaremongering (the nocebo effect) are untrue, and always have been. The inclusion of complete shut-down periods of the wind facility during the investigation reminded us of the general peace, serenity and wellbeing of our lives before the wind facility started operating.

      The investigation also demonstrated that the current noise pollution guidelines operating in Victoria are useless and do not protect us from harm.

      We note that direct causation of symptoms and sensations from wind turbine emissions of impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise, including sleep deprivation and body vibrations, was established thirty years ago by Dr Neil Kelley and his NASA co-researchers, in studies funded by the US Government Department of Energy.

      How is it that Pacific Hydro and its acoustic consultants (Marshall Day and Sonus), and the Victorian Departments of Health and Planning did not know this? Did they not know about this research or did they knowingly proceed with installations anyway? We have long believed that the responsible authorities have a different agenda, which includes ignoring their public duties and obligations as provided for in the Health and Wellbeing Act. Are we just third class citizens whose fate it is to become collateral damage to these unsafe machines? Will no one protect us and ensure that the health of the public is protected?

      It is now time to right these wrongs. […]’

  4. To be awaken is now the weapon of choice and it is peaceful but practical and desperately needed to end there game play on ushttp://wakeup-world.com/2014/06/26/understanding-and-dismantling-the-global-control-system/

  5. In the video, couldn’t help but notice wind mouthpiece Brandy Giannetta strategically posed in front of a mini turbine, hoping to perpetuate the idea that less is less.

  6. If anyone had any lingering doubts about the existence of an Agenda 21 mindset, look no further than here:


    You Country Bumpkins, Hillbillies, Gun Toters and assorted Unsustainable Hicks from the Sticks need to just disappear from this province so the likes of Carol Goar can message their out of date self-images whilst sucking on their lattes during all-night grocery shopping junkets.

    And you thought I was kidding?

Leave a Reply

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