Category Archives: Government Misrepresentation

Adverse Health Effects, Destruction from turbines, Direct Effects, Environment, Government Misrepresentation, Ontario Wind

Ministry using old science for a new problem

1 Comment

letters to editor

Letter to Editor| Published in Chatham Daily News| Feb. 8, 2018

I read in Monday’s Chatham Daily News online that the provincial environment ministry states that the turbine construction has not had a negative affect on water wells. This is despite the fact that residents were encouraged to have baseline water tests to compare with post-construction water quality. There are many wells that have had a long history of good water quality that were negatively affected at the time of or shortly after construction of the turbines as shown by water analysis post construction. This has become too common to be a coincidence.

It seems that the ministry is relying on the “science” that existed prior to this project to make their conclusion that there could be no effect on water wells. Perhaps they should look at the reality that exists today and do the work to figure out why there is a clear effect on many wells. They have that responsibility ­– it is clearly stated in the terms of reference of this project that any negative affect on water wells must be dealt with.

It is time for the ministry to fulfill their responsibility and hold the wind company to those terms.

Until that time they investigate fully why there is damage to residents’ water source and work towards a solution that serves local residents, the information they are spreading reminds me of the droppings of male cattle.

Bill Weaver

RR5, Dresden, Ontario

Adverse Health Effects, Children Affected, fighting big wind., Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, harm to wildlife, Health, Noise, Ontario Wind, Property Rights, Protecting our children, Turbines run on Subsidies, Unite the Fight!

Lowbank Rebel

Gallery 1 Comment

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Environment, Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, Health, Ireland Wind, Property Rights

Scandal! EirGrid in the Crosshairs

Leave a comment

~What happens when decisions concerning build out of electricity generation infrastructure has already been decided and public consultation done just for show?

~What happens when new extensions of the grid appear linked to facilitate the rapid and contested build of industrial wind turbines while ignoring cumulative environmental impacts? 

Members of the RTS Substation Action Group in Ireland  are taking action to protect their communities and have exposed the involvement of  EirGrid.  A huge substation is planned capable of accepting multiple wind facilities to the Irish electrical grid.   A substation that if built could impact clean drinking water for well over 8 000.   

eirgrid-crosshairs1.jpg

Ratheniska residents are claiming that they have exposed Eirgrid’s litany of failures and systematic corporate sharp practice. 

The Ratheniska, Timahoe, Spink (RTS) Action Group, when briefing Minister Denis Naughten, made a number of extremely serious allegations, which they backed up with a dossier of painstakingly accumulated evidence: 20170118 – Presentation to Ministers-For Issue

Aside from the long standing issues of site unsuitability, water source destruction and planning process corruption, the RTS Action Group claimed to have unearthed very serious transgressions by Eirgrid’s board of the code of practice for semi state bodies.

The evidence indicated that EirGrid had created “a short cut on the board“.  RTS Action Group explained that four members on the EirGrid Board had formed a “sub-board” and were “filtering information going to the board where they are now rubber stamping projects and funding on the basis of recommendation by this four member sub – board.”

If these allegations prove to be true, and the RTS Action Group are adamant that they are, then this constitutes an extremely serious breach of the code of practice, which should lead to a mass resignation of the EirGrid Board of Directors.

In a statement released after the meeting with the Minister, the RTS Group said:

“The RTS Group believe that Minister Naughten, who was accompanied to meet the delegation by his Cabinet colleague and local TD, Charlie Flanagan, had his eyes opened and was astonished by the import, nature, scope, scale and seriousness of the information being placed before him, for the first time.

This meeting arose from a promise made last June in the Dáil by Minister Naughten to visit the site of Eirgrid’s “unauthorised development” and the community who alerted the authorities to Eirgrid’s illegal building activities.

Our greatest concern is that the construction of Eirgrid’s unnecessary energy hub project will destroy and pollute the very necessary and only source of clean water for not just this community but for 8,000 Laois people. All of the evidence of how Eirgrid have conducted themselves up to now points to this eventuality, and we just can’t allow that to happen.
The political fallout from this semi-state operating with such a cavalier attitude to planning law, sustainable development, professional best practice, and corporate responsibility was that all three local TD’s and all Laois County Councillors were unanimous in calling for Eirgrid to cease the development.

We set out some of the evidence for the Ministers as to how Eirgrid have been deliberately deceiving us, the planning authorities, the other arms of state, and even the Dáil from the very outset of this ill-conceived project. This is not due to a few mistakes, or a few individuals making errors, but systematic deception through every phase of this development from its inception to illegal commencement. This evidence has been collected through in depth research and forensic examination. The community could not rely on what Eirgrid were telling us in the public domain throughout their sham consultation process. This damning dossier has been given to Minister Naughten, who as line Minister is ultimately responsible for Eirgrid, their conduct and corporate transparency and accountability.

