Former college of teachers discipline chair charged with professional misconduct.
By:Kevin DonovanInvestigations,Published on Fri Jul 11 2014
The Ontario College of Teacher’s former discipline chair is facing charges of professional misconduct for authoring a soft porn book containing “sexually explicit content” involving Grade 9 students and negative descriptions of teachers.
No date has been set for his hearing. Tremblay did not respond to a request for comment.
His book is a lurid tale of striptease, breast fondling, bum grabbing, orgasms, drugs and blackmail that features a deputy headmaster who sweeps a sex assault under the carpet and tells male students at a pep rally that if he were younger he would have sex with all the girls in the audience. Another teacher gives a boy advice on French kissing and as the plot unfolds we learn that the deputy headmaster (Harry Dick) and a third teacher once had a threesome with a female student.
In the notice of hearing in the Tremblay case, college investigators accuse him of “dishonourable” conduct and allege the book includes “sexualized descriptions of students.”
Tremblay “permitted the marketing of the novel to teenagers . . . despite the fact that he knew or ought to have known that material in the novel was inconsistent with the standards, values or goals of the teaching profession and/or the education system,” according to allegations filed by the teacher regulator.
Until his resignation, Tremblay had presided over cases that dealt with teachers alleged to have violated the trust of students and the public through sexual assault, verbal and physically abusive attacks, or incompetent behaviour.
The Star uncovered Tremblay’s book and his role on the committee as part of an investigation into the way discipline was carried out at the college. The Star found the college was increasingly shielding bad teachers by keeping their names secret. The secrecty policy changed following the Star investigation.
Tremblay, who has for years been a teacher in Eastern Ontario, was chair of the discipline committee from 2006 to 2011. The Sexteens was published in 2008.
In 2011, Tremblay told the Star that his work as an author was separate from his “public interest” work at the College. He said The Sexteens book “is meant to empower teenagers, to encourage them to be strong and resist or avoid peer pressure,” and that the book has “been endorsed by parents and educators.”
The book was co-written with two others, one of them Tremblay’s wife. It is still available on Amazon.ca, where a review notes: “This is a great book, but one of the authors was fired. He was the person in charge of disciplinary action against teachers in Toronto Canada. Writing about teenagers having sex with teachers was too much for the public to accept from someone that works in a job related to education.”
Dear Prime Minister Harper and Hon. MacKay, Attorney General and Minister of Justice,
Re: Convention on the Rights of the Child and Industrial Wind Energy
Ms Correia and I have taken the opportunity to communicate some of the risk factors of exposing fetuses, babies, children, youth and those with special needs to noise and other emissions associated with industrial wind energy facilities. We provided a snapshot of evidence indicating some members of this vulnerable population group with pre-existing medical conditions could also be at risk. In some cases, vulnerable children are expected to be exposed at home, at school or both.
This letter is public and may be shared.
During our correspondence, we cited the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We now note that a recent Supreme Court of Canada Judgment considered the Convention on the Rights of the Child. [Judgment and Reasons, The Hon. Justice MacTavish, Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Daniel Garcia Rodriques, Hanif Ayubi and Justice for Children and Youth v. Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]
Ms Correia has urged that the Government of Canada take immediate measures to ensure health protection from wind energy facilities for her son and Canadian children.
We have requested a meeting with Minister Peter McKay and look forward to the opportunity to share our concerns and provide some of the evidence relating to this complex topic.
Judgment and Reasons, The Hon. Justice MacTavish, Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Daniel Garcia Rodriques, Hanif Ayubi and Justice for Children and Youth v. Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Convention on the Rights of the Child July 12 2014.FINAL.pdf
WA Liberal Senator, Chris Back launched a stinging attack on the wind industry during a speech in the Federal Senate, yesterday. Responding to a cacophony of wind industry rent seeker bleating, Chris has smashed headlong into three of the wind industry’s greatest myths.
The first is that any alteration to the mandatory Renewable Energy Target amounts to “sovereign risk”, for which substantial “compensation” is payable by the Commonwealth to wind farm “investors” who’ll end up losing their shirts.
Now, there’s no doubt that “sovereign risk” rightly springs to mind where a well-braided General in charge of a military junta declares that – henceforth – BP’s oil assets will be treated as property of the (read “his”) State (or tinpot dictatorship, as the case may be), say.
In the last week, the wind industry has been wailing louder than ever about “sovereign risk” and the need to be “compensated” for any change to the mandatory RET; as if Renewable Energy Certificates were some God-given-right. Chris slams that one straight over the long-boundary, based on Parliamentary advice which, funnily enough, reflects what STT has already said on the issue (see our posts here and here).
