“Letter to the Editor”, regarding Cancellation of Renewable Energy Agreements…

 

Dear Editor

Electricity is back in the news again and some are expressing that green jobs might be lost if the province doesn’t enter into any new agreements for renewable energy.  This will save Ontarians a whopping $2.45 per month on their electricity bills.

Ontarians need to know about the original contract between Ontario and Samsung/Korea Consortium, where there was to be approx. 16,000 jobs created.  This was challenged in the World Trade Organization Court and Canada lost.  Because of the amended trade agreement in 2013 Samsung/Korea could “develop, construct and operate wind and solar generation projects” totaling “up to 1,369 MW of capacity (Phases 1 and 2 and 300 MW for Phase 3).  It could also “establish and operate facilities” to “manufacture wind and solar generation equipment” which might create approximately 900 jobs.

With how much Ontarians have spent on this monopoly there would be 900 jobs created – think about that.  And it would be the same deal even if it were the PCs or the NDP.  They are all getting the same failed advice from the same back-room boys.

We also must remember that there is 3 phases to the Samsung/Korea monopoly and only new agreements, with others, won’t be entered into.  This leaves Ontarians on the hook for the next umpteen years, according to the press, and what about the turbines that are already expropriating people’s use, enjoyment and operation of their land with 500 meter plus set-backs, that go over property lines.  According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, a noise receptor is the inner ear, not the government’s definition that it is a house.  This expropriation/violation should not be tolerated by any Ontarian because if it can happen to one person it can happen to any person.  And one merely has to look at the “big 3” parties to see why this is continuing.

Bill Davis’ PCs (1985) was one of the first to have a government agreement with Suncor (TransCanada), which neither, the Liberals or NDP seem to cancel.  This might explain why none of the parties are not saying anything about the breach of trust involved with the cancellation of the gas-plants.  Wynne even admitted her government had committed breach of trust against Ontarians – silence from the other parties.  As for the Attorney General’s office, why isn’t it upholding the law?  Isn’t that its job?

When Ontarians find out what is really happening they might look to someone else to represent them in Queen’s Park and not merely the “big 3” representing the “back-room boy’s.” These costly agreements will be back, no matter which party is in power.  So don’t be fooled.  We have 18 months to find someone new – let’s do it.

 

Elizabeth F. Marshall,

Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association

Author – Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”

Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board

Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc

Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Mun. Councillors, etc.

President All Rights Research Ltd.,

Steering Committee – International Property Rights Association

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.  Any information relayed is for informational purposes only.  Please contact a lawyer.

1-705-607-0587Collingwood, ON

 

Advertisement

Insurance Company Balks at Claims for Damages Due to Wind Turbine Noise…

Wind Energy Insurance Claims Massachusetts Devastating

The Town of Falmouth has made the decision to call its insurance company, Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, to make a claim.


Wind Energy Insurance Claims Massachusetts Devastating

The Massachusetts municipal insurance sector has grown more comfortable with wind turbines as it has developed but has ignored claims by thousands of residents across Massachusetts who describe the noise from the turbines as torture from lack of sleep.

The number of underwriters providing coverage has gone from one or two firms to well over a dozen

Fact :

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative today the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, MassCEC has funded the majority of the deeply flawed wind turbine pre-construction studies used by developers to gain permit approval for commercial megawatt wind turbines. Almost all of the projects post construction have seriously understated the audible noise emissions and have completely ignored evaluating the low frequency and infra sound emissions.

Who:

The managers and engineers at the state agency have always been aware of the 1987 study done by the NASA investigation by Dr. Neil Kelley and his colleagues. The MassCEC also in 2005 warned of two distinct types of noise ,regulatory and human annoyance, but later dropped the warnings for the Falmouth installations in 2010. The agency today ignores what it called human annoyance in 2005

The MassCEC state agency produced studies around 2008 and forward full of omissions and lacked noise warnings.The agency painted a rosy picture. Today as many as twenty one communities were pushed down this same rosy path, again fully sponsored and funded by the Mass CEC. Most residents fell for it hook, line and sinker and many today still believe the snake oil they drank will work.

When:

In the spring of 2010, Falmouth’s first of two 1.65 MW wind turbines became operational. The adverse effects were immediate.The Consensus Building Institute, Falmouth Wind Turbine Option Analysis Process (WTOP) in 2012 described a toxic real estate zone of 200 residential homes around the turbines.

