Bottom Line- We Don’t Believe You

MOECC failing as regulator: WCO

Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson says these remarks are either a sign of “stunning ignorance, or a calculated policy by the MOECC to ignore and even demean what is happening to people in Ontario.”

MOECC reps stun audience with views on wind turbine noise

Municipal officials told wind turbine noise no worse than barking dogs, no action planned

MOECC officials actually compared noise emissions from large-scale wind power generators, including harmful low-frequency noise, to barking dogs. A failure to regulate

December 16, 2017

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) position on wind turbine noise is that they don’t pose a health problem.

That’s the conclusion from remarks made by Owen Sound District Manager Rick Chappell and District Supervisor Andrew Barton, speaking to the Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group in Chesley this past week.

The two MOECC managers said repeatedly indicated that they are just messengers: the MOECC’s Technical Assessment and Standards Branch is responsible for establishing the Ministry’s position on wind turbine noise and providing “advice” to local District staff when they respond to queries.

Bottom line: we don’t believe you

In their presentation and responding to questions from municipal officials in the Multi-Municipal working group, the MOECC officials outlined key elements of the MOECC position on wind turbine noise.

  1. They agree that wind turbines can cause annoyance. Contrary to medical literature, however, they do not use “annoyance” as a medical term denoting stress or distress. They actually compared annoyance caused by barking dogs to residents’ reactions to wind turbine noise. *
  2. The MOECC managers insisted the literature did not demonstrate any direct health effects from wind turbine noise, when asked about health studies and reviews on turbine noise. Despite evidence of indirect health effects raised, the staff comments repeatedly indicate the MOECC is narrowly focused on direct health effects.
  3. The MOECC takes a one-sided view of the Health Canada study which according to these officials only found that there was no link between wind turbine noise and health impacts. This statement ignores the second half of the findings which confirmed a link between reported health effects experienced over 12 months and wind turbine noise. They also do not seem to be aware of the findings released to WCO which indicated that annoyance starts at 35 dBA, not the 40 dBA used in Ontario.
  4. Their view of the Council of Canadian Academies report was similarly selective. They downplayed the key finding of this review which was that there is sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and annoyance in the medical sense. Also not mentioned were the issues highlighted about measurements of wind turbine noise using A-weighted tools which fail to capture low frequency components of wind turbine noise. The Council noted that averaging measurements over time does not convey changes in sound pressure levels occurring in short periods.
  5. In terms of low frequency noise and infrasound, the MOECC representatives relied on a statement from Health Canada that levels of these emissions were found to be below levels that would expect to result in harm to human health. When questioned, however, they were not able to quantify what the MOECC considered “safe” levels of infrasound, or when the MOECC would be acquiring equipment that is capable of measuring emissions at frequencies below 20 Hz.
  6. Members of the Working Group countered by referring to research that conflicted with the MOECC statements. The response from Chappell and Barton was that the Technical Assessment and Standards Development branch reviews emerging research, but limits its assessments to peer-reviewed articles in “respected” journals.
  7. In the MOECC presentation, staff said the 2016 Glasgow International Wind Turbine Noise Conference supported their position on infrasound and health effects. This prompted the Technical Advisor to the group — who actually attended the conference — to inform them that he sent 14 papers presented at this conference to the Ministry, because the conclusions do not support the Ministry’s position.
  8. Chappell and Barton did not seem to be aware of the work of Dr. Neil Kelly at NASA in the mid-1970s on low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines, even though it was published in respected peer-reviewed journals and presented at U.S. wind industry conferences.
  9. Residents affected by wind turbine noise were present in the audience. One from Grey Highlands asked when the Ministry was going to respond to the noise assessments at his home that had been provided to the Ministry. No response timeline was provided. Another asked for the position of the MOECC on people who had to move from their homes because of the impact of the noise from nearby wind turbines. The response was that the MOECC has no position except to repeat that there is no direct link between wind turbine noise and health issues.

Members of the Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group did not appear to be satisfied with the answers provided by the Ministry officials; several follow-up activities are planned.

MOECC failing as regulator: WCO

Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson says these remarks are either a sign of “stunning ignorance, or a calculated policy by the MOECC to ignore and even demean what is happening to people in Ontario.”

Wilson, a Registered Nurse, says there is a great deal of evidence in the health literature about the range of noise emissions produced by large-scale wind turbines, and growing international concern about adverse health effects.

“Of course there are health effects,” Wilson said. “That’s why we have setbacks between turbines and homes in the first place. This Ministry refuses to acknowledge it has a problem and take appropriate action — it is failing the people of Ontario as a regulator.”

MOECC managers Rick Chappell (4th from left), Andrew Barton at December 14th meeting: their answers didn’t satisfy the committee [Photo: Wind Concerns Ontario]

*CanWEA in a 2011 news release acknowledged that a percentage of people can be annoyed by wind turbines, and the trade association said that when annoyance has a significant impact on quality of life, “it is important that they consult their doctor. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also describes noise-induced annoyance in legislation as a situation that “can have major consequences, primarily to one’s health.”