The next myth is that, despite all the evidence, wind power is driving down retail power prices, with the help of the mandatory RET.
Never mind that South Australia (Australia’s wind power “capital”) – already paying the highest power prices in the world – has just been whacked with a 6% increase in retail power prices. Never mind that Australia enjoyed the lowest power costs in the world less than a decade ago and now pays among the highest (see our post here).
STT made the observation that the wind industry’s “strategy” of claiming that wind power can be delivered at prices equal to or less than conventional generation sources was not just brave it’s “crazy brave”. The obvious retort is that: “if wind power is truly competitive with coal and gas, then it won’t need a mandatory RET or Renewable Energy Certificates anymore” (see our posts here and here and here).
Well, Chris Back has given the obvious retort, congratulating the wind industry on its new-found ability to compete with the big boys and welcoming them to a world where they’ll be free to compete without the unwieldy strictures of the mandatory RET.
The other great wind power myth that copped bucketing by Chris is the wind industry’s wild and unsubstantiated claims concerning CO2 emissions reductions in the electricity sector. Chris made it plain that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, stating that the subsidies provided to wind power have been “all but totally ineffective” in greenhouse gas abatement.
Here’s a video of Chris’s speech; Hansard (transcript) follows.
****
****
THE SENATE PROOF ADJOURNMENT SPEECH Wednesday, 9 July 2014
First, I congratulate you on your role as Deputy President. My contribution today continues the discussion that we have had in the last few minutes, and that is the question of the renewable energy target review and whether or not there is a sovereign risk associated with it. I say this because of claims made by representatives of the wind industry, including Infigen Energy’s Mr Miles George, who has been claiming to one and all and anyone who will listen to him that a sovereign risk may arise with the potential scaling back of the renewable energy target. I want to address that today.
It is interesting that a review of the origins of the RET scheme provides a very clear view that the renewable energy industry’s position is self-serving, aiming to reinforce their own self-interest. As we all know, if you are at the races – through you, Mr Deputy President, to Senator Bullock – and there is a horse called Self-Interest running, make sure you have got your money on it, because you will know it is trying. It is interesting that the wind industry is trumpeting two issues in the media. One is that wind power is dropping the wholesale price of electricity and the second is that the RET will cause the retail price of electricity to fall. If wind is causing the wholesale price of electricity to fall, then it follows that the industry no longer requires subsidy through the RET scheme as renewable energy is therefore cost competitive in the market. The RET is causing prices to rise significantly and it relates to the power purchase agreement, an agreement in which prices are locked in at some $120 per megawatt hour compared with the average wholesale price of $30 to $40 – a factor of some four times. The price set by the PPA, therefore, is paid by retailers irrespective of the wholesale price. The price is passed on, as we know, to retail consumers.
So let us go back to basics. The RET is a government intervention designed to mandate the proportion of electricity generated from selected sources. It was designed to support a policy of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s energy supply coming from renewables by 2020 and, as such, the policy taxes electricity users and, in some cases, non-renewable generators, in order to subsidise selected renewable producers. From it emerges the renewable energy certificate market, where the RECs are issued to power station generators classified as renewable under the act. In that way, RECs have become a form of energy currency as electricity retailers must purchase RECs to cover their liability under the act. These entities, generally electricity retailers, pass the cost of acquiring mandatory certificates on to energy consumers in the form of higher energy tariffs. This effectively becomes a tax on energy consumers.
The interesting exercise is that, after some 13 years of operation – and this is what the coalition government is addressing – it has become clear that the objectives of the act have not been reflected in the outcomes. In fact, they have been ineffective in their objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. Indeed, the Centre for International Economics in their 2013 report generously indicated about 10 per cent of total electricity generation is from renewables; and the Clean Energy Council in 2013 made the observation that the slight increase in renewable generation attributable to the RET was actually greatest from hydroelectricity, not the other forms that have been so vocal.
Turning to the RET review which is underway at the moment, some people, including the Greens, are claiming that this has been an attempt to render ineffective the Climate Change Authority’s 2012 review. But, of course, we all know that there is a two-year mandated review. There is nothing unusual about that two-year mandate. Again mentioning Infigen Energy, it is interesting that in their submission to the current review they question whether there needs to be a two-year review at all. So we come to this figure of the 20 per cent target by 2020. Is it a percentage or is it a number of gigawatt hours?