Today Six years later:

Up to 65 individual residents out of 45 households (including children) have stated that their health and well-being have been negatively affected by the operation of the turbines. (Sleep disturbance, headaches, increase in blood pressure, shortness of breath, tinnitus, vertigo, to mention some symptoms).

Two separate Zoning Board decisions declared that the turbines are a nuisance, ordering the owner of the turbines (Town of Falmouth) to “eliminate the nuisance”.

What:

The Town, as a result, has sued its own Zoning Board (twice);

A Barnstable Superior Court Judge has stated that there is “credible evidence of irreparable harm” and has ordered the turbines to cease operation during the night time 12 hours and not at all on Sunday

Massachusetts DEP noise violations have been recorded during night time testing (limited testing)

As a result of all of the turbine litigation, the Town of Falmouth has retained the services of multiple (Boston based) attorneys, to help Falmouth’s Town Counsel. (paid for by the MassCEC)

The litigation fees are near $300,000.00 every six months

Falmouth is ground zero for poorly placed wind turbines in the United States.

After a two year wind turbine moratorium, the Falmouth Planning Board wrote new turbine bylaws that restrict further turbines in town. These restrictive bylaws were adapted unanimously at Town Meeting.

Recent real estate values have identified a “stagnant market” in the proximity of the turbines, with several appraisals reflecting a 20% decrease in value due to the presence of the turbines.

A privately funded sound study was recently performed near a home which identified a low frequency, high amplitude modulated sound signature that was 100% attributable to the wind turbines.

“Acoustical trespass” is the term used for this in the acoustics field.

During a mediation hearing for a Federal Court case regarding nuisance, an initial offer of $5,000 each was withdrawn by insurance company attorneys who cited “there are too many municipalities in the Commonwealth with wind turbine problems, and we cannot establish precedent with any amount of payout”.

MassCEC has funded a consensus process that attempted to resolve the turbine situation in Falmouth. After several months and many hours of volunteer work by residents, and close to $139,000.00 of rate payers money paid to The Consensus Building Institute, it was determined that the low frequency noise cannot be mitigated by insulation or special windows or planting trees, that the only mitigation for those adversely affected by the turbines that will work is either separation from the turbines or total curtailment of the turbines.

Responsibility :

Two weeks ago , Board of Selectmen Chairman Doug Jones announced the Select Board had voted in executive session to authorize the town’s insurer, Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association ,to start mediation with all the parties in as many as eleven pending litigations to resolve outstanding legal actions.

The claims include zoning violations, emotional distress, nuisance and property devaluation.

There is more than enough evidence to show the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center followed a commercial wind turbine renewable energy agenda and ignored the health and safety of the general public affecting thousands of Massachusetts residents. As a matter of fact the Town of Falmouth and everyone including the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center was a aware of the hidden August 2010 Vestas wind turbine noise warning and kept the letter secret for 5 years.

The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association will be tasked with resolving years of mitigation and eleven lawsuits in Falmouth.

The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (MIIA) was incorporated by the Massachusetts Municipal Association in 1982 as a nonprofit organization to provide insurance services to the cities, towns.

The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association functions as the administrator for the MIIA Property and Casualty Group Inc.

The MIIA Property and Casualty Group Inc., formed in 1987, provides property and casualty coverage for cities, towns

The Town of Falmouth has made the decision to call its insurance company to make a claim.

Massachusetts has at least twenty one other communities with poorly placed wind turbines.

The insurance carrier will certainly pay all the claims but be assured all the cities and towns in Massachusetts will be assessed major premium increases as the claims roll in.

Corrupt Liberal Gov’t Denies Tampering With Witness List….

Liberal government denies tampering with witness list for wind turbine hearing…

THE CANADIAN PRESS

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 

Glen Murray
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mark Blinch)

Ontario’s Liberal government denies Opposition charges that it interfered with the witness list for a hearing into a plan to install at least six, 152-metre-high wind turbines near the Collingwood airport.

Progressive Conservative house leader Jim Wilson says the province decided at the last minute to call a witness from NAVCanada instead of an expert from Transport Canada at an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing.

NAVCanada is a private corporation that owns and operates the country’s civil air navigation service, while Transport Canada is the federal government department responsible for transportation policies and programs.

Wilson says the witnesses were changed because Transport Canada has concerns about putting industrial wind turbines between the Collingwood Regional Airport and the Stayner aerodrome.

He says the Ontario government refuses to acknowledge that putting giant turbines so close to the small airports pose a hazard to aircraft operations.

But Environment Minister Glen Murray says it would be against the law for him to play any role in determining witnesses or influencing the environmental tribunal.

“I will keep it as a non-political process and let the experts choose the witnesses,” Murray told the legislature.

“I wish the member opposite would not be politicizing it in the way he’s trying to, because neither he nor I should be involved in this process.”

Wilson said a witness from Transport Canada “would have made much more sense” since it is the agency tasked with ensuring aviation safety.

“Minister, you can spin this all you want, but my people believe, and we have reason to believe — good reason to believe — that somebody in your ministry tampered with the witnesses,” he said.

Wilson said the Liberal government has agreed it could no longer support two of the eight proposed turbine locations near the airport because they pose a serious safety risk, and asked why officials “refuse to act on the serious risk posed by the other six turbines” when experts say they are also dangerous.

But again, Murray said he would stay out of the process.

“I had nothing to do with the decision to change the configuration of turbines,” he said. “Experts did that. I had no role, nor did any politician on this side or any other influencer, in who witnesses are.” 

Wind Company offers to buy out homes nearest wind turbines…3000 ft. or less.

St. Albans Messenger; August 9, 2016

Company offers to buy homes nearest turbines

By TOM BENTON

Messenger Staff Writer

SWANTON — The developers behind the Swanton Wind Project announced Thursday morning they have finally submitted their application for a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board (PSB).

Travis and Ashley Belisle, the developers, also announced the application includes a post-construction buy-out option for neighbors living within 3,000 feet of a turbine.

They estimated approximately 20 homes fall within that range.

Above, Swanton Wind developer Ashley Belisle, center, speaks at yesterday’s press conference, flanked by, from left, her husband and co-developer Travis Belisle, the project’s attorney, Anthony Iarrapino, and VERA Vice President Martha Staskus. Below, The Swanton Wind Project’s opponents stood by the roadside outside yesterday’s press conference, waving signs and giving honking drivers the thumbs-up.

TOM BENTON, St. Albans Messenger


Martha Staskus, the Vice President of Vermont Environmental Research Associates (VERA), called the buy-out option “unprecedented.” She said the option showed that the Belisles are listening to the project’s opponents.

“That’s what’s different from other wind project proposals,” she said.

Homeowners who purchased Rocky Ridge property from the Belisles were notified at the time of their purchase that the Belisles were considering building wind turbines.

The Belisles said they are confident they can quickly re-sell any homes vacated per the buy-out option. They said another home has sold since Swanton Wind issued their 45-day notice of intent to file their application about a year ago.

When asked why the filing process had taken so much longer than 45 days, Travis said, “Good things take time.”

He said the numerous environmental studies required for the project had delayed their filing, as well as public hearings and discussion in Swanton. Travis said the Swanton Wind developers had been “unfairly accused” of “fast-tracking” the project, so they slowed the application process to appease those concerned.

“There was fast-tracking only by opponents,” he said. The project may include up to seven wind turbines, clearing 35 acres of woodlands surrounding Rocky Ridge. The project’s lawyer, Anthony Iarrapino, said all but 10 of those acres would be allowed to re-grow after the construction.

The Belisles estimate they would annually contribute approximately $150,000 inpayments to the Town of Swanton, should the application be approved. That figure is based on similar payments made by Vermont’s five other wind projects to their “host communities.”

A press release issued by Swanton Wind, LLC noted that those financial contributions from the project could pay for all of the town’s police or library budgets, and 99 percent of the town’s fire department and fire truck replacement budget.

The project’s turbines would generate up to 20 megawatts (mW) of zero-emission power, enough to “meet the needs” of more than 7,000 Vermonters, according to the press release.

At yesterday’s press conference, held before the ridgeline where the turbines would stand, Iarrapino reiterated that the project has been engineered to avoid all wetlands.

The press release further notes that the project meets all applicable state stormwater management standards, that a comprehensive study found no rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species within or near the project’s limits and that sound studies indicate the project will adhere to the PSB’s recently adopted sound limits — which the press release notes are “more stringent than those recommended by the World Health Organization.”

Iarrapino said the highest exterior sound level modeled by sound studies on the proposed project site was 43 decibels (dB). The PSB’s sound standards prohibit exterior sound above 45 dB.

Iarrapino said those conducting the study couldn’t “model every resident’s interior [sound levels] at the moment,” but he assumed interior sound levels would hover around 30 dB.