Source: Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind Turbine Poetry Throwdown at Queens Park

Ontario’s Wind turbines raised during question period

Question period saw a lively  exchange of Christmas poetry with wind turbines issues being raised  in Ontario’s  Parliament:

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Premier:
Wind turbines still go up against a town’s will,
Just like the Grinch ignoring councils,
this gives Liberals a thrill,
They swear that the turbines are all science-based.
But will she admit real noise pollution proves
that’s just not the case?
Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic
Development and Growth.
Hon. Brad Duguid: ’Tis the session before Christmas
And I note with much joy,
The kids in our land
Will enjoy plenty a toy.
Our unemployment rate
Is the lowest in years.
This Christmas we may
Even enjoy a few beers—
from grocery stores, nonetheless.
And so we wish you all
The best of the season,
And hope that next year
The opposition will engage with more reason.
The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?


Mr. Rick Nicholls: “Wind turbines must go,”
but the Liberals ignore
The demands of the people, as they loudly implore.
In the Alley of Carnage, the snow piles so high,
But the need for a barrier will they always deny?
Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s still the session
before Christmas
And it’s almost done.
It’s nice to spend time in this House
And even have fun.
We may be opposed to many an issue,
But when we leave this place
Rest assured,
We will miss you.
Let us focus this session
On those that are in need,
And let us work together
So Ontario can still lead.

Source: Hansard Ontario Dec.14.17

Ontario’s Opposition Party “Twas the last QP before Christmas Break”:

End of procurement of new contracts

“As a result of the province’s robust supply situation and flat yearly demand for electricity, the procurement phases of the IESO’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) and microFIT programs have come to an end. These programs have been instrumental in helping Ontario establish the clean energy supply mix it has today.”
IESO December 12th, 2017: Ontario’s electricity system ready for winter

Rays of light through the open white door on orange wall
Door closes on procurement of  new FIT & microFIT contracts for renewable energy in Ontario

Good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on your way out!   Now to move onto the next order of business-canceling existing wind power contracts and halting construction of additional projects.

Wind turbine issue should be priority


Credit:  Journal Review | Dec., 13, 2017 |

I attended a recent meeting in Linden concerning wind turbines and the current county ordinance. I came away saddened by all the conflict over this issue among neighbors and even within families over this issue.

I have always been opposed to county-wide zoning, but wind turbines seem a much worse threat to the county than zoning, since zoning only represents a raid upon our wallets, while wind turbines represent a danger to the health and safety of our neighbors and their children.

I was shocked to learn that our local ordinance allows children to play closer to the turbines than the operating companies allow their employees, except in cases of necessity.

I was saddened to hear allegations that some of our elected officials may have a monetary interest in wind turbines.

The county ordinance requires setbacks from the foundations of homes, rather than property lines. This seems to preclude anyone from building a dwelling on land between a current dwelling and the owner’s property line, which appears to be an unconstitutional taking of land without compensation.

The contracts with wind turbine builders have an allowance for $15,000 for decommissioning each turbine. This is not enough money to even get a crane to begin to take down one of these towers.

To add insult to injury, wind turbines are heavily subsidized by the federal government, because they are not and never will be economical to operate.

Finally, it is an insult to the people that our county commissioners have yet to put wind turbines on the agenda for a commissioners’ meeting.

Frank J. Stewart

Crawfordsville,  USA

LETTER: Government should do a cost-benefit analysis of the wind sector


We were both astonished and upset to read the article printed on December 1st, accusing communities fighting wind turbine developments as being funded by the nuclear and fossil fuel industry. Nothing could be further from the truth!
We have seen first hand the struggle these communities face in raising the necessary funds to fight these industrial developments in the courts, through individual donations, taking out loans and organising community fundraisers.
It is the wind farm industry itself, which has become a ‘vested interest,’ relying on subsidies, grants and tax payer’s money. The recent report painstakingly researched by Wind Aware Ireland shows that the wind industry is costing us €1.2 billion annually as a nation.
In return for this, they have failed to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. It must also be realised that wind energy generates electricity, which accounts for only 20% of this country’s total carbon emissions.
Wind farms have become the easy option as the developers and investors are guaranteed profits through the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT), which subsidises them and is paid for out of the PSO levy on each ESB bill. Central government has failed to do any cost-benefit analysis of the wind farm sector, to see if it is of any benefit to the country.
Meanwhile, rural communities have to stand up to these inappropriately-sited wind farm developments. Once they are built, they will provide no employment for the area and instead will reduce property values, keep tourists away and depopulate our countryside further.
There is also a growing body of evidence that ultra and infra sound generated by turbines have significant health effects on local residents. Most other countries have increased the regulations about the siting of wind farms, while in Ireland we are still subject to 10-year-old guidelines, made when turbines were one third of their present height.
Successive governments have promised to update these guidelines, but so far have failed to change them. We believe we have to look beyond the stranglehold of the wind lobby to other more effective ways of meeting our CO2 targets, including a mix of other renewables and a concerted effort to reduce our energy consumption.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Miller & family,
Dunmanway. Ireland

Published: Saturday, 9th December, 2017  The Southern Star

9 Years of ongoing Noise Complaints for Enbridge Wind

chatham-kent-ontario-enbridge-wind-from-hwy3-talbot-trail15 (1)

Kincardine Council asked the MOECC(Ministry of the Environment & Climate Change)  on December 6, 2017 what is being done about continued noise reports at the  Enbridge wind power project for the past NINE YEARS!  MOECC District Manager documents the history of incomplete reports, and reported health effects.


