Harm to Children

Medical Associations Should Hang Their Heads in Shame!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK’s Wind Industry Buys British Medical Association; Aims to Silence Medicos

July 8, 2014 by s

country gp

In an all too familiar tale, the British Medical Association has been co-opted by the wind industry and is now just another advocate for the great wind power fraud. The same has happened in Australia with the:

  • Australian Medical Association (see our posts here and here andhere and here);
  • Public Health Association; (see our post here) and
  • National Health & Medical Research Council (see our posts here andhere and here).

What’s so insidious about all this, is that Medical Practitioners swear upon an ancient oath that says – among other things – they will “act for the good of their patients” and “do no harm”. Fair enough.

That edict seems to suggest that medicos as a group should be quick to investigate ANY public health issue where the activities of a few are causing physical harm to many; and very slow to dismiss as “wind farm wing nuts”, “climate change deniers”, “NIMBYS” etc those who have the misfortune of suffering from turbine noise induced sleep deprivation and associated health effects. So far, so ethical.

Try as we might, we couldn’t find anything in that oath to suggest that doctors are meant to take any particular line on “renewable” energy, let alone any endorsement that medicos should be out spruiking for the wind industry, while ignoring the suffering of wind farm neighbours. But that’s what they’re doing with our AMA – and the BMA have just grabbed the same rotten baton.

Now, it’s one thing to fall in love with giant fans – strangely, the enamoured never live within a bull’s roar of a wind farm – but it’s quite another to use your peak professional association to ridicule and vilify the victims. Here’s The Sunday Times on a brewing backlash over the pro-wind power stance taken by the BMA.

Ill Wind Blows over BMA’s energy stance
The Sunday Times
Mark Macaskill
6 July 2014

The British Medical Association (BMA) is facing a backlash from doctors and anti-wind farm campaigners in Scotland who claim the body is not doing enough to investigate the impact of giant wind turbines on public health.

Homeowners who live within a few miles of wind turbines have complained that the whirring of blades causes chronic sleep deprivation. Others insist that headaches and nausea are linked to the low-level hum generated by turbines.

The European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) has been lobbying the BMA to monitor the health of patients – with the help of GP’s – who live in close proximity to wind farms.

However, at a meeting of BMA representatives in Harrogate last month, the body was urged to support renewables on the basis it will help mitigate the effects of climate change.

It was suggested that any investments held by the BMA be transferred “from energy companies whose primary business relied upon fossil fuels to those providing renewable energy sources” and that the body transfers to electricity suppliers who are “100% renewable”.

The move has angered some doctors who accused senior BMA officials of “ignoring” pleas to address a potential public health impact of onshore wind farms.

A spokeswoman for the BMA rejected the claims last week, insisting EPAW had made contact after a deadline for submissions to the meeting had passed. She said that although the meeting of representatives recommended investing in renewables, the BMA does not make direct investments.

However Susan Crosthwaite, an EPAW spokeswoman, said: “That a vote was subsequently taken at the meeting to divest from fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy without members having had access to the information we sent raises an issue of conflict of interests. Since May, attempts were made to have information given to members concerning adverse health effects of turbines. These attempts failed.”

Dr Angela Armstrong, a GP from Wigtown in Dumfriesshire, said: “As a BMA member I was distressed to hear that our president has ignored pleas to ask doctors to monitor the health of patients living near turbines in view of the ever increasing evidence that there are significant health implications.”

Studies have concluded that noise emitted by wind turbines can affect nearby residents. In Scotland, planning guidance is for turbines to be at least 1.24 miles from residential homes.

A spokeswoman for BMA Scotland said: “The BMA is happy to consider any motions submitted by members for debate to the annual conference – the policy-making body of the BMA. If a member of the BMA wishes our representatives to consider a motion to assess the health impact of wind farms, then there are clear protocols for submitting motions to the agenda committee.”
The Sunday Times

So, the BMA is headed up by a bunch of starry-eyed intellectual infants, seeking to announce their “green” credentials to the world by divesting from fossil fuel generators and cuddling up to giant fans, instead.

A nanosecond’s research would allow these deluded doctors to reach the sound (read “only”) conclusion that wind power is not a substitute for conventional generation sources, requiring 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time (see our posts here and here and here andhere and here and here and here and here).

As wind power can never displace conventional sources of generation, it cannot reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

And, indeed, all the evidence points to the contrary: adding wind power to a coal/gas fired grid increases CO2 emissions (see this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

Coal and gas thermal plants – and the Brits have plenty of them – end up burning more coal or gas, not less: so much for doctors “saving the planet”.