The buck stops with him. He is now in full knowledge of the scale and scope of Eirgrid’s deception and disgraceful behaviour, we expect the Minister to reel Eirgrid in, to finally make them accountable for their actions on site and in their boardroom. He must move to scrap the project. On foot of today’s new revelations it is incumbent on the Minster to act, act promptly and decisively”.

The last word goes to the current Minister of Justice, who made the following statement after being briefed by the RTS Group:

“There has been a clear breach of law. The breach is sufficiently serious to abandon the project. I don’t believe there is any way back for EirGrid. They should pack up their machinery and should not come back.”

Source: The Law is My Oyster

Adverse Health Effects, Environment, Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, Health, legal challenges, Noise

Ontario Environment Ministry Sued

1 Comment

NO DDOWTOntario Environment Ministry sued over failure to protect public from industrial wind turbine noise

News provided by

Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation

TORONTO, Jan. 25, 2018 /CNW/ – A judicial review application has been filed against the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) in the Divisional Court in Toronto. The application alleges Ontario regulations and directives limit the amount of noise any residence in the province should have to tolerate from a wind project. Modelling is used to predict these impacts.

The MOECC has admitted previous guidelines resulted in underestimates of the noise at nearby homes. However, without any evidence that this was necessary, the MOECC has allowed companies promoting at least five large-scale wind projects to ignore new government guidelines. The result is hundreds of Ontario residents near these planned turbines could be living next to turbines that produce noise out of compliance with government regulations. If these projects, located in various parts of Ontario, were required to comply with the new guidelines, it is estimated up to three-quarters of these turbines would have to be relocated or removed.

“The government knows the modeling done by wind companies is wrong. However, the government now doesn’t require them to follow the proper process. It’s not surprising people from across Ontario are joining together to vigorously oppose this,” said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for the court applicant.

“We do not take this step lightly,” commented Bonnie Rowe, spokesperson for Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines, applicant in this suit. “But we estimate that these five proposed wind power projects will be out of compliance with noise levels as soon as they go on-line. In the Dutton Dunwich case, the majority of the proposed turbines, will likely produce noise over the MOECC maximum allowable levels. That is just unacceptable, especially to the many citizens living nearby, who will be forced to endure that noise. We appreciate the collaborative efforts in this application, of citizens in the other affected communities in Ontario – North Stormont, La Nation, and Wallaceburg.”

SOURCE Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation

For further information: Eric Gillespie, legal counsel, 416-436-7473 (phone/text); Bonnie Rowe, Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines, 519-639-5415 (phone/text); Margaret Benke, Concerned Citizens of North Stormont, 613-558-9236 (phone/text); Julie Leroux, Save the Nation, 613-307-1499 (phone/text); Violet Towell, Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns, 519-350-1829 (phone/text)

Adverse Health Effects, Cost Benefit, Destruction from turbines, Environment, ERT Appeal, Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, harm to wildlife, Health, Lack of municipal power in planning, Ontario Wind, Property Rights, Unite the Fight!

White Pines ERT & The People vs IESO & WPD

1 Comment

A call to action!

Your presence is requested in the seats at the upcoming Environmental Review Tribunal hearing against White Pines Wind and circumstances surrounding the IESO contract for the renewable energy approval.

Upcoming Court and ERT dates/times/locations:

APPEC legal action against the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and WPD White Pines Wind Inc. will be heard on January 29, 2018 at the Belleville Court House starting at 2:00 pm.

Additionally, the hearing dates for the APPEC appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) have been confirmed as follows:

Pre-hearing Conference
January 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. at the Sophiasburgh Town Hall, 2771 County Road 5, Demorestville.

The purpose of the Pre-hearing Conference is for interested persons who would like speak at the hearing to apply for status either as a Party, a Participant or a Presenter. Please click here if you are interested in finding out more about seeking status at the hearing and click here to view the ERT Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference.

ERT Main Hearing
February 12, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. at the Sophiasburgh Town Hall.

The most effective way of showing the Superior Court and the Tribunal of the level of community concern with the White Pines wind project is with your presence.