When this discussion first took place it was believed that the figure of 20 per cent due from renewables by 2020 would account for some 41,000 gigawatt hours. But, as we know, in recent times as a result of manufacturing moving offshore and as a result of other changes in the economy, that figure of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020 is probably wrong. More recent estimates, including by ACIL Allen Consulting in their 2013 presentation to the Electricity Users Association of Australia’s conference, suggest that that figure would not be around 41,000 gigs but somewhere around 23,000 – a significantly lower figure.
The case to abolish the renewable energy target is driven by its cost to electricity consumers compared with the corresponding reduction, or lack of reduction, in greenhouse gases. We have got to do something before this gallops on to 2031, hurting families, individuals, residences, businesses and governments even more.
I come to the question of sovereign risk, and a key question is: who owns the renewable energy certificates? Are they the property of the Commonwealth? By implementing the act and establishing the RET tax, the Commonwealth created the renewable energy certificates, which are a form of intangible regulatory property for trade by virtue of mandated national consumption levels, upon which all consumers pay an increase in their electricity bills.
If we look at the provisions of the act itself, we can see immediately what the various points of importance are as we look at this question of sovereign risk. At least in theory, firstly, parliament may alter the law at any time, or vary or take away rights and obligations. The parliament has that power within the precepts and concept of the Constitution. Secondly, the act has a phasing clause which provides for periodic review of the RET, which we are undertaking at the moment, and that may result in changes to the scheme. We all know that – it is totally transparent; it has been there from the word go; everyone always knew about it. These are prescribed by section 162 and they will make recommendations consistent with the objectives of the act itself. The RET scheme was never intended to operate as an unchecked subsidy to the renewable electricity providers and it is high time they understood and remembered that. It is most interesting that we would have proponents questioning that a future statutory review of the RET ought to be undertaken every couple of years.
The third point to be made is that, in the 2012 review, the issue of investor confidence was raised as an effort to promote renewable energy investment. Of course, concern with investor confidence is not the same concept as sovereign risk. Indeed, it may be well acknowledged, as it was by the Climate Change Authority in 2012, that investor confidence had to be balanced with other considerations – one of them being the cost to the consumer, families and business. A wide range of views were expressed at that time.
If we look to the review that is underway at the moment, what are the options? The first may be to leave the existing target unchanged at 41,000 gigawatt hours. The second may be to reduce that to what people are saying is the real 20 per cent projected electricity supply demand, and that is the 23,000 gigawatt hours that I have spoken about. This would reduce the potential cost of the scheme, particularly for energy users like us and incumbent generators. The third option might be to increase the target to promote a greater share of renewable energy more quickly and, particularly in light of the CEFC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to make any renewable generation attributable to it and additional to that delivered by the RET, heaven forbid. The fourth might be to repeal it altogether.
In summary, we would have a circumstance in which the reviews will probably result in changes to the rules of the RET scheme. I do not think anybody would be in any doubt about that and, should that occur, it will have an impact on the RET price. The coalition has been sending that signal very clearly for a long time. Nobody needs to be under any doubt or illusion as to where the coalition has stood on this and the contrast with the policies of the Australian Labor Party then in government. The question becomes one of compensation for property acquired by the Commonwealth.
There are some interesting cases, including Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. For those interested, that case seems to reinforce a view that statutory property interests cannot be assumed to be protected by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, because modification or extinguishment of such a right may not amount to an acquisition of property. Another case was Commonwealth v Tasmania – the Tasmanian dam case. The Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v Commonwealth case was interesting. The authority was the proposition that mere extinguishment or deprivation of rights in relation to property will not, in and of itself, amount to acquisition. Extinguishment or deprivation may not result in the question of acquisition.
The problem for the renewable energy industry is that, in the case of renewable energy certificates, it would seem that the Commonwealth might not be ‘acquiring’ property or, indeed, ‘extinguishing’ property. The outcome of a review may result in a decrease in the value of the RECs, as could be anticipated, and probably is by those having a punt, but the RECs would not become worthless. They may be worth less, but not worthless. There is, of course, a significant distinction and there is no argument for compensation on that basis.
So what do we define as sovereign risk? As we know, one common definition is: ‘any risk arising on chances of a government failing to make debt repayments or not honouring a loan agreement’. As a result of the global financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund in 2011 expanded the traditional definition of sovereign risk to, broadly, the probability that a country may not pay its debts, and in their view it has been shown to be too narrow. Developments subsequent to that have exposed very complex interactions between fiscal balances, public and private debt, and the financial sector. However, the IMF held discussions in 2012 around the definition of sovereign risk, suggesting that it might be extended, including the government’s role in the resource sector and the imposition of additional unanticipated or unforeseeable regulations on participants.