Ontarians taking it on the chin (& wallet)

money & plug

Ontario Auditor zaps power firm charges

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

TORONTO  – Soaring power prices, wind farms imposed on places that don’t want them and now this: Ontario consumers being dinged by power companies for things such as raccoon traps, scuba gear and staff car washes.

Zapped before by the province’s spending watchdog for its handling of the energy file, Ontario’s Liberal government — heading into an election year — took it on the chin again Wednesday in Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s annual report, which found ratepayers have footed the bill for up to $260 million in ineligible expenses under a provincial program that puts the producers on standby to generate power.

She also found ratepayers are paying the cost for large industrial companies’ electricity savings, and that Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) hasn’t implemented repeated recommendations from the Ontario Energy Board, including one that could save ratepayers $30 million a year.

Lysyk’s latest report looked at a program that pays power generators for fuel, maintenance and operating costs when the IESO puts them on standby to supply energy. Nine generators claimed up to $260 million in ineligible costs between 2006 and 2015, Lysyk said.

About two-thirds of that has been paid back.

One natural gas plant in Brampton “gamed” the system for about $100 million, the energy board, the province’s regulator, has reported.

Generators claimed thousands of dollars a year for staff car washes, carpet cleaning, road repairs, landscaping, scuba gear and raccoon traps, “which have nothing to do with running power equipment on standby,” Lysyk wrote.

One company claimed about $175,000 for coveralls and parkas over two years, she said.

“The program was such that bills could be submitted but without any support for the bills and the bills were being paid, and it wasn’t until more requests were made for detailed information that (the IESO) became aware that there were costs behind that bill that probably shouldn’t be reimbursed,” Lysyk said.

Lysyk had previously skewered the Liberals over electricity, concluding customers paid $37 billion for the government’s decisions to ignore its own planning process for new power projects, and that a $2-billion smart meter program spent double its projected costs and didn’t ensure conservation goals were met.

Her conclusions about the smart meter program led then-energy minister Bob Chiarelli to say the auditor’s numbers were less credible than his because the electricity system is complex and difficult to understand. Lysyk spent 10 years working at Manitoba Hydro.

The program to pay costs when energy suppliers are put on standby began in 2003, when Ontario’s electricity grid had supply issues, but now the province has surplus power.

Read Article


800 Pound Gorilla


I got back from Iraq in 2007 with two turbines within 1,000′ across the road on a neighbor’s property. Then the noise started, followed by shadow flicker when fall rolled around. I contacted my Jackson County Minnesota planning & zoning director who said everything was done to state specifications. He gave me the contact information to the company that was managing the wind turbines. That started a long battle with are they noisy, how noisy are they, there is no way to accurately test them, etc.

I have seen some right things and some wrong things in my 56 years in this country and 29-1/2 years in the National Guard. This whole wind power scam is just plain wrong. I feel there should be a national class action lawsuit on this issue, and frankly am surprised there hasn’t been one. The problem is there are those that think this is “green” energy, while the rural residents are tortured every single day by noise pollution and shadow flicker to name a couple. There is a “wind farm” in the planning process and the high pressure salesman talked to my brother three times getting the same answer: no. Then he had the gall to stop at my place.

I have always wanted this cartoon to be drawn up as I feel they are trampling the little guy and his family out here, making their acreages unlivable as mine is. So I had my sign maker draw it up, changed a few things here and there and had it published. I feel if I can prevent one person or family from going through the torture and hell I have gone through the last ten years, it will be worth it. As citizens we expect our government to take care of us and look out for our best interests. It has failed in the past with arsenic, asbestos, DDT, lead in paint, pipes and gasoline, Agent Orange and who knows how many other things they thought were safe to begin with. I think wind turbines fit right in the same category.

Tom Behrends, Brewster, MN

Download PDF

Source: National Wind Watch

Ryerson Wind Turbines Coming Down

Renewable Energy Approval Revoked: 

EBR 013-1940 

wind tech 2Ryerson University has decided to decommission all 6 wind turbines in its Wind Tech research project.  In 2009 the  project was awarded 729, 771 from the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The rest of the 1.8 million in project funding coming from the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, Ryerson and the Canadian industry.

“Wind power is associated with three difficult problems: wind is unpredictable, inconsistent and the energy it produces cannot be dispatched on demand.”
Bhanu Opathella, Ryerson researcher


Protecting our children from Industrial Wind Power Emissions is our first priority!

%d bloggers like this: