Category Archives: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Evidence given at the Fairfield vs MOE Environment Review Tribunal indicate that the MOE and MNR are not protecting the public and the environment.

Leave a comment

Ms. Garcia-Wright, Ms. Sarah Raetsen, Mr. Glen Murray, Mr. Eric Boysen:

B821406432Z.1_20131006220008_000_GOB1386DL.3_Content I have many concerns about the role of the MOE and the MNR in the renewable energy process.

At the ERT (Fairfield vs MOE) in Smithville on September 9 Vic Schroter stated: “We trust the proponent to give correct information.”  If this is the case, what is the purpose of regulations?  What is the purpose of the REA review team at the MOE? This is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.  There is definitely a conflict of interest if the proponent is allowed to carry out the project as they see fit.   How can the public have any assurance that the MOE is even looking at the documents for the renewable energy process?

The NRWC project has many errors in it –errors such as receptors being located where a transport truck is parked.  This is just one of many errors.

 For the NRWC project, has the MNR verified the existence or absence of natural features?  If not, then the project needs to be rejected.

The tribunal chair at the recent ERT identified training gaps with the environmental assessor that authored the Natural Heritage Assessment report for the HAF Wind Energy project.  The MOE and the MNR must ensure that there are no gaps in the NRWC project.  Many gaps have been provided to you in the past.  Evidence must be provided to the public ensuring that there are no gaps in the NRWC project.  The public now has little or no confidence in the renewable energy process.

 For the NRWC project, the public has never seen a guaranteed sound power level.  This is another mistake.  The public needs to see the guaranteed sound power level provided by the manufacturer.

There was a lot of evidence given at the Fairfield vs MOE Environment Review Tribunal – evidence indicating that the MOE and MNR are not doing a proper job of protecting the public and the environment. This is not how the government should serve the people in our community.  All REA projects need to be rejected or at the very least put on hold until all the gaps have been cleared up.

Can you please reply to this e-mail?

Yours truly,

Lois Johnson

Uncategorized

The MOE and MNR “trust” Proponents Not to Lie. Feel No Need to Check Applications for Accuracy.

Leave a comment

Ms. Garcia-Wright, Mr. Boysen,

B821406432Z.1_20131006220008_000_GOB1386DL.3_ContentAfter sitting through several days of the Fairfield vs. MOE Environmental Review Tribunal, I thought it prudent to respond to your last letter regarding the mistakes made by the Niagara Region Wind Corporation in identifying properties.  Your response provides no assurances that the MOE intends to verify these errors and that gives me cause for concern since there may very well be other errors of an even more critical nature in the application.  

At this hearing I learned that the MOE does not verify property line set back distances.  Mr. Vic Schroter testified that the ministry “trusts” the proponent to get it right. We all know that the property line assessment report was missing from the application yet the MOE approved it.  I also learned that the Ministry of Natural Resources does not verify the presence or absence of natural features. Inaccurate sizes of woodlands appeared in the Natural Heritage Report and yet it was approved as well.  Even the ERT chair commented on the training gaps of the person that authored that Natural Heritage Assessment Report.  To quote Mr. Schroter, the proponent “screwed up” and the error was only identified when the public brought it forward.  

What a dichotomy we have here.  The MOE continually states that wind developments are approved to ensure that both people and the environment are protected.  At the same time,the MOE advises that it’s up to proponents to ensure accuracy of applications.  How can you ensure protection if you don’t check the veracity of applications?  As we all know, the public has been identifying errors and bringing them forward to the MOE.  I have to wonder how many established wind developments are harming people and the environment simply becausethe public didn’t catch the errors.  In one case, a proposed turbine location was planned for within the 550m setback and again, it was the public that identified the problem – not the MOE.

 I would like to know what is considered in your technical review because it seems pretty clear that many things are being missed.  