There is, of course, a base-load generation source that the Brits have used for years that doesn’t emit a whiff of CO2 in operation, but don’t expect the BMA to come out swinging in favour of nuclear power, any time soon: their members would have to pull the “No Nukes” stickers off the back windows of their Volvos, for a start. It might also grate with some of their other woolly-headed ideology.

go nuke sticker

Public Letter to the Ombudsman, Asking for Help to Protect our Children…

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

To:
Mr. André Marin
Ombudsman Ontario
info@ombudsman.on.ca
July 5, 2014
Dear Mr. Marin,
Re: File no 222520: Process Issues Associated With Industrial Wind Energy
Implementation
The purpose of this message is to:
• share information regarding reported process issues associated with the
implementation of industrial wind energy facilities; and
• to request a meeting with you as soon as possible.
This message is public and maybe shared and redistributed.
We are aware that many Ontario residents have forwarded process issues to the Ombudsman
Office associated with this topic. The inventory of reported process issues file since July
2009 is not intended to be exhaustive.
Examples include reports/complaints of:
• human adverse health effects, in some cases severe enough that some have
relocated from their homes;
• negative effects of a transformer station;
• negative effects on domestic farm animals;
• negative effects from electromagnetic frequency (EMF) exposure;
• lack of mitigation and resolution;
• the use of an iterative process during the public consultation process;
• lack of stability, i.e., processes are a “moving target” with constant adjustment of
“rules”;
• dissatisfaction with the lack of, and/or the responses received from Ontario
authorities; and
• other.
1. Children: risk of harm
An example of a specific process issue relates to the apparent lack of response to:
• the vulnerability of fetuses, babies and children to noise in general; and • the vulnerability of a child while at home or at school to a proposed industrial
wind energy project.
Attached is Ms Shellie Correia’s submission, including documentation, made to the Ontario
Minister of Health and other Ministers and authorities.
2. An Iterative Process
Another example is the June 29, 2014 message forwarded by Ms Carmen Krogh entitled An
Iterative Process – Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), Renewable Energy Approval (REA).
This submission relates to a potential process issue associated with the EBR (Environmental
Bill of Rights) and the granting of a REA (Renewable Energy Approval).
3. Background
On June 29, 2009, Ms Beth Harrington, Ms Carmen Krogh and a colleague met with
Mr. Jones, Director, Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT) and one of its senior
investigators to discuss potential process issues associated with the implementation of
industrial wind energy facilities. During that meeting, we provided some examples of the
research gaps and policy issues relating to this matter.
Within a short period of time, the SORT investigator assigned to the case provided file
number 222520 for submitting documentation of the process issues.
We were encouraged that a SORT investigator was assigned. This indicated interest in
conducting a “specialized systemic investigations on high-profile issues affecting large
numbers of people.”

Subsequent to the June 29, 2009 meeting, Ms Harrington, Ms Ashbee and Ms Krogh
met August 17, 2011 with several members of your staff to reiterate our serious concerns
regarding the implementation process of industrial wind energy facilities throughout the
province of Ontario.
We noted the apparent lack of progress on this file, provided examples of process flaws, and
requested a number of clarifications such as the role of the Office of the Ombudsman as a
last resort. Based on the discussion, it appeared the Office was unable to launch a “systemic
investigation”. During the meeting, it was indicated the Ombudsman had no power over the
renewable energy policy. The reason for this was unclear.
On July 9, 2012, Ms Harrington wrote you and reiterated concerns relating to this topic. See
attached letter.
4. Discussion

Based on feedback from some, it appears members of the public are encouraged to continue
forwarding information to the Ombudsman; however, to date, it does not appear that the
Ombudsman has launched a systemic investigation. It appears some have been advised there
is not enough evidence for the Ombudsman to do so.
Based on the website, the Ombudsman has commented on industrial wind turbines in three
Annual reports:
4.1 2009-2010 Annual Report
http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Files/sitemedia/Documents/Resources/Reports/Annual/Final-EN-WEB.pdf
It appears that based on the establishment of a Research Chair in Renewable Energy, the
report of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health and the filing of a Judicial Review by
“opponents to wind energy development”, the Ombudsman “ determined “that a systemic
investigation is not warranted at present, but SORT staff will monitor the issue. We continue
to receive updates from the Ministry of the Environment with respect to its efforts to
establish mechanisms to address complaints about wind energy operations.”
We offer several observations:
• The characterisation that residents who wish to protect the health and safety
of their families and communities are labelled as “opponents to wind energy
development” contributed towards a bias which appears to be inconsistent with
the role of the Ombudsman.
• The creation of the Research Chair in Renewable Energy was announced
February 2010 and not in operation. Therefore it was premature to expect it could
assist with the ongoing complaints being filed at that time.
• Regarding the report of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, see Section
3. SORT assessments in 2011-2012 below.
• The filing of a self-funded Judicial Review by a community should have provided
additional support for the serious nature of the issues being reported.
• The Ministry of Environment should have established “mechanisms to address
complaints about wind energy operations” before proceeding with implementation
of the wind projects. This in itself is a process gap which left residents with a lack
of mitigation or resolution.
4.2 2010-2011 Annual Report http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Files/sitemedia/Documents/Resources/
Reports/Annual/2011OmbudsmanAR_E.pdf