We have the circumstance where the outcome of the discussions being conducted does not extend to the understanding that is being trumpeted by the renewable energy sector. The reality for the renewable energy industry is that it may be very difficult for them or, indeed, anybody else to argue the concept that sovereign risk in this case is a relevant basis for compensation. They may not be rendered worthless; they may, in fact, be rendered worth less.
Finally, to add some international context to the position that I am advancing, in Europe the renewables scheme is being modified or, in many instances, scrapped and as yet, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no sovereign risk claims have been put forward by the industry.
So I make this point again in conclusion: the wind industry cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that wind power in this case is decreasing or dropping the wholesale price of electricity and, secondly, that the RET will cause the retail price of electricity to fall. If that is indeed the case then there is no cause for that particular aspect of the renewable energy industry to require further subsidy at all, since that renewable energy is cost-competitive in the market. If, indeed, it is cost-competitive in the market then let it live in the marketplace, but let it not be the reason—through its own self-service and self-interest – to see prices being unnecessarily driven up for domestic consumers, for residences, and for small and large businesses. Senator Chris Back (Western Australia)
Nice work, Chris!
Here’s The Australian’s take on Chris’s speech.
Senator’s case for killing RET The Australian Andrew White 10 July 2014
A government senator has rejected claims of sovereign risk caused by the review of the renewable energy target as “weak”, arguing there is a case to abolish an “insidious impost on every electricity consumer”.
Chris Back, the deputy government whip in the Senate, said the RET was a tax on consumers and conventional energy suppliers to subsidise renewable energy providers but had been “all but totally ineffective” in greenhouse gas abatement. The comments from the West Australian Liberal senator are among the strongest yet from the government ahead of a mandated biennial review of the RET that is due to report at the end of the month and are likely to fan industry fears that the government wants to use it to abolish or weaken the scheme.
The country’s biggest infrastructure operator, IFM Investors, and Spanish renewable energy investor Acciona told The Australian this week that $15 billion of fresh investment in renewable energy — mainly wind farms — was on hold because the industry feared the scheme would be scrapped or weakened. Australia’s foreign investment credentials would also be on the line because changes to the scheme could force writedowns on an estimated $20bn already invested in renewable energy that requires a 20-25 year payback period, the investors said.
But Senator Back said that after 13 years the scheme had increased investment in renewables but had not achieved its objective to reduce greenhouse gases. “The case to abolish the RET is driven by its cost to electricity consumers compared to the corresponding reduction (or lack of reduction) in greenhouse gas emissions achieved through its 13-year lifespan,” Senator Back said. The Australian
Kill the mandatory RET and the wind industry will die in a heartbeat – it’s on life support now.
The Danish press reports the case of a garden centre going out of business because of nearby wind turbines. Headaches are frequent among employees, and female workers complain of unusual bleeding and problems with their menstruation cycles. They are worried that more serious illnesses may follow and five of them recently resigned from their jobs. The owner is now closing shop for fear of being held responsible should a child be born with deformities, as happened to numerous mink puppies at a fur farm near wind turbines in Jutland (1).
Boye Jensen, the owner of Lammefjordens Perennials, is 67-year-old. He started his plant nursery 43 years ago, and it became a prosperous business with 15 employees and annual sales of 12 million krones (equiv. $ 2.1 million). He was planning to continue working for another 6-7 years, then sell the nursery. But his business is now worth nothing, causing him an important financial prejudice.
He is presently consulting with his lawyer whether he should sue Vattenfal, the company that owns the wind turbines, or the Municipality of Holbaek, which approved their installation 400-700 metres from his garden centre. He will go to court, and seek damages worth several million krones.
“Himself a neighbour to 127-metre high wind turbines since their installation three years ago, Boye Jensen has long been convinced that low frequency noise emitted by the turbines makes people ill as they do animals” (2). Then, recently, the sorry news from Kaj Bank Olesen’s mink farm came to his ears (1). This, and the resignation of several of his employees for health reasons, made him realise his business had become unviable because of the wind turbines. “The nursery owner made this hard decision after a mink breeder in Jutland was able to establish a causal link between the loss of a third of his mink puppies, deformed or stillborn, and several giant wind turbines erected nearby” (2).
The story made the news in Denmark (2) (3), and Member of Parliament Karina Adsbøl expressed her concerns to the Minister of Health at a Parliamentary hearing. The Minister, typically, replied by addressing other, less important issues mentioned by the MP, and ignored the important ones, i.e. wind turbines causing birth defects in animals forced to live near them, and disrupting women’s menstruation cycles (4).