As has previously been reported to you, the NRWC reports contain errors such as measurements taken from the roof a tractor-trailer and the roof of a barn rather than a true point of reception. The application of the NRWC shows that there will be receptors at the maximum permissible 40 dBA and that is based on a very suspect (and I submit, non-compliant) sound power level of 104.8. Given the 40 dBA prediction, if the government is truly interested in protecting health and environment,  it is incumbent upon you to check each and every measurement.  I believe this is warranted given the number of errors that the public has identified with other wind developments and by the fact that the proposed project will subject people to the maximum noise level.   

The government’s track record in approving wind developments is appalling and the public deserves better.  These are not the actions of a government that professes to protect human health and the environment.  How can you make that claim and then “trust” the people who will make millions of dollars from the developments will do it properly?  I demand better and feel that each and every component of the NRWC application must be reviewed by the government agencies in charge.  I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that the proponents cannot be “trusted” to provide complete and accurate reports and at this point, it would appear that the public cannot trust the government agencies in charge of renewable energy approvals to properly verify submissions either.

An early response from both ministries would be appreciated.

Thank you

Bonnie Tuson

 

Uncategorized

Systematic Review 2013: Association Between Wind Turbines and Human Distress

1 Comment

Guinea-pig-and-wind-farm-2-447x304And again, “Further research is warranted” …

Conclusions

We have demonstrated in our review the presence of reasonable
evidence (Levels Four and Five) supporting the existence of an
association between wind turbines and distress in humans. The
existence of a dose-response relationship between distance from
wind turbines and distress as well as the consistency of association
across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the
credibility of this association. Future research in this area is
warranted.

Read the entire report here: Arra-LynnStudyMay2014

 

Uncategorized

Damning Testimony presented at the Environmental Review Tribunal in West Lincoln for HAF Wind Energy Project

Leave a comment

Hi everyone,

B821406432Z.1_20131006220008_000_GOB1386DL.3_ContentAs many of you may know, the Environmental Review Tribunal for the HAF Wind Energy Project – Vineland Power was heard this week at the West Lincoln Council Chambers. Thank-you to all that came out for your support!!

For those of you that were not able to make it, Ministry officials from Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and also the Ministry of Natural Resources were questioned and cross examined during the last two days. A representative with the Environmental Assessment firm was also cross examined today

. Here is the damning testimony that we learned:

1. The Ministry of Environment does not verify set back distances of the wind turbines. They trust the wind proponent (but the turbines did not meet the required set back distances!)

2. The Ministry of Natural Resources does not verify either the presence or absence of natural features. For example, the size of woodlands were inaccurate in the Natural Heritage assessment report and no one at the MNR verified this. They are not careful to review the relevant documents and corresponding versions of those documents.

3. The Tribunal Chair identified training gaps with the environmental assessor that authored the Natural Heritage Assessment report.

So we have a problem with training, verification, process control with both Ministries and the environmental assessment firm.

Please email the ministries and show your concern.

If you have property within 120 meters of either a proposed industrial wind turbine, collector line or transmission line, please let them know that we learned that there are verification issues, training issues and process control issues.

Demand that they review the NRWC project in relation to your property to determine whether significant natural features exist and require mitigation measures.

If you live within the HAF project location, demand that they review the project in its entirety.

The HAF Renewable Energy Approval documents now lack the required integrity to provide the people in our Community with assurances that other components of the project were investigated in accordance with the REA Regulation.

If you don’t live within 120 meters, please write to voice your concerns. Because once this is approved, it is a tougher battle, and time is running out!

I have spent tireless hours researching this.

What compels me to keep going is that this is so NOT right.

This is NOT how civil servants serve the people in our Community.

This is NOT how a Ministry protects our natural features.

Please help with this fight.

If you could write/email in the next day or two, it would be so much appreciated.

1. Eric Boysen, Renewable Energy Director, Ministry of Natural Resources eric.boysen@ontario.ca

2. Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director, Renewable Energy Approvals, agatha.garcia-wright@ontario.ca

3. Copy: Andre Marin, Ombudsman for Ontario info@ombudsman.on.ca

4. Copy: Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner for Ontario commissioner@eco.on.ca

Mailing Addresses:

1. Eric Boysen, Renewable Energy Director, 5th Flr N, 300 Water St, Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5

2 Agatha Garcia-Wright, Approvals Program Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment,

Floor 12A, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, ON M4V 1L5

3. Mr Gord Miller, Commissioner for Ontario, 1075 Bay Street, Suite 605, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2B1

4. Mr. Andre Marin, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario,Bell Trinity Square, 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower

Toronto, ON M5G 2C9

Thanks everyone!!