It appears that based on interviews with staff from the Ministry of the Environment “about
its handling of wind turbine noise complaints”; documentation from the Ministry’s Sector
Compliance Branch “about its inspections of wind farm sites; updates from the
Ministry regarding its work on the “measurement of wind turbine noise: legal actions; and
the Research Chair’s study of potential health effects associated with wind energy, the
Ombudsman “determined that a systemic investigation is still not warranted, but has tasked
SORT to continue to monitor the issue, including ongoing related legal applications.”
We offer several observations:
• Regarding noise measurements, a September 30, 2009 letter from the MOE states
“There is currently no scientifically accepted field methodology to measure wind
turbine noise to determine compliance or to determine non compliance with a
Certificate of Approval limits.”
[Reference number: ENV1283MC-2009-4345]
It is expected a noise measurement process would have been established before
exposing residents to wind energy facilities. Some residents have commented
that they felt like “guinea pigs” or “lab rats” due to the lack of ability to measure
compliance.
• It is unclear whether those who appealed to the Ombudsman for help were
apprised of the documentation provided by MOE and the outcomes of the
interviews with MOE staff for their comments.
• In 2010/2011, there were no results available from the study being conducted by
the Research Chair in Renewable Energy. This indicates the Ombudsman relied,
in part, on a study which did not have results at the time of its Annual Report.
• Again, the self-funded legal actions should have provided additional support for
the serious nature of the issues being reported.

4.3 SORT assessments in 2011-2012
http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Files/sitemedia/Documents/Resources/Reports/Annual/AR%202011-2012/
Annual-Report-2011-2012-ENG.pdf
Its appears that based on the contention there is “an adequate administrative process for
complaints related to wind turbines”; a “new compliance protocol to measure wind turbine
noise”; an expert report commissioned by the MOE “on infrasound and low-frequency sound
from wind turbines”: the conclusion “that there is no direct health risk from wind turbine
noise; and Ministry’s indication it “would continue to monitor scientific developments in
this area, including developing approaches to address complaints related to indoor
low-frequency sound in specific situations” [It was noted that “[M]many people opposed
to wind turbines did not accept these findings.”]; an Environmental Review Tribunal ruling 2011; the Ontario Research Chair in Renewable Energy study, the Ombudsman “decided not
to launch a systemic investigation, but will continue to monitor this issue.”

We offer several observations:
• In 2011/2012, there were no results from the study being conducted by the
Research Chair in Renewable Energy. This indicates the Ombudsman relied, in
part, on a study not yet completed and for which there were no results, at the time
of its Annual Report.
• The expert report commissioned by the MOE “on infrasound and low-frequency
sound from wind turbines states:
“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical
receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial
percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources,
research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can
be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons. (bold
emphasis added)
Stress symptoms associated with noise annoyance, and in particular low
frequency annoyance, include sleep interference, headaches, poor concentration,
mood swings…”
[Reference: HGC (2010) Low frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine
Generation Systems, A Literature Review, Ontario Ministry of Environment RFP December 2010]
This should have alerted the Ombudsman that a non-trivial percentage of persons
being highly annoyed. Annoyance may seem of little consequence in everyday
language; however, in terms of health, the term annoyance is acknowledged as an
adverse health effect.

[References: 1. Health Canada. (2005). Community noise annoyance. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hlvs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/community-urbain-eng.php#he 2. Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., & McMurtry, 

D. (2005). Noise annoyance in Canada. Noise Health, 7, 39-47 3. Maschke, C., & Niemann,
A. (2007). Health effects of annoyance induced by neighbour noise. Noise Control Engineering
Journal, 55, 348-356 4. Suter, A. H. (1991). Noise and its effects. Administrative Conference of
the United States. http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm ]

• The Environmental Review Tribunal Decision (2011) involving 26 expert 

witnesses from around the world who testified under oath states:
“This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one
about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented
to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to
residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.