The World Council for Nature (WCFN) is calling attention to the fact that, as occurred for tobacco, asbestos, thalidomide etc, governments are siding with private financial interests in ignoring or denying the existence of obvious health problems linked to wind turbines. As is the case for the millions of birds and bats killed yearly by the turbines’ blades, mendacious studies are published by unscrupulous consultants, and by professionals and universities happy to oblige their benefactors. Hypocrisy is rampant, species are fast disappearing from our skies, and thousands of windfarm neighbours are being submitted to torture. The word is not an exaggeration: sleep deprivation is indeed a recognised form of torture.
In Denmark as elsewhere in the world, many country dwellers are suffering, particularly since the apparition of the mega turbines (1 MW and over), which emit more infrasound as they grow bigger. This may explain why the complaints are becoming more strident. But how much longer can this suffering be ignored, or even denied by health authorities? Some countries, like Canada or Australia, have commissioned studies into the matter of noise emitted by windfarms. But the studies’ scope and methodology condemn them to failure, perhaps intentionally. What is really needed is: 1) an epidemiological study, and 2) the measurement of low frequency sound (including infrasound down to 0.1 Hz), inside the homes of windfarm victims, at night, windows closed, when the wind is blowing from the direction that is causing problem.
Most importantly, as a precaution, no mega turbines should be erected less than 10 km from habitations until such time as these studies are completed, published and analysed. There is indeed compelling evidence that infrasound travels much further than other sounds, and tortures sensitive people in their homes at distances of 10 km and more. Shorter distances could be temporarily set for smaller turbines, in proportion with their generating capacity.
WCFN calls upon the Danish government to intervene in favour of victims. A wealth of evidence is available, including peer-reviewed studies, which warrants applying the precautionary principle without delay (5). Children are particularly at risk – even unborn ones, as suggested by the evidence presented in this release.
WCFN’s primary goal is the conservation of biodiversity. A sane and responsible human population is the single most important factor towards that end. Our interest in human health is therefore justified from a logical perspective, among others.
A letter is being addressed to the Danish government concurrently.
Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736+34 693 643 736 Chairman, World Council for Nature http://www.wcfn.org
References:
(1) – Kaj Bank Olesen’s mink farm: stillbirths and deformities:
(4) – Video: a Member of Parliament, Karina Adsbøl, addresses her concerns to the Minister of Health, mentioning the deformities at the mink farm and the menstruation problems at the garden center:
A windfarm developer has again been accused of handing out “bribes” to hush up potential critics of its plans in Perthshire
Plans for Perthshire’s biggest ever windfarm are causing controversy
A windfarm developer has again been accused of handing out “bribes” to hush up potential critics of its plans in Perthshire.
Banks Renewables, the company behind a bid to build the biggest turbines the Big County has ever seen on the Bandirran Estate near Balbeggie, recently gave Burrelton Bowling and Tennis Club £4,500 in cash so it could pay to resurface its outdoor courts.
Development director Colin Anderson said Banks were “proud” to support the club and that many more local organisations could benefit from their “community fund” – should their planning application to construct six 132m high turbines be approved.
But anti-windfarm campaign group Scotland Against Spin panned the developer over the payment, claiming the donation had been made to “buy support or silence objections” to its windfarm proposals.
A community councillor also raised his concerns about Banks promising cash to local groups before their planning application has been considered by Perth and Kinross Council, describing it as a “corruption of the planning process”.
Banks came under fire for a similar reason last year after it emerged they had written to residents offering them up to £90,000 “not to object to nor support any objection to any application for planning permission in respect of the wind farm”.
Scotland Against Spin spokeswoman Linda Holt told the PA the cash donation to Burrelton Bowling and Tennis Club was not “technically illegal”, but described such payments as “unethical” and claimed they had the potential to “split communities”.
“Banks has plenty of form when it comes to giving individuals and groups money,” she said.
“The reason is always the same: to buy support, or silence objections, for a wind farm which for very good reasons local people don’t want.
“Sometimes such deals are secret; sometimes they are public, like this one, because Banks want to exploit them for maximum positive publicity.
“Although technically not illegal, promising people money before a controversial application is decided is unethical. It splits communities.
“Anyone who might want to oppose the wind farm can be made to feel they are depriving some worthy local group of much-needed cash.
“Bribes like this make it much harder for people to decide on an application on purely planning grounds, which is of course what the developer wants, especially if the planning grounds for a wind farm like this one are so weak.
“There is one reason and one reason only why Banks has given Burrelton Tennis Club money: to discourage local people from objecting.”