Staskus pointed to a “sound level” application on her phone, which said the average sound level throughout the press conference was 55 dB, thanks to a strong wind that at one point tossed the developers’ visual aids to the dirt.

“As you can see, it’s a great spot for wind,” Ashley quipped.

The press conference including something publicly unseen since the Belisles announced the project in summer 2015: a neighbor in favor of the turbines.

“One of the things we say in the navy is semper Gumby,” Chris Maynard said. “It means ‘always flexible.’” Maynard lives along the ridgeline. The idea of several turbines stretching nearly 500-feet into the air doesn’t faze him.

“It’s change,” he said. “It doesn’t bother me. You know? You make a little sacrifice for the greater good.”

Maynard told reporters that when his family bought the nearby land in 2011, there were “two things” all Vermonters could expect — short summers and cold winters. Now, Maynard said, that’s changed.

He praised the state’s “ambitious approach” to fighting climate change, and said what the Belisles are trying to accomplish “is in the spirit of Vermont.”

Maynard even celebrated the controversy surrounding the project, saying “Vermonters openly debating and expressing their opinions” was another Green Mountain tradition of which to be proud.

That controversy included a “symbolic vote” in the town of Swanton in November 2015, when residents voted 731 to 160 against the project. Travis pointed out that less than 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in that vote.

“A large majority had no opinion or were in favor and didn’t come out,” he said.

He estimated it will cost $40 million to construct the turbines, if their application is approved. That figure is “a big nut to chew,” he said.

Travis noted the Belisles have invested a “large portion” of their life savings in the project, and said they would need to seek investors in the project from here on forward.

Iarrapino said he expects a pre-hearing conference from the PSB within the next 30 days. Interested parties can seek formal party status during that conference and provide input on scheduling the series of hearings required by the application process.

Iarrapino said that based on past projects, he expected it could take up to a year before the PSB makes a final decision.

At the foot of the hill below the press conference, opponents of the project stood waiting, bearing signs opposing the project and industrial wind itself — among them, Christine and Dustin Lang, Rocky Ridge residents and the project’s most outspoken opponents.

Christine called the buy-out option a “huge step,” but Dustin said it was “fractioning.”

“They’re leaving Fairfield out to dry,” he said.

Patty Rainville, who stood at the roadside giving thumbs up to passing vehicles honking in support, said offering the buyout to residents within 3,000 feet of the turbines “doesn’t include hardly anybody.”

“It’s a token offering,” she said. “It’s a WTF thing to me.”

Chris Maynard, whose property lies in close proximity to the proposed project, speaks out in favor of it at a press conference Thursday. Before him sits the application document for the Certificate of Public Good.

TOM BENTON, St. Albans Messenger

Wind Pushers Struggle to Avoid Accountability….

Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property


Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

In Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring illegally permitted wind turbines be placed away from their properties.

The Massachusetts court system recently this week showed one of multiple lawsuits filed over the wind turbines was scheduled to be heard from September 12 to September 16. The trial has been postponed again and the only thing on the court website is: ” On 09/12/2016 Opposition to to Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney filed by Town of Falmouth”

A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.

The town is asking to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney ? Isn’t Dr. Robert McCunney the expert witness for the Town of Falmouth wind turbine number one ?

The original court file date is June 5, 2013. The case number is 1372CV00281 Town of Falmouth vs. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals et al.

I am no legal scholar but it appears from the posting on the court docket the Town of Falmouth is asking the courts to throw out testimony from their own wind turbine expert a doctor ?

Over time as the Falmouth wind turbine lawsuits have dragged through the court system for six years worldwide the setbacks are increasing and even doctors have changed their views on setbacks because of human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise.

Nils Bolgen the wind turbine director at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center uses 2000 feet as the standard setbacks today.

Falmouth taxpayers are paying up to $300,000.00 every six months for wind turbine litigation and this is the strategy ?

It appears today that the safe setbacks to commercial megawatt wind turbines is five times the height of the turbines or in the case of one wind turbine such as Falmouth it would be 3000 feet. The Town of Falmouth has two wind turbines. Dr. Robert J. McCunney, a medical doctor and a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology an expert witness for the Town of Falmouth Wind turbine number 1 permit . Wind turbines should be five ( 5 ) times the height of the turbines

Quote : “He said any measurable health effects, referred to in some circles as “wind turbine syndrome,” are in fact the result of stress reactions to a sound an individual finds objectionable or annoying. For that reason, he noted, some communities in the US observe a noise mitigation setback standard of five times the height of the turbine – more than three times the distance recommended by the CCC.”

