Category Archives: Health

Uncategorized

2017 WIND TURBINE ACCIDENT REPORT

6 Comments

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 30 September 2017

These accident statistics are copyright Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2017. The data may be used or referred to by groups or individuals, provided that the source (Caithness Windfarm Information Forum) is acknowledged and our URL http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk quoted at the same time. Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is not responsible for the accuracy of Third Party material or references.

The Summary may be downloaded in printable form here

This is GLOBAL data – see Detailed Accident List with sources and locations

The attached detailed table includes all documented cases of wind turbine related accidents and incidents which could be found and confirmed through press reports or official information releases up to 30 September 2017. CWIF believe that this compendium of accident information may be the most comprehensive available anywhere.

Data in the detailed table attached is by no means fully comprehensive – CWIF believe that what is attached may only be the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency. Indeed on 11 December 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported that RenewableUK confirmed that there had been 1500 wind turbine accidents and incidents in the UK alone in the previous 5 years. Data here reports only 142 UK accidents from 2006-2010 and so the figures here may only represent 9% of actual accidents.

The data does however give an excellent cross-section of the types of accidents which can and do occur, and their consequences. With few exceptions, before about 1997 only data on fatal accidents has been found.

The trend is as expected – as more turbines are built, more accidents occur. Numbers of recorded accidents reflect this, with an average of 22 accidents per year from 1997-2001 inclusive; 70 accidents per year from 2002-2006 inclusive; 135 accidents per year from 2007-11 inclusive, and 164 accidents per year from 2012-16 inclusive.

READ MORE: 
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

UrdIpHAK
Energie Burgenland Windkraft in flames Dec.2017
Adverse Health Effects, Children Affected, Destruction from turbines, Environment, Health, Ontario Wind, Property Rights

Good Neighbours Do Not Do This to Others

1 Comment

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On the shores of Lake Erie in Haldimand County- Ontario, Canada hundreds upon hundreds of industrial wind turbines intrude, harm, harass and trespass.

Adverse Health Effects, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Direct Effects, Health, Health Canada's wind Turbine Noise and Health Study, Noise, Ontario Wind

Bottom Line- We Don’t Believe You

1 Comment

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

Cost Benefit, Health, Noise, Ontario Wind, The problem with Wind Turbines

Wind Turbine Poetry Throwdown at Queens Park

1 Comment
santaslumpofcoal2.jpg
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:

WIND TURBINES
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”:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fvotepatrickbrown%2Fvideos%2F732796846918522%2F&show_text=0&width=560

Children Affected, Health, Property Rights, Protecting our children

Wind turbine issue should be priority

1 Comment

children-turbine

Credit:  Journal Review | Dec., 13, 2017 | www.journalreview.com

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

Adverse Health Effects, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Children Affected, Direct Effects, Government Misrepresentation, Health, Lack of municipal power in planning, Noise, Willing Hosts

9 Years of ongoing Noise Complaints for Enbridge Wind

1 Comment
chatham-kent-ontario-enbridge-wind-from-hwy3-talbot-trail15 (1)
CHATHAM KENT ONTARIO ENBRIDGE WIND FROM HWY3 TALBOT TRAIL15

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.

 

Corruption, Cost Benefit, Environment, Green Energy, Health, Property Rights

Wind turbines bring a lot of questions

2 Comments

Letter published in:  wallaceburgcourierpress.com
Friday, December 1, 2017

I have heard the stock statement answers from the premier, MOECC minister, his staff, Chatham-Kent mayor and council, municipal administration and the main owners of the North Kent wind farm that it is making me sick.

These stock answers are:
–We take the concerns about ground water seriously.
–We take a very cautious, scientifically-based approach when setting standards for renewable energy projects to protect the health of the Ontario people.
–Pile driving vibrations do not affect water wells.
–Our Government is committed to clean energy.

The concerns of residents in some of the affected areas in the former Dover Township have been made aware to the Ministry in 2012. The problem arose in the former Chatham Township shortly after pile driving started in June of this year, just as was predicted by Water Wells First, based on what had happened in Dover which has the same Kettle Point Black Shale in the aquifer.  MOECC’s solution was to take turbidity tests which represents the clarity of water and not the heavy metals that are being carried in the water, some visible and some only visible under a microscope.

Dr. Colby states that the lead, arsenic mercury and uranium carried in the particles in the water will not render it unsafe. At the same time, he refuses to touch or have it tested and certainly would not drink it.

Scientific based approaches are as effective as is intended by those doing the testing.

I saw a vibration monitor on the Centre Side Road that was affixed to a well casing, which is not in contact with the bedrock, with a hose clamp that was not tightened to hold it tightly against the casing to pick up vibration. In addition, it was less then 100 meters from the road and at least 550 meters from the pile driving site. Does it seem reasonable to have a busy road between the site monitored and the sensor? Does it seem reasonable that no analysis is being done on the black matter suddenly appearing in wells that have been pristine for decades? Is that what a scientifically based cautious approach is all about?