Loretta Shields

Uncategorized

Danish High Court Orders Compensation for Wind Turbine Noise Victims

Leave a comment

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

when-is-wind-energy-noise-pollution

In Denmark struggling fan maker Vestas is synonymous with the Danish wind industry.

In Australia, and elsewhere, Vestas went on a propaganda rampage last year with its “Act-on-Facts” campaign aimed at counteracting known and obvious facts (to anyone with half-a-brain – that is) with crackers such as the wind is NOT intermittent; families with young children can’t wait to have a swag of V112s go up in their back yard to help their young ones sleep; power consumers are delighted with paying 4 times the cost of conventional power for wind power; and are even happier to be paying $2,000 per MW/h and over the Moon to be paying $12,500 per MW/h for peaking power when wind power goes AWOL 100s of times each year – instead of the usual $40.

One other “fact” trotted out to excuse the criminal harm caused by Vestas and Co is that wind…

View original post 1,107 more words

Uncategorized

Request for Support for Stay Proceeding- London on Sep 22 & 23

Leave a comment

supremecourt_gavelThe SWEAR/HEAT Stay Court Proceeding with Julian Falconer and team has been scheduled for Monday, September 22nd and Tuesday, September 23rd in London. The proceeding starts at 10:00 a.m. on Monday morning. We are hoping that lots of people will come out and show their support by peacefully protesting outside the courthouse and respectfully attending inside the court room. Your attendance would be so greatly appreciated. The location for the Stay Hearing is as follows:

London Courthouse
80 Dundas Street
London, ON  N6A 6B3

The full Divisional Court Hearing will be held November 17-18-19. The location for this Hearing has not been set as of this date. We will let you know when the location has been confirmed. Please circulate to your fellow supporters. For more information on the court proceedings please contact Dave Hemingway at davehemingway@gmail.com. Thank you. See you on the 22nd!

Anita Frayne
Secretary/Treasurer, SWEAR

Uncategorized

Day Two ERT: Fairfield vs MOE. My favorite quotes from today’s hearing.

Leave a comment
B821406432Z.1_20131006220008_000_GOB1386DL.3_ContentEric Stoll:  (lawyer for IPC/HAF).
One thing we can all agree with is that this project was not handled the way we all would like.

Vic Schroter (Director MOE)
Explained that  his responsibility was  to look at the amended REA.
Asked about the lack of property line assessment with the first REA, he stated: They should have submitted the property line assessment.
Asked “Does anyone do site visits and how do you confirm accuracy?”  His simple answer was We TRUST the proponent to give correct information.

Asked why the MOE did not realize that the post construction study raptures was not included  in the approval.He said that in the original approval it was left out by mistake so it was included in the second (amended) approval.  (of course they neglected to mention to us that it had been overlooked, and that  they were making a correction – probably another “mistake”)

Ann Meinen:
My faith in MOE and Government has been destroyed when they do not have to follow regulations, or care abut my safety and my well being.  Regulations should apply to all, and no exceptions for big corporations.
Since the MOE did not inspect or monitor the construction of the turbines but this  amendment was allowed it seems the  MOE has a policy of “forgiveness” rather than “permission”.

Ann Fairfield
The proponent should be charged with an offense for contravention of the regulations and the HAF Wind Project turbines should be removed.

Eric Stoll asked Ann about the harm to raptors that she had referred to and she said that she had found a  dead raptor on road  which had probably catapulted there from a collision with turbine blades.  He said that if you found a raptor on the road, it did not necessarily get there from the turbine.  Ann said “I have NEVER seen a raptor killed by a car”.   (The poor raptor is probably still in Anns freezer waiting a final verdict on its demise- which, when it comes will in all probability be that Ann was right, Stoll was wrong)
 
the best statement of the day: Vic Schroter:

THE COMPANY SCREWED UP, SO THEY MADE NEW APPLICATION!