Source: Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County

*To confirm dates and venue locations for any changes please contact the Environmental Review Tribunal *

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, Health

Wind and water, right and wrong

2 Comments

Right-Wrong

The Chatham Voice|January 15, 2018| Letter to Editor

Sir: This wind-water issue in north Chatham-Kent has been dragging on – it seems like – forever. Is it just me, or does it feel like there is a lot of crap going on around the issue that is successfully distracting people from a real and serious issue. The ‘crap’ I am referring to is the politics (of wind power), the personalities (of Randy Hope and Kevin Jakubec) and the lame excuses getting in the way of meaningful action.

First is the excuse that the windmill projects are not to blame for the water quality issues. The only thing I can say to that is to please stop insulting our intelligence! It is NOT a coincidence that these wells, which have produced clean water for years and years, suddenly and en masse became spoiled at the same time that the construction of these mega-project windmills started.

The second excuse is the sediment in the water, and whether it should be tested, how it should be tested, and whether it is harmful to human health. My answer to this is quite simple: if you don’t know for sure, err on the safe side. Test it for everything you can, and if there are potential risks that exist, consider them real.

Mayor Hope wants to argue that the residents are not drinking the sediment, but perhaps he was sleeping through the science class that taught us sediment is made up of particles ranging in size from those you can see to microscopic ones that are essentially dissolved and part of the solution that can pass through filters and be consumed.

What if 20 years down the road it is found out that the black shale sediment in these wells is the root cause of widespread health issues among the rural population in these wind turbine areas? Is council blessed with some crystal ball that allows them to foresee the future? Is council willing to take the risk of being wrong? Do they want that on their conscience?

Behind all this smoke and mirrors is a real issue about water, and the rights we all have to water. More importantly, and what should concern every citizen in C-K, is the obvious and deliberate disregard our elected leadership in Chatham-Kent has towards this right. Those council members that are not giving their all to defend the water rights of those citizens in Dover and Chatham Townships are the same members that the rest of us across C-K are going to be counting on to look after our best interests when/if our need arises, whatever that need may be. How does that make you feel? How much confidence do you have that they will do the “right thing” when your time arises?

Here is the bottom-line: Water security is a principle where no exception should be made and no ground be given. It’s one of those hills that are worth dying for and something community leaders are elected to valiantly protect. We cannot let these wind companies walk away making millions off C-K’s wind resources and leave behind a trail of spoiled wells and plastic water tanks. If they are going to leave here and benefit from C-K for years to come, the least they can do is leave CK the way they found it!

We should all be paying attention and contacting our local councillors, demanding that they do their job, do the right thing and stand up for the basic rights of their fellow C-K citizens. This is not about wind any longer, it is about water – a basic human requirement and right! And we should be judging our elected leaders by their actions on this important community issue. Municipal elections are less than a year away – let’s hope this issue has a solution in-principle by then.

Rick Youlton

Chatham, Ontario

Adverse Health Effects, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Government Misrepresentation, Health, Lack of municipal power in planning, Noise

Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Misleading the Public

Leave a comment

windTurbineSyndrome1-814x400

January 17, 2018

A group of municipal officials sent a formal letter to the supervisor of the Owen Sound office of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) following a presentation by the MOECC on the subject of wind turbine noise, noise reports, and adverse health effects.

While thanking manager Rick Chappell for his presentation, Stewart Halliday and Mark Davis, deputy mayors speaking on behalf of the group, said it was disappointing, and designed to mislead the public into thinking there are not problems with wind turbine noise in Ontario.

It’s time to stop denying the health effects, the Multi-Municipal group said, and get on to the business of alleviating the real suffering.

The letter follows.

M U L T I – M U N I C I P A L W I N D  T U R B I N E W O R K I N G  G R O U P

11 January, 2018

Andrew Barton, District Supervisor Andrew.Barton2@ontario.ca

Rick Chappell, District Manager Rick.Chappell@ontario.ca

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

101 –17th Street East

Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 0A5 Dear Mr. Barton and Mr. Chappell,

RE: Your presentation to our meeting of 14 December, 2017

Thank you for taking the time to make your presentation to the Multi-municipal Wind Turbine Working Group.

As councillors, we have had ongoing complaints from a significant number of residents living near wind turbines in our area who are suffering harm to their health. The video we presented to you documents the experience of some of those affected. It will also help you to understand the widespread anger and disillusionment with the MOECC’s failure to act on their behalf.

Much of the suffering could have been avoided had the local MOECC offices identified to their standards division that the public were adversely impacted (as confirmed by complaints and field monitoring) even when the turbines might have been compliant with the A weighted limits, since those limits were not appropriately corrected for the cyclical nature of the sound that is unmatched in nature, the tonality, the frequency spectrum, and the dominance of the sound above the local environment, and the other special characteristics of the wind turbine sound.