Above quote from Enterprise Published: 01/28/11http://archive.capenews.net/communities/region/news/827

The Cape Cod Commissions wind turbine rules today are nearly identical to expert testimony which is hard evidence to overcome.Dr. Robert McCunney (expert witness for the Town Of Falmouth) graphical presented to the board why nearly 3000’ was necessary between industrial wind turbines and residents.

As a paid consultant by the Town of Falmouth , Dr. McCunney’s recently updated power point presentation appeared in conflict with his personal sentiments offered to the board. Contradictions and compromises to previously held positions by the good doctor are notable.As matter of note regarding Dr. McCunney’s power power presentation almost 200 residential homes are within 3000’ of Wind 1 and Wind 2

——————————————————————————————————

Falmouth, Massachusetts 2010

Article :

The next time McCunney appeared on my radar was his July 15, 2010 appearance in Falmouth .

It was a meeting before a number of people, some of whom had experienced first-hand the effects of living close to (in this case, just one!) a wind turbine. They were curious if their symptoms – all of which should be familiar to us by now – were due to the noise or were “in their heads”.

His explanation indicated their symptoms were due to annoyance, which in turn was due to their dislike of turbines. He had no explanation why presumably disinterested kids as well as people on record as supporting turbines were also having problems. He also ignores the possibility that maybe the annoyance leads to the dislike instead of the wind industry’s preferred other way around.I thought his statements were disingenuous enough that I started a posting on his activities.

File under annoyance. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center is aware of two distinct types of noise from wind turbines. First regulatory noise measured in decibels and second human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise

http://windfarmrealities.org/?p=548

Note # Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty interviews

Covering up bird mortality at wind farms. Mark Duchamp

PRESS RELEASE
12 September 2016

Hiding evidence of the massacre

 


News of bird and bat deaths at wind farms have reduced to a trickle. Does that mean that a solution has been found? Yes, it has, but it’s not what you think. Wind turbines are every year more numerous and the massacre they cause is ever increasing. What has changed is that the cover up is now effective at 100%, or just about.

The following news sheds light on the latest technique for making mortality data unavailable to the public (and the media):

Wind farm sues to block bird death data


Yes, you read correctly: “releasing (the wind farm’s) bird and bat kill reports would provide “trade secrets” to its competitors”. Surrealist, isn’t it? But that’s only one of the many lies we must deal with when investigating that hugely subsidized industry. Below, we present the “trade secrets” they are trying to hide:

trade secrets
courtesy of Ontario Wind Resistance


Indeed, in present day United States, mortality data legally belong to wind farm owners, and the public has no right to see the numbers without their permission. This is the “solution” that has been found for covering up the butchery of eagles, cranes, pelicans, condors, swans, swallows, bats, owls, falcons, hawks, geese, gamebirds, songbirds etc.

Throughout the world, ever since shocking mortality statistics at wind farms made the news 15-20 years ago, efforts have been made by the wind industry and complicit governments to hide the numbers. In the UK for instance, wind farms have long stopped being monitored for mortality; in Spain, the monitoring has been done, but the reports were filed away without publishing; elsewhere, whenever a wind farm had to be checked for mortality, its owner would select ornithology consultants based on their reputation for “cooperation” – i.e. whose reports always showed “manageable” numbers. This is still the preferred method for covering up in some countries, e.g. Canada or Australia.

To make it even safer for European wind developers, and regardless of the proclaimed right of the public to be informed on environmental matters (Aarhus Convention), reports concerning wind farms’ impact on birds and bats were soon stamped “property of the developer”, meaning that he may edit them before publication. “The wind companies rewrite all ecological work themselves“, said to me a UK ornithologist who had worked for wind developers. But a non-disclosure clause in the contract kept him from revealing publicly what he knew and what he saw. This is now standard practice in wind farm monitoring contracts.

Thanks to these various methods to hide the evidence, high mortality numbers soon disappeared from the headlines, and the public lost interest, trusting large ecology NGOs and bird societies to watch over protected wildlife. However, conflicts of interests oblige (i.e. $$$), these organizations keep denying that significant harm is being done to biodiversity. For instance, none of them has published the report by the Spanish ornithological societyrevealing millions of deaths a year in Spain. Yet it is based on 136 monitoring reports obtained from the Spanish government under Freedom of Information legislation.