Uncategorized

Day One ERT: Fairfield vs MOE.

Leave a comment
After the reminder by the Vice Chair of the Tribunal, Heather Gibbs, that the Tribunal is able only to confirm, alter or revoke the approval and that it is the responsibility of the Appellant  to prove only serious harm to human health or irreversible harm to the environment, the ERT got under way.
B821406432Z.1_20131006220008_000_GOB1386DL.3_ContentDeb Murphy gave a very impressive opening statement, where she challenged the tribunal to what is right,  to reconsider the word “only”.   She said that if the tribunal rules only on the “serious harm” and “irreversible harm” then they are saying that regulations and rules do not exist.
Loretta Shields, the first presenter, gave a passionate presentation.  The Lawyers for the MOE and HAF tried time and time again  to trip her up, but she never wavered..  She had all her facts: knew them better than her opponents did.  She reminded them often that she was not an expert but even more often, she had to remind them that the studies had not been done, so rules were broken
Slota Zoretic was priceless as a witness. No one else would get away with the discussions that she brought up simply by her beautiful Croatian/Canadian accent . She did not hesitate to remind Mr. Stoll that she makes mistakes sometimes too, as we all do, but for him to say that the turbines placement was a “mistake” was stretching things.
The hearing resumes tomorrow morning at 10am at the Township office in West Lincoln.
Hope to see you there.
(F.Y.I.  This is my short version of the happenings today at the ERT.  This is not an official statement from WLGWAG .  N.D.) 

PS.  Bet you always wanted to know  what the HAF stands for in HAF wind energy.
        It stands for Horizontal Air Flow.   
ND
Uncategorized

55 + Industrial Wind Turbine Documentaries from around the World.

1 Comment

We would like to thank National Wind Watch for putting this list of Industrial Wind Turbine Related Documentaries and Videos together from around the world.  We appreciate the time and effort needed to comprise such a list.  Thank You.