 

[Reference: Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Review Tribunal, Decision, p 207]
• The indirect pathway has been given a low priority regarding this topic. When
one focuses on a “direct” effect one omits consideration of an equally significant
part of the health equation i.e. indirect effects. The indirect pathway of noise
annoyance, sleep disturbance and stress can lead to consequences such as cardiac
issues. The Tribunal found:
“… The Tribunal has found above that “serious harm to human health” includes
both direct impacts (e.g., a passer-by being injured by a falling turbine blade or a
person losing hearing) or indirect impacts (e.g., a person being exposed to noise
and then exhibiting stress and developing other related symptoms). This approach
is consistent with both the WHO definition of health and Canadian jurisprudence
on the topic.” [p190]
• The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal expressed concerns with respect
to The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines (Chief Medical Officer of
Health (CMOH) Ontario Report) – May 2010 and the need for further work on
precaution:
“…about the Director’s apparent lack of consideration of indirect health effects
and the need for further work on the MOE’s practice of precaution…” [p 206]

 

• Again, the comment by Ombudsman that “[M]many people opposed to wind
turbines did not accept these findings.” indicates a perception of bias. The lack of:
consistent processes; mitigation or resolution; and acknowledgement that some
are negatively affected and could no longer live in their homes has not been given
the recognition expected by those placed at risk without consent.
5. Historically, the Ombudsman has responded to complex issues. Examples include:
5.1 A commentary on patients’ right to complain
“Unfortunately, when it comes patients’ right to complain, the reality is more
one of regression. When the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman was established
in 1975, it provided millions of ordinary citizens with a much-needed avenue to
address problems with provincial organizations. We still do that today – and our
investigations have sparked many dramatic improvements that touched people across
the province and were welcomed by the Government itself. But over time, many of
the most vulnerable people in our society, including those with mental illnesses, have
found that avenue closed to them, through no fault of their own.

 

My hope for the future is that Ontario will one day be suitably chastened by its last
place finish in the oversight field, will pick up its pace, and will move to the head of
the oversight pack. Ontarians deserve nothing less.”
[Reference: Nowhere to Turn: Patients’ Right to Complain Keeps Eroding By André Marin,
Ombudsman of Ontario Honouring the Past, Shaping the Future: Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office,
25th
Anniversary Report May 2008]
5.2 A commentary on MUSH and maladministration
(MUSH: Municipalities, Universities, School Boards and Hospitals)
Note: maladministration is defined by Oxford English Dictionary as: “Inefficient or
dishonest administration; mismanagement.
[Reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/maladministration Cited July
5, 2014]
“This situation reflects a serious accountability gap. Most MUSH agencies are subject
to information and privacy legislation and financial oversight by the Auditor General.
But Ontarians concerned about general maladministration and unfairness cannot
complain to us about MUSH organizations – unlike the hundreds of other provincial
bodies we do oversee.
None of the existing accountability tools in the hospital sector provides recourse to an
independent, external overseer with the Ombudsman’s statutory mandate and powers
to conduct impartial investigations of individual and systemic issues, publicize
results, and exert moral suasion to correct unfairness and maladministration.”
“ It’s really troubling that there is no ombudsman for health-care issues in Ontario. If
there was more accountability, we’d all be safer. ” [Richard Kadziewicz, letter to Toronto
Star, April 15, 2012]
[Reference: Beyond Scrutiny: The push for MUSH Case upate – Annual Report 2012-2013 As the
accompanying chart reflects, the Ombudsman received 2,541 complaints and inquiries in 2012-2013
about the MUSH sector,]
There appears to be analogy regarding the topic of industrial wind energy and that of the two
examples noted above.
It appears that the matter under discussion merits a systemic investigation. In our opinion, all
of the considerations are met::
“SORT investigations are considered where:
• there is a serious and sensitive issue with a high public interest component;
• there are broad systemic implications;
• the facts of the complaint are complex and/or not agreed upon and;

 

• there is no likelihood of an informal resolution to the complaint.”
[Reference: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/About-Us/The-Ombudsman-s-Office.aspx%5D
To date, we are not aware that the Ombudsman has initiated a systemic investigation on this
subject matter.
However, we propose that due to the serious risk factors associated with exposing vulnerable
populations of fetuses, children and those children with special needs will motivate the
Ombudsman to launch a systemic investigation.
We are requesting to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss moving forward with a
systemic investigation.
Respectfully submitted,

Ms Carmen Krogh
Ontario
carmen.krogh@gmail.com
Cell 613 312 9663

Ms Beth Harringon
Ontario
beth.harringon@sympatico.ca

Ms Barbara Ashbee
Ontario
barbashbee1@gmail.com

Ms Shellie Correia
Ontario
shelliecorreia@gmail.com

Attachments
Ombudsman Health and Industrial Wind Energy July 5 2014
Ombudsman Letter _July 2012[4] procedural fairness
MOE Iterative Process June 26 2014.pdf
White Pines technical review shared with proponent.pdf
Protecting Children_Industrial Wind Energy Facilities_Jun 28 2014.pdf
Health Canada_Risks to children December 27 2012 FINAL.pdf
Health Canada_Risks to children Correia May 15 2015.pdf
Specialist Dr. Calvert’s letter.pdf