As recently revealed in FOI disclosure, there have been hundreds of complaints. Failure to resolve them, declining to shut down problematic arrays, and relying on proponent estimates of noise emissions only creates growing distrust of the MOECC.

Your presentation was disappointing. It appeared to be designed to mislead the public into thinking there are no health problems. You presented a rosy picture of a government that is busy working  on our behalf. But our experience shows that it is not.

You admitted at the meeting that you are aware that some people living near wind turbines are getting sick. You agree that IWTs cause annoyance and that leads to health issues. It is time to accept this and move forward— to protect the public so that they are not adversely impacted.

The urgent need for action is confirmed by the recent decision of Australia’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that declared: “We accept that the evidence points to an association and a plausible pathway between WTN and adverse health effects (of a physical nature) mediated by annoyance, sleep disturbance and/or psychological distress”.

The Ministry’s commitment to the Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) (1994) stipulates that it will use “a precautionary, science-based approach in its decision-making to protect human health and the environment” and that “it will place priority on preventing pollution [in this case harmful noise emissions] . . . minimizing the creation of pollutants that can adversely affect the environment. . . . The Ministry will ensure that staff involved in decisions that might significantly affect the environment is aware of the Ministry’s Environmental Bill of Rights obligations”.

You can no longer justify continued inaction by falsely assuming that “components of wind turbine sound including infrasound and low-frequency sound have not been shown to present unique health risks to people living near wind turbines”.

Scientific, peer reviewed work carried out on infrasound and wind turbines by NASA under the direction of the highly respected Dr. Neil Kelley between 1981 and 1988 demonstrated the infrasound component of wind turbine emissions and its adverse effect on nearby residents. The World Health Organization has issued warnings that “the evidence on low frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern”; “low-frequency noise . . . can disturb rest and sleep even at low sound pressure levels”; “other primary physiological effects can also be induced by noise during sleep, including increased blood pressure; increased heart rate; … vasoconstriction; …cardiac arrhythmia”.

Ambrose and Rand (2011, 2012), Basner et al. (2014), Cooper (2014), James (2013), and Nissenbaum (2012) all related measurements of wind turbine emissions (including infrasound) directly to diarized symptoms reported by those living nearby. Thorne’s study (2013), which took place over seven years, collected acoustic data at a number of homes so that cumulative exposures could be estimated. It concluded that health is “seriously and adversely affected”. Swinbanks paper presented in Glasgow in 2015 did not support your position. The MOECC failed to refer to  published peer reviewed documentation by Tachibana and Kuwano in the Noise Control Engineering Journal 62(6) 503-520 (2015): “Wind Turbine Noise (WTN) generally has dominant low frequencies and is easily transmitted into buildings, causing residents psycho-acoustical annoyance and sleep disturbance”.

We would be happy to provide you with these documents.

How did it get to this state of affairs that local residents have a greater understanding of the problems than the people whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers to protect us? We await some timely, responsible, diligent enforcement action from your office to alleviate the suffering of our residents.

Yours truly,

Stewart Halliday, Deputy Mayor Municipality of Grey Highlands, Chair

Mark Davis, Deputy Mayor Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, Vice-chair

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Adverse Health Effects, Aviation, ERT Appeal, Government Misrepresentation

Planes and wind turbines don’t mix.

1 Comment
STA_YIRturbines_de31_ia_Super_Portrait
Kevin Elwood was one of several challengers to a decision to award a renewable-energy approval for a wind turbine project in Clearview Township. – Ian Adams/Metroland

Wasaga Sun|Jan 02, 2018|by Ian Adam

Clearview decision on wind turbines set precedent: pilot

Planes and wind turbines don’t mix.

In August, the Environmental Review Tribunal upended the renewable energy approvals for a proposed eight-tower wind turbine project in Clearview after nearly a decade of protests by neighbours, and the objections of both township council and Collingwood because of the turbines’ proximity to the regional airport.

In February 2016, the director of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change approved the REA for WPD Canada’s Fairview Wind project. Resident John Wiggins was first to file an objection, and was followed by Kevin and Gail Elwood, whose aerodrome off County Road 91 would also be adversely affected by the proposed locations of the towers.

Both Collingwood and Clearview — along with the County of Simcoe — would follow suit in appealing the decision on the basis the location of the towers near the regional airport represented a threat to human health.

“It was worth it, but the worth was in making a change to a government policy that didn’t respect a huge sector of the community … the aviation community,” said Elwood, a Clearview councillor and pilot who also has a hangar at the Collingwood Regional Airport.