  1. Welcome to Mars Hill (Maine; 22 min.)
  2. Voices of Tug Hill (Lewis County, N.Y.; 21 min.)
  3. Life Under a Windplant (Meyersdale, Pa.; 26 min.)
  4. Wind Turbine Strobe Lights and Eerie Noises (Fenner and Wethersfield, N.Y.; 7 min.)
  5. Industrial Wind Energy Information (compilation from above videos and the “Truth About Industrial Wind Energy” presentations; 39 min.)
  6. Wind Farm Issues — Compilation (Fife, Scotland; 6 min.)
  7. WINDFALL (Meredith, N.Y.; 1 hr. 23 min.)
  8. WIND RUSH (Ontario; 42 min.)
  9. La nueva conquista: Eolicos en Oaxaca (Mexico; 10 min.)
  10. Wind Turbine Syndrome, a matter of bad prevention? (Denmark; 13 min.)
  11. Wind Turbines and Public Health (Australia; 7 min.)
  12. No Safe Place (Prince Edward County, Ont.; 13 min.)
  13. The Falmouth Conference on Human Rights (Falmouth, Mass.; 5 videos)
  14. Wind Turbine Information Session (Scituate, Mass.; 2 hr. 10 min.)
  15. Potential Placement of Wind Turbines (Shelburne, Mass.; 1 hr. 57 min.)
  16. Realities of Wind Energy (Dekalb County, Ill.; 1 hr. 20 min.)
  17. Battery Blues (Hawaii; 4.5 min.) 
  18. This Is Green Energy? (Lowell, Vt.; 1.5 min.)
  19. Mad World of Wind Turbines (3.5 min.)
  20. Wind Turbine Construction (6 min.)
  21. Concrete Pour: Wind Turbine Foundation (Ireland; 5 min.)
  22. Europe’s Ill Win (25 min.)
  23. A Taste of What’s Planned (Whitelee, Scotland; 3 min.)
  24. Testimony: Wind Turbine Noise (Vermont; 19 videos)
  25. Living Near a Windfarm: Cape Bridgewater, Victoria (4 interviews)
  26. Victim Impact Statements: Australia (13 interviews)
  27. Interviews with Wisconsin Wind Farm Residents (5 interviews)
  28. Wisconsin Wind (Fond du Lac County and Lincoln Township; 1 hr. 49 min.)
  29. Throwing Caution to the Wind (Port Rowan, Ont.; 7.5 min.)
  30. Throwing Caution to the Wind (Barrington, R.I.; 17 min.)
  31. Helen Fraser Interview (Shelburne, Ont.; 21 min.)
  32. Amaranth Wind Turbines, Noise and Health: Barbara Ashbee Interview (Amaranth, Ont.; 17 min.)
  33. Pandora’s Pinwheels: The Reality of Life with Wind Turbines (Australia and New Zealand; 1 hr. 57 min.)
  34. Wind Turbines: The Test of Time (7 min.)
  35. What Wind Turbines Sound Like (Fond du Lac County, Wis.; 2.5 min.)
  36. Wind Turbine Noise and Shadow Flicker (Fond du Lac County, Wis.; 9 min.)
  37. Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 (Fond du Lac County, Wis.; 2.5 min.)
  38. Wind Turbine Flicker (Scituate, Mass.; 7 videos)
  39. Shadow Flicker and Noise (Freedom, Maine; 3 videos)
  40. Shadow Flicker (The Netherlands; 3 min.)
  41. Foliennes — Éoliennes à tout prix? (Québec; 7 videos)
  42. The Truth About Industrial Wind Energy (Kansas; 12 presentations)
  43. Infrasound and Motion Sickness (Ontario; 18 min.)
  44. Noise of Turbine in Aberdeenshire (Scotland; 2 min.)
  45. Sound Recording (Wales)
  46. Wind Turbine Breaks Up in Storm (Denmark; 3 videos)
  47. Burning Wind Turbine (Portugal; 4.5 min.)
  48. Burning Wind Turbine (Indiana; 2 min.)
  49. Wind Turbine Fires (Germany)
  50. Washing Wind Turbine from Helicopter (Spain; 3 min.)
  51. The Battle for Cefn Croes (Wales; 3 min.)
  52. The Destruction of Cefn Croes (photo collection)
  53. Vulture Fatally Collides With Wind Turbine Blad (Crete; 30 sec./6 min.)
  54. A Rough Wind: The Impact of Industrial Windmill Facilities on Birds and Other Wildlife (Pennsylvania; 20 min.)
  55. Raptors and Wind Turbines (Norway; 6.5 min.)

More videos are available @ National Wind Watch in the Documents Library.

Also see more videos at the National Wind Watch You Tube page

NWW also recommends:

The Politics of Peat  RTE News footage of the bog slides caused by wind facility construction in Derrybrien and other sites in Co. Galway, Ireland

(compiled by the Scottish Wind Assessment Project)
Write to SWAP to obtain a copy.

fighting big wind., Uncategorized

Time to have your well water tested prior to wind plant construction.

Video 1 Comment

 It is best to have your well water tested “before” any construction starts if you are any where near where a turbine is to be erected.  With potential blasting, digging etc. comes a potential that your well water will be affected.  When it comes to dealing with wind projects it is imperative that the public documents everything.  Without documentation there will be NO hope of proving that the project was/or could of been a contributing factor to the change in your well water.  WE must use the “precautionary principle” even if our Government and Wind Companies choose not to.

If you have lived for years at your current address and rely on your well then it is highly recommended that you get the testing done in the unfortunate instance that near by construction does have an effect, either disrupts the flow to your well or the water becomes un drinkable, other wise it will be difficult to prove that the construction its self may have been a contributing factor.

If EVERYONE gets their water tested PRIOR to wind plant construction and issues arise, all of those in an area could join forces, with documentation in hand making  it difficult for the courts to not take you seriously.

Remember to also get a COMPLETE Physical, blood tests, blood pressure, hearing….everything checked BEFORE the turbines start turning.  As with the Water Well testing these documents may be of great value later in the courts if needed.