Burrelton and District community council chairman Martin Payne told the PA he only found out about Banks offering cash to local groups through village rumours.
He raised the issue with Banks representatives at a steering group meeting held before they put in the planning application, where he argued they should not make any donations until the planning process had concluded.
“I felt what they were doing was fundamentally wrong,” he said.
“Here they were, about to put in an application for a highly contentious windfarm, and secretly making money available to people directly affected by it.
“It is wholly unsatisfactory. It is a corruption of the planning process and it should not be allowed.”
But Mark Dowdall, environment and community director of Banks Group, said: “The Banks Community Fund provides support to community groups, voluntary organisations and environmental projects that are charitable, educational, philanthropic or benevolent in purpose and are located close to a current or proposed Banks Group development and deliver a benefit to their local community.
“The fund is completely independent of and separate from the planning process and applications are fully and properly reviewed by an independent grants panel set up by the Community Foundation that administers the Banks Community Fund.
“Our policy is to ensure that we work in partnership with the local communities that host our developments so that they can also share in the benefits that our business creates.
“We are extremely proud that, since it was established in 1997, the Banks Community Fund has granted £2.7 million in grants and benefited more than 80,000 people.
“Irrespective of what decision Perth & Kinross Council makes on that planning application, we are glad to have made a positive and meaningful contribution to community life in this area during the two years we have been working here to develop our plans.
“The Bandirran scheme has won widespread backing for the many benefits it would deliver to the area, should it be given the go-ahead, which further demonstrate our commitment to enhancing and benefiting communities where we operate.
“Local communities would share the revenues generated to invest in local causes and projects important to them. Funding would also be created for workplace training and job creation schemes and apprenticeships.
“Local businesses will have the opportunity to benefit from a significant amount of all construction-related contracts, delivering a real shot in the arm to the local community.
“Meanwhile the owners of Bandirran Estate say their share of revenues would secure the future of the estate, with money reinvested to create jobs and increase sustainability.”
Please all victim’s join Victim’s of Industrial Wind here on Facebook.
We would like to thank First Wind and all of their supporters for making our home a living hell. Trying to sit outside on a nice night enjoy a little bonfire, not happening. Hard to enjoy anything while sitting in that obnoxious noise, you just get angrier and angrier as you are pelted by this unnatural sound.
First Wind, kindly do the right thing. Buy us out at a reasonable price so we can find a new home that is not a crap hole. For the pittance you may be willing to part with wouldn’t be enough to get us into much more that a trailer rental. We only asked for $150,000. …….. pocket change to you folks, what is the problem? You have already set precedent when you bought out Mary Ellen Jones in New York. You gave her fair market value, moving expenses and she did not have to sign a non disclosure gag order. Just do what is right.
Editor’s note: Rick James is, without doubt, one of North America’s premier experts on wind turbine noise. Unlike the great majority of noise engineers who have sold their souls and ethics to the wind energy industry, Mr. James can’t be “bought.” Together with Rob Rand and Steve Ambrose, Rick has exposed the deceit and mendacity of wind company acoustic consultants — as in their fraudulent use of A-weighted noise measurements, for instance.
We all owe these three gentlemen a huge debt of gratitude.
. — Richard James, Noise Engineer (7/8/14). Click for PDF, with all graphs included.
As the blade passes the tower, the low frequency noise and infrasound is generated at a frequency related to the hub’s rotation and number of blades. These pressure pulsations appear as tones during analysis, but are not heard as tones by most people. Instead, they may feel the pressure changes as pulsations, internal organ vibrations, or as a pain (like ear aches or migraines).
This frequency is called the Blade Pass Frequency, often abbreviated as BPF.
For modern utility-scale wind turbines, this frequency is at 1Hz or lower. A three-bladed wind turbine with a hub rotation of 20 revolutions per minute (rpm) has a BPF of 1Hz. This means there is a pressure pulsation emitted into the community once every second. At 15 rpm the BPF is 0.75 Hz; and at 10 rpm, 0.5 Hz.
When wind turbine blades rotate past the tower, a short pressure pulse occurs, producing a burst of infrasound. When analyzed, the result is a well-defined array of tonal harmonics below 10 Hz.
For impulsive sound of this type, the harmonics are all “phase-correlated.” This means the peaks of each occur at the same time. Thus, the peaks add together in a linear fashion, with their individual maximum sound pressures all coinciding.
Thus, for an impulse having 4 equal amplitude harmonics (BPF, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) each of the same amplitude, the peak level is +12 dB. Ten equal harmonics would produce a peak level of +20 dB.