Elwood said the tribunal’s decision was one that could have been arrived at 10 years earlier by the provincial government when they implemented the Green Energy Act.

At that time, Elwood said, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association testified at the committee level there could be conflict between turbines, aerodromes and flight procedures, and “the province ignored it at that stage.”

“It took them 10 years to recognize there were safety risks and that irreversible harm to human health existed,” he said. “The government made a decision that green energy was … above everything, above all other interests.”

Read rest of article

Adverse Health Effects, Contracts Cancelled, Cost Benefit, Government Misrepresentation

Fully and Finally Resolving Falmouth’s Wind Debacle

Leave a comment

mjoecool's avatarFalmouth's Firetower Wind

Entering-Falmouth-sign-4-990x250

Closure rides on the Elder et al v. Town of Falmouth Case

This pending case appeals the building commissioner and the ZBA’s decision wherein both are claimed to have incorrectly interpreted the by-law to allow the issuance of a building permit (Mar 2010) for Wind 2.

The Eilder group’s defense is grounded in a related action by the Court (Drummey v. Falmouth, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 127 (Feb 2015)), wherein Wind 1 required a special permit as part of a comprehensive bylaw scheme to control wind turbine placement and impact in the town.  Drummey v. Falmouth was the definitive case forcing then Building Commissioner Eladio Gore to order the town to apply for a special permit for Wind 1. Building Commissioner Gore claimed Wind 2 was not addressed in Drummey v. Falmouth, and was thus exempt from his Wind 1 order.

In light of recent events (Falmouth…

View original post 508 more words

Adverse Health Effects, Cost Benefit, Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, Property Rights, Shadow Flicker, US Wind

Puppets on a string

1 Comment

Puppets-cover-640x430

Credit: Emmetsburg News|December 19th, 2017

At the Supervisors meeting of Oct 24, they adamantly denied the accusation that they had effectively let Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy write the Palo Alto County Wind Energy Ordinance. However, documents obtained by way of the Iowa Open Records Act indicate otherwise. The original ordinance, written Aug 11, 2016, clearly did not meet with Invenergy’s and MidAmerican Energy’s approval. In a memo from Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy to the Supervisors dated Aug 26, 2016, the company states, “there are some key provisions that must be changed if the county desires to attract and encourage the development of wind energy conversion systems” Following are some specific examples comparing the original ordinance with the one modified to meet Invenergy’s demands.

Compliance with Palo Alto County Zoning Ordinance: Original: “requirement to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance in accordance with Article 9, Section 5 of the Palo Alto County Zoning Ordinance.” – Modified: zoning compliance eliminated.

Setbacks from Permanent Residential Dwellings: Original: 2640 ft.- Modified: 1500 ft.

Setbacks from Property Lines: Original: 1000 ft. – Modified: 120% of height of wind device (approximately 600 ft).

Setbacks of Wind Energy Accessory buildings from permanent residential dwellings: Original: 2640 ft. – Modified: 1500 ft.

Shadow Flicker: Original: “No wind energy conversion system shall be installed in any location where shadow shall fall on any existing residential structures.” – Modified: “The owner-developer shall use shadow flicker computer modeling to estimate the amount of shadow flicker anticipated before mitigating any of it.” (How reassuring it is to learn that how I feel about my health will be determined by an energy company’s computer model.)

Drainage Systems: Original: “Permit required if underground electrical construction activity spans across organized drainage districts and private tile systems. – Modified: No permit required for affecting private tile systems.

These are just some of the many changes demanded by Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy to increase the profitability of their project. Clearly most of the Supervisors, with assistance from other county employees, capitulated to every demand, without considering residents who are adversely affected by the project, and who elect and pay these county officials to look after their well-being.

Instead, these same officials have forfeited the health, environment, and homes of some of their constituents to generate huge profits for companies like Invenergy, Mid-American Energy and its billionaire investors like Warren Buffet, and large wealthy landowners, most of whom are absentee. Nearly all major projects such as this involve costs and downsides, as well as any benefits. In this case there are many downsides, starting with the ill health effects on humans caused by shadow flicker, audible noise, and worst of all, infrasound, which can cause stress, sleeplessness, and nausea. Further, there can be adverse effects on farm animals as well. Also, wind turbines can kill many birds, especially when placed too close to lakes and wetlands. Therefore, it is so important to follow regulations and perform due diligence, neither of which has been undertaken by our county officials.

Dr. Stephen Mathis

Professor Emeritus,

Shippensburg University,

Emmetsburg