Granted, the particularly deadly Altamont Pass wind turbines kept coming back in the news now and then, but the media has become so gullible (or complicit) that even their repowering for another 25 years didn’t make waves.

The issuing by the US administration of “incidental take permits”, allowing wind farm operators to kill a number of eagles accidentally, did cause anger among bona fide conservationists, especially as wind farm operators can easily hide the real number of eagles they kill. But this scandal didn’t make the evening news on television. Most NGOs don’t really mind: there is no money in protesting, but plenty of it to be reaped from Big Wind, awash as it is in subsidies.

In Scotland, an issue that could become a hot potatoe is the census of golden eagles. Originally due in 2013, this politically-sensitive 10-year survey was postponed to 2015, and to date we are still waiting for its publication. Cynics are suggesting that it takes time to edit the text and doctor the figures, which would otherwise reveal a sharp drop in the Scottish golden eagle population, coinciding with the period when the moorlands were invaded by wind farms.

Coincidence or not, a report just surfaced in Edinburgh, reassuring the Scots on the fate of their beloved eagles. Wind turbines may be installed near eagle nests, it claims, provided ornithologists are paid, during the life of the wind farm, to feed the eagles and monitor their behavior. It’s pure rubbish, but it keeps ornithologists and bird societies happy. Officially, they are the ones who “know” about birds, and their opinion is taken into consideration by the authorities; so it’s important for the wind lobby to keep them cheery. In reality, we know that wind turbines attract (and kill) eagles, as they do other raptors, swallows and bats: read Biodiversity Alert. In short, the new report is just another one of many biased, misleading studies financed by wind interests. If you read the press article till the end, it actually claims thatBeinn an Tuirc wind farm helps Scottish eagles survive. Yes indeed, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

The population survival issue was tackled differently in the western United States: the golden eagle census was carried out from a plane. Obviously, scientific rigor was lacking: seen from an aircraft, it is easy to mistake a juvenile bald eagle for an adult golden eagle. The wind coalition used this worthless census to report a “stable golden eagle population” in the western States. Different methods, same misleading result.

One of the countries where the cover up wasn’t achieved at 100% is Australia. Mortality at the infamous Woolnorth wind farm apparently ceased being reported to the public, but a few months ago, that of the Macarthur wind farm hit the news, causing concern worldwide.

More recently, another Australian wind farm discreetly announced (you have to search their newsletter thoroughly – page 2, paragraph 3) that it was killing many eagles: Bald Hills wind farm – 7 eagles killed in 4 months. Seven in four months is the official figure, so the reality could be even worse. It’s also a good indication that, as revealed by Save the Eagles International, raptors are attracted to wind turbines (and then killed). But don’t be surprised that, in spite of the evidence provided in STEI’s article, bird societies completely ignore this lethal attraction exerted by wind turbines: it would hurt the wind industry if they recognized it. Here you can, again, appreciate the hypocrisy surrounding the whole issue.

Finally, the cover up is naturally helped by scavengers, which become rapidly aware that wind turbines provide easy food in the form of dead or injured birds and bats. So they make the rounds daily, mostly at night or at dawn when their chances are best. Searchers employed by consultants rarely start their work as early as foxes and crows, so they miss most carcasses. In addition, they visit the site once every week at best, leaving plenty of time for scavengers to clean up the grounds.

That is how the company operating Bald Hills WF, above, can claim they only found 19 bird carcasses (assuming the figure wasn’t simply doctored). You’ll note that there were 7 eagles among them: typically, small carcasses disappear whole, while larger ones often leave some remains behind. Some wind farm operators instruct their employees to bury the evidence , but some carcasses can escape their vigilance, given the very large surface to be searched, and the vegetation.

At Altamont Pass, California, Dr Smallwood estimated in 2004 that 116 golden eagles were being killed yearly by the 5,000 (small) wind turbines (1). These mostly young, wandering eagles, were from California, the western United States, and even Canada. The massacre will continue as new, bigger turbines replace the old ones. The “green” NGOs don’t really care – do we hear them protest? The killing is now legal (incidental take permits), and that keeps the operators out of trouble if some eagle carcass happened to be discovered by a member of the public. The wind industry wins. The extermination of eagles, hawks, falcons, cranes, swallows, owls, bats and other highly valued species may continue unabated.