Please share with your neighbors and family members. The $ offered to farmers is very enticing….
The Informed Farmers Coalition IFC was formed five years ago to study the impacts of wind turbines on our agricultural and residential community. The group consists of past or present union iron workers, school teachers, township officials, lawyers, a farm manager, a plumber, a fireman, a mechanic, school board members, county board member, union truck drivers, a dentist, retail workers, construction workers, nurses, union equipment operators, hospital workers, a social worker, bookkeepers, a school administrator, salesmen, an electrical engineer for Com Ed, an EMT, numerous local business owners, large/small landowners, homeowners, and of course, farmers – many of whom are the third and fourth generation on that farm. Many are lifetime residents of this agricultural community.
They have discovered, through sworn testimony throughout the state, that people are suffering from the same health issues, noise disturbances, untruthful wind company promises, property value losses, etc. The ongoing research brings the discovery our local landowners may be responsible for the property taxes and decommissioning of the wind turbine should the wind company walk away from the project. The turbine property tax bill stays in the name of the landowner with the bill being listed c/o of the wind company. So ultimately if the wind company doesn’t pay, it will be sent to the landowner.
IFC became aware some of our local landowners with signed contracts had never seen a map where their turbines were projected to be placed. The map presented with the petition to the county also shows underground transmission lines. Some landowners were not aware transmission lines would go through their property and did not think they had signed up for that. One landowner agreed to a contract but for only 80 acres of his property. But when IFC was researching at the county, they discovered his contract was filed containing all 560 acres of his property.
The real experts about wind turbines are the citizens living among them. IFC has attended numerous county meetings across the state of Illinois only to realize the people testifying under oath all have the same story – homes where they can no longer live or sell due to noise and health issues; wind companies that townships must sue to collect their rightful money; trespassing of heavy equipment on non-participating land that compact the soil for years as well as damage crops and tile; crop dusting problems; GPS systems that no longer get a signal; cell phones and TV reception problems; etc. IFC is aware that Lifeline helicopters may not choose to land in a turbine area; this was needed this spring for a local farm accident. A letter from a school superintendent states the children in his school district are suffering from the effects of the turbines, since they went online.
IFC also became aware that once a person signs a contract they have agreed to a gag order that restricts them from talking about the wind company…
UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SB310 PASSAGE BY GOVERNOR KASICH IN OHIO
Intro Letter to Governor Kasich from NAPAW
Time out for OHIO renewables targets, and a breather for turbine victims
Sherri Lange
Ohio’s Governor John Kasich recently made a move on wind. Not precocious, not inflammatory, though you might think the din from the industry and other uninformed lawmakers says else, but merely a few safe moves that put reasonable limits on decisions and safety for people living near wind factories, or singles, in the state. (Also passed was the one line protection for residents living near turbines, that the setback will now be measured from the property line, not the residence….a universally welcomed move.)
Senate Bill 310 was shattering in some respects for the wind energy. At the heart was a two year moratorium on increased mandatory mandates for renewables. Also at risk to the industry was a longer setback, now about 1300 feet, to a property line, not a residence. Inhibiting factors for an industry on the march in Ohio.
State Rep Mike Foley decried the Bill, called it adverse to the “current” understanding of global warming, manmade, of course, and reminding us that Ohio is already the 5th largest producer of greenhouse gases in the US, but there was obviously enough “reason” in the big room of Ohio, to sway the bill to passage. (Representative Foley called it, irrational, and embarrassing, and why would Ohio not want to barrel ahead with “clean” energy”?)
A few facts are missing, Representative Foley. Greenhouse gases increase with more wind power. Nothing is clean and green about wind. Now that is embarrassing. Ontario has had its fill of the nearly hysterical songbook: “we have to clean the air of all this coal smog.” As Dr Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph tells us, this “clean air” story in Ontario or Ohio, is full of holes. Patently false.
We wanted to be certain you have received our thanks regarding your signing of Senate Bill (SB) 310 and protection of people and wildlife, and livestock, by maintaining a setback to the property line, not residences. These decisions will do much to settle the OHIO rush to wind, while more facts, long known in Europe, become available to OH public, and policy makers.
NA-PAW represents over 350 member groups and thousands of individuals from Aruba, Mexico to Alaska, and every part in-between. We liaise with EPAW, with over 650 member groups. Many of our most active North American members are from Ohio, or are interested parties for Ohio. We are concerned about safe, reasonable, and effective energy platforms, not those that put billions in the pockets of a few developers, while gouging State and Federal funds, and of course the pocket books of ordinary Americans and Canadians, without adding effective energy to the mix at all.