So, computer models and engineer’s theory say that pile driving does not affect water wells!  No one has heard of a major water well problem for years, yet within two or three months of pile driving at least 16 water wells have been adversely affected. Engineer’s theory also said that the Titanic was unsinkable. Engineer’s theory and model said that the O ring in the Challenger space shuttle was adequate, but its failure caused an explosion and a major crisis in the USA space program. There is precedence for engineer’s theories and models for being wrong. Could this be another? Does actual observation not have preference over theory?

Our government is committed to clean energy apparently at the cost of water wells. Perhaps if the following questions were answered, it would shed some light on why they have this commitment.

How much money was paid by the wind industry to individuals, political parties and the Ontario government for the privilege of building turbines in Ontario without interference?

How much money was paid by the wind industry to individuals and the municipality to become friendly hosts for turbine construction?

How much money would it take to stop construction and stop operation of turbines until their negative impact on environment issues, especially water, are properly assessed by an independent party, since our politicians, local and provincially, obviously had not done “due diligence” prior to signing the agreements?

Are the citizens of this province being used as pawns in a system that is broken? Are some ministries, such as MOECC, actually company self-monitoring agencies that are incorrectly being paid by our tax dollars rather then the companies that they refuse to police. How do we change things? Is common sense dead?

Peter J Hensel
Dover Centre

Titanic_sinking,_painting_by_Willy_Stöwer
Titanic sinking, painting by Willy Stöwer
Cost Benefit, Environment, fighting big wind., Health, Ontario Wind, Property Rights, Protecting our children

WLGWAG Annual General Meeting

1 Comment

agm 2017ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Silverdale Community Hall, 4610 Sixteen Rd. St. Ann’s, ON
Members Election of Board 7:00 pm • Program Start 7:30 pm
• Current Situation, Locally, Provincially & World Wide • Legal actions in Ontario
• What are our Activities? Health study for those thinking of moving.
• Long term exposure and VAD • The Risks – Infra Sound – Stray Current-Water Wells
• 2500 Homes in rural in West Lincoln exposed to IWT’s • Your Questions Answered

WLGWAG logo

WLGWAG • wlwag.com

Adverse Health Effects, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Children Affected, Cost Benefit, Destruction from turbines, Environment, Government Misrepresentation, Green Energy, Health, Ontario Wind

Wind turbine woes won’t be forgotten

1 Comment

queens-park-stop-the-wind-turbines
Queen’s Park Protest 2014 -Toronto, Ontario

Editorial: Wind turbine woes won’t be forgotten

By Peter Epp, Postmedia Network

When Premier Kathleen ­Wynne announced 14 months ago that her government was suspending Ontario’s renewable energy procurement process, she and her Liberal colleagues were caught in the middle of a public backlash against skyrocketing electricity bills. Halting a costly plan that promoted wind turbine farms was a quick, convenient response. Indeed, Wynne’s own energy minister admitted Ontario didn’t need the electricity that would be produced by new turbines.

But there was a problem. Six months earlier, several wind turbine projects had been approved, and the September announcement didn’t mean they would be cancelled. The contracts would be honoured. Ontario would be allowing the development of wind turbines to produce electricity that wasn’t needed.

Among those projects are two in Chatham-Kent and another in Elgin County. One has become an enormous public relations problem for the Wynne government, while the other two have the potential to become the same.

The first project is almost complete; but the others should be halted before they begin.

The North Kent 1 wind project was mired in controversy even before Wynne announced suspension of the renewable program. Construction activity is believed to have fouled or clogged at least 16 water wells because of interference to the area’s unique geology. Residents with damaged wells have made arrangements to have clean water trucked to their property.

The problems at the North Kent 1 project have stirred up fears a few kilometres away, at the Otter Creek project. Work has yet to begin, but residents are worried the same problems will affect their water. They’re also worried proposed turbine towers, the tallest in Canada, will be erected in an important migratory bird flight path.

Local MPP Monte McNaughton (PC — Lambton-Kent-Middleses) wants Otter Creek halted.

“These turbines are being built to generate electricity we don’t need, and they’re only going to contribute to driving hydro prices even higher,” he said.

In Elgin County, meanwhile, residents in Dutton Dunwich continue to campaign against a wind farm that has yet to be built.

Kathleen Wynne may have hoped rural Ontario’s long-held discontent with the Green Energy Plan would be forgotten by the June 2018 provincial election. But that’s not about to happen as the remnants of that multibillion-dollar campaign, and its varied controversies, continue to be revealed.

Read article