Mark Duchamp
President

(1) – Altamont Pass wind farm, 116 golden eagles killed yearly: see Page 73, Table 3-11: Species/Taxonomic group: Golden eagle
Mortality per year:
– adjusted for search detection: 75.6
– adjusted for search detection and scavenging: 116.5
DEVELOPING METHODS TO REDUCE BIRD MORTALITY IN THE ALTAMONT
PASS WIND RESOURCE AREA – Shawn Smallwood & Carl Thelander (2004) – for the California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-052/500-04-052_00_EXEC_SUM.PDF

Wind Turbine Projects Never Try to be “Good Neighbours”…

‘Good neighbor’ policies should apply to wind farms, too

Palo Alto County is going through growing pains. Some of our landowners have proposed a wind farm. The county Board of Supervisors has been challenged to write an ordinance that addresses the concerns of all the landowners involved, both participating and not. This ordinance will also speak to possible future wind farms, and many counties in the area are waiting to see how Palo Alto will proceed.

One of our supervisors, Linus Solberg, many years ago came up with the “Good Neighbor Policy” to address the siting of hog confinement buildings. This requires a setback of a half a mile from homes. If you wish to build closer to a neighbor, you can ask that neighbor to sign a waiver. By and large this policy has been a great success.

Now we have wind companies that want us to toss out our “Good Neighbor Policy” for them. There are not enough acres on the farms of participating landowners to make a big enough wind farm and they have drawn a line. The “Good Neighbor Policy” goes or they do.

They are willing to give us 1,500-foot setbacks from homes, which they say is generous. It is generous only because they say so. Many communities across the country have much larger setbacks. Wind turbines give the illusion of gracefully sweeping the sky but depending on direction, speed and even humidity, they can make quite a racket. Just like any piece of machinery they likely get louder with age.

On the advice of counsel, the supervisors also asked the wind company to bury their connector power lines by trenching them in 7 feet deep in order to avoid damaging our county tile systems. They balked at this extra expense and again threatened to leave.

When — and if — drainage districts have problems, will we be met with the same smiling agents we see now or with a row of flint-faced lawyers?

Setbacks from property lines is another point of contention. The future of farming lies in efficiency. We need to be able to use aerial applications for fighting funguses in humid weather to seeding cover crops. Aerial applicators are adamant that it is not safe for them to work within half a mile of a wind farm. Even if some of them are willing to risk the task, the price is higher. If your non-participating farm happens to be surrounded by participating farms, then an important tool to maintain your land properly has been taken from you without one-half mile setbacks from property lines. Again, waivers could be obtained if a neighbor was willing to have the turbine closer.

Not many landowners are interested in telling their neighbors what they can or can’t do on their own land. Landowners who want wind turbines feel burdened by the needs of their neighbors. Wind companies resist protecting our important tiling infrastructure or protecting the homes and businesses of the communities they claim they are helping. Landowners who want wind turbines should be defending the property rights of themselves and their neighbors.

The wind companies should be catering to our communities, not the other way around. They say if we don’t capitulate to their needs they will leave, but no matter the outcome, leave they will for they do not live here, we do.

Now is the time to speak up before these ordinances and turbines are set. Be heard rather than letting the people who do not farm speak for us, farmers have been too quiet, our supervisors have not heard from enough of you. This will be the last time our counties will truly have power over these large companies, let’s get it right.

JANNA SWANSON own lands and farms, with her husband, Paul, in Palo Alto County near Ayrshire. Contact: swanfarm@ncn.net

Nobody signed Up for This, When the Decided to Live in the Country!

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/k8mfojy3tcdqpd5/AADYUon4071P3nQ3CKwS3oNra?oref=e&n=486001235

My son and I went for a drive into town.  He took some pics along the way.  At one time, these would have been beautiful shots of a rural, peaceful countryside.  Today, they are documenting the ongoing destruction of rural Ontario, by the Liberal Party, and their Green/greed Energy Act!

 

When the wind turbines do start up, it will be more than visual assaults, they will be emitting noise/infrasound.

Wind Turbines Near Great Lakes….Hazardous to Birds!

Study calls for 18-km turbine setback

By John Miner, The London Free Press

It’s a standard that would eliminate almost all of Ontario’s current wind farms and the ones recently approved.

In the wake of the release of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service migratory bird study, the American Bird Conservancy is calling for an 18-kilometre buffer around the Great Lakes for wind farms.