The essential facts are without dispute now worldwide.
Wind power KILLS jobs, and creates only a few temporary short term jobs during construction, or due to maintenance needs. Construction of parts is mostly done overseas, and does not contribute to the American economy. The high cost of power, due to unreasonable and mandated so called “renewables” and unhealthy subsidies that enrich the few, and give energy poverty to the rest, is also killing industry. While a manufacturing industry, for example, may use 30% of its operating costs for electricity, an uptick to that cost of even 10% or 15% may knock it off its seat. In Ontario, Canada, we have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the last five years, and it is very clear what the direct cause is: untenable subsidies for wind and solar. Ontario was recently downgraded by Moody’s, again because financial confidence is at an all-time low, again, due to the proliferation of wind and solar at vastly escalated costs to consumers. One can only wonder how such a money making scheme ever became to be so “respectable.”
Wind power does not work. It produces scant little, or as one recent article indicated from the UK, on certain measured days, turbine assemblies are assessed to provide power for from 3 to 29 tea kettles. Even more astonishing, but now well known, is the fact that wind factories are parasitic, using conventional power to moderate pitch, and move to capture wind, and keep blades from freezing, or shafts from destabilizing, or often to maintain the motion when there is no wind for the simple reason of public relations. Sucking conventional power, to scoop billions from the wind, but for a few developers. Not for the State or public benefit.
Wind power harms people and wildlife. This is so vastly understood, and the implications are so huge, that it would take a treatise to explain the extent of this harm. No other industry has been able to advance so strongly with so few safeguards for the environment and people.
Europe with its 30 plus years experiment in green renewables, is coming to understand, sadly, and grieve, the true costs: economies in shambles, clawing back subsidies as they can, the harm to pristine landscapes and tourist areas, the
consumers. One can only wonder how such a money making scheme ever became to be so “respectable.”
Wind power does not work. It produces scant little, or as one recent article indicated from the UK, on certain measured days, turbine assemblies are assessed to provide power for 3 to 29 tea kettles. Even more astonishing, but now well known, is the fact that wind factories are parasitic, using conventional power to moderate pitch, and move to capture wind, and keep blades from freezing, or shafts from destabilizing, or often to maintain the motion when there is no wind for the simple reason of public relations. Sucking conventional power, to scoop billions from the wind, but for a few developers. Not for the State or public benefit.
Wind power harms people and wildlife. This is so vastly understood, and the implications are so huge, that it would take a treatise to explain the extent of this harm. No other industry has been able to advance so strongly with so few safeguards for the environment and people.
Europe with its 30 plus years experiment in green renewables, is coming to understand, sadly, and grieve, the true costs: economies in shambles, clawing back subsidies as they can, the harm to pristine landscapes and tourist areas, the harm to their environments, and of course social upheaval. There are more than 2000 anti-wind groups worldwide that we know of, and that number escalates as soon as more projects are announced. There is, however, an equal rush to disentangle from the mythologies and harms done. Continue reading here….
Join the Beverley March to say “NO MORE TURBINES” for East Yorkshire
On the 12th July 2014, men, women and children from all areas of East Yorkshire will march on the town of Beverley to demonstrate to the government that “Enough is Enough”.
East Yorkshire is under siege and awash with Wind Turbines. Many parishes have been battling for over a decade to protect our landscape and heritage. “Enough is Enough”.
As supporters of renewable energy, East Yorkshire has permitted more than their share, now having the second-highest number of Wind Turbines in the whole of England. East Yorkshire is already bearing a disproportionate share of the national onshore wind burden, but yet they continue to come, adding more and more Turbines with their huge rotating blades, turning our county into an industrial wasteland. “Enough is Enough”.
The gentle views and peaceful pastures of the Yorkshire countryside with the Pennine Way, the beautiful Wolds and the landscape that now attracts events like the “Tour de France” and has World Heritage status, are being destroyed by these Turbines. They are too big, we have too many, they are too oppressive. “Enough is Enough”.
Many communities have been fighting endlessly from one application to another, rather than spending time preserving and investing into future growth of the land and its wildlife. All their energy and resources are being spent going from one battle to the next to stop this saturation of Turbines. They are all exhausted. “Enough is Enough”.
Give us back our County and close the door on any more Wind Turbine applications. Leave what is left of East Yorkshire and its countryside for generations to come, who will learn of the sacrifices these campaigners have made to protect their heritage:
We shall not fail or falter, We shall not weaken or tire, We shall go on until the end and never surrender, Until we have liberated the East Yorkshire countryside for all.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 