“It is highly problematic to build anywhere near the Great Lakes,” Michael Hutchins, director of the American Bird Conservancy’s bird-smart wind energy program, said Monday. “These losses are just not sustainable.”

Using radar designed to detect birds and bats, the Fish and Wildlife Service monitored four sites along the south shore of Lake Ontario in 2013. The results were released last month.

Hutchins called the findings of a high level of bird and bat activity in the zone swept by wind turbine blades “a smoking gun” that proves the turbines should not be located close to the lakeshore.

The results from the U.S. study would apply to the Canadian side of the Great Lakes as well, Hutchins said.

“There is no reason to assume it wouldn’t be as bad on the (other) side as well because these birds are making their way up to the boreal forest in Canada to breed.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a standard that wind farms not be located within five kilometres of the shoreline. The Nature Conservancy recommends eight kilometres. The new evidence points to an 18-kilometre zone as appropriate, Hutchins said.

“These birds don’t just belong to Canada and the United States, they are a shared resource and they are worth billions of dollars,” Hutchins said, pointing to their role in controlling pests, pollinating crops and dispersing seed. “We can’t afford to lose these animals,” he said.

Ontario doesn’t restrict the proximity of wind turbines in relation to the Great Lakes, but does require wind farm developers to monitor bird and bat deaths for three years. For bats the acceptable mortality level is 10 per wind turbine each year, while the limit for birds is 14 birds annually per turbine.

Beyond those levels, the wind farm company may be required to take mitigating action.

Data released last month indicated wind turbines in Ontario in 2015 killed 14,140 birds, mainly songbirds, and 42,656 bats, including several species on Ontario’s endangered species list.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife radar study found that migrating birds concentrate along the shorelines to refuel and rest before crossing the lakes. The researchers also found the birds make broad-scale flights along the shorelines to explore wind conditions and orient themselves for migration.

Brandy Giannetta, Ontario regional director for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said wind farm developers are attracted to the areas close to the Great Lakes because they provide the most consistent winds.

The industry recognizes bird mortalities from wind farms can be a problem and is committed to the proper siting of turbines, she said. But Giannetta said the issue has to be looked at in context.

Wind energy is designed to respond to global warming, the biggest threat to birds and other wildlife. Far more birds are killed by cats and collisions with buildings and cars, she said.

Hutchins agreed cats are bigger bird killers than wind turbines, along with pesticides and building and vehicle collisions. But that isn’t a reason not to deal with the turbine issue.

“They all need to be addressed,” he said.

Despite that, the Ontario government just approved another project a few kilometres away on Amherst Island.

jminer@postmedia.com

twitter.com/JohnatLFPress 

West Lincoln Resident Asks for Help from Prov. to Correct Wind Turbine Transmission Pole Dangers

Honourable Steven Del Duca :
We are residents of West Niagara. Over the past few years, despite a constant battle against the project, we have been inundated with 77 industrial wind turbines.
They are so massive that they loom on the once pastoral horizon….taller than the Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls.
To date the turbines have not started running because the infrastructure necessary for the transmission of power in still in progress.
The infrastructure is what concerns me. Perhaps you can assure me that the system has been checked for safety under the MTO guidelines.
Our community is predominantly rural. Our roads are narrow and must allow for the passage of cars, trucks, school buses and immense farm equipment.
The roads are now lined with huge transmission poles, very close to the road.  Along the roads, guardrails have been installed between the poles and the roads.
Now there is virtually no soft shoulder to cushion the traffic. Farm equipment will block the roads, with no opportunity for vehicles to pass.
In winter there will be no place for snow to be piled at the side of the roads.
Hence the roads will be virtually impassable in the summer due to farm traffic and in the winter with piles of snow. (And we get a lot of snow!!!)
Snowplows will find it impossible to clear the roads safely. There will be no room.
If a driver has a mishap and hits the guardrails or transmission poles…there will be no mercy…there will be a fatality.
The structures are so close to the roads.
My entire family lives in this rural community. My grandchildren ride the school buses who use these roads.
My children use these roads daily to access Highway 20.
I know driving will be unsafe to the point of critically dangerous.
I believe this is your area of expertise.
Can you please come out and inspect this project in West Lincoln???  I know the provincial government is responsible for the welfare and safety of residents.
These roads will be a nightmare with the potential for death.
We await your response,
Susan and Ross Smith
RR 2 Smithville, Ontario
L0R2A0
Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR