harm to wildlife

Sherri Lange Talks About the Sensible Decisions Made, Re: Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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.

See McKittrick’s excellent essay on his view of fossil fuels and other ruminations related to “Earth Hour” hypocrisies.  Continue reading here…..

**************************************************************************

Letter to Governor Kasich

July 7 2014

 

Governor John Kasich

Riffe Center,

30th Floor 77 South High Street

Columbus, OH 43215-6117

Phone: (614) 466-3555

Jessica.Johnson@governor.ohio.gov

whitney.holdrieth@governor.ohio.gov

 

Dear Governor Kasich;

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….

letter-writing

Big Wind Turbine Protest in the UK!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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”.

 

REGISTER NOW

 

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.

 

“Enough is Enough”.

The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways… Check this out!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Prysmian loses EUR 28m cables at sea

7 July 2014 by Patrick Smith, Be the first to comment

ITALY: Prysmian has revealed that a vessel carrying the cables for two German offshore wind farms has capsized off the coast of Sardinia, losing its cargo.

The AMT Explorer barge was transporting the cables for the Deutsche Bucht and Butendiek wind farms from near Naples in southern Italy to Bermenhaven in northern Germany when it spilled its cargo.

No crew were injured in the incident, Pysmian said in a statement.

The firm said that the cables are valued at around EUR 28 million, but that it has “adequate insurance coverage” to compensate for the loss.

“Prysmian and Tennet are working at their best capabilities to avoid consequences that may affect the project execution timetable,” Prysmian said in a stamtement.

The barge is owned by Augustea Anchor Marine Transportation, while Smit Salvage is handling the wreck following the capsizing.

The event took place in international waters, 93 kilometres south-west of Sardinia.

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

U.S. Fracking Alone, Reduces More CO2 than Wind & Solar, World-wide!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

News | June 30, 2014

 
    

U.S. Fracking Has ‘Cut Carbon More Than The Whole World’s Wind And Solar’

Fracking in the US has led to a greater reduction in carbon emissions than all the wind turbines and solar panels across the entire globe put together. This is the stark fact presented at a meeting at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week.

Chris Faulkner, who is chief executive of Breitling Energy Corporation based in Texas, explained: “Fracking has succeeded where Kyoto and carbon taxes have failed. Due to the shale boom in the US, the use of clean burning natural gas has replaced much more polluting coal by ten per cent. In 2012, the shift to gas has managed to reduce CO₂ emissions by about 300 megatonnes (Mt).

“Compare this to the fact that all the wind turbines and solar panels in the world reduce CO₂ emissions, at a maximum, by 275 Mt. In other words, the US shale gas revolution has by itself reduced global emissions more than all the well-intentioned solar and wind in the world.”

The economic impacts of fracking and shale gas are also indisputable: as natural gas prices in the European Union have doubled since the year 2000, US prices have fallen by about 75 per cent in the past few years. Annually, the global solar and wind subsidies cost $60B, whereas the US is saving at least $100B from cheaper energy

The Economist predicts that by 2020 the fracking revolution will have added 2 to 4 per cent ($380–$690B) to American GDP and created more than twice as many jobs as car makers provide today. US GDP today is about $16T, and US car makers employ about 800,000 people.

Chris Faulkner continued: “Many countries in Europe, and across the world, have similar opportunities to reduce their carbon footprint, and to experience the same economic benefits.”

“These are not opportunities governments should overlook, or discount, as carbon reduction targets will not be achieved through renewables or any other current energy generation technology.

“But shale is not a silver bullet, it is a stop-gap fuel while other energy generation technologies are developed, which will replace carbon-based fuels in the coming years.

“Opponents of fracking and shale exploitations cite various risks. Yet a million and a half wells have been fracked in the US since 1947 and 95 per cent of all wells in the US are fracked today. It is a very safe method of exploration and production. Fracking occurs at several thousand feet below freshwater aquifers. It is virtually impossible for any of the fracking fluid to climb back up through the rock formations between the shale gas deposits and the aquifer.

“As with any energy source,” added Chris Faulkner, “there are risks. But if there is proper regulation and enforcement, those risks can be managed and minimized. In many states in the US there are effective regulations and monitoring in place.”

Chris Faulkner was invited to present at the Council of Europe by UK MP David Davies. The ‘fringe’ meeting was attended by over 30 Council of Europe members from across Europe, including eight UK MPs.

“The UK is the only country in Europe which is progressing with shale exploration,” added Chris Faulkner. “The rest of Europe is watching the UK very closely to see what happens.

“The UK government is making every effort to get this right, albeit without much help from the shale industry which has spectacularly failed to properly engage with governments and, more importantly, with the public at large.

“The handful of companies operating in the field have not made any real effort to engage with local communities around sites, enter into proper discussions with local councils, or discussed fracking with environmentalists, allowing them free range to influence public perceptions using inaccurate, misinterpreted or exaggerated information mainly from the US experience.

“The industry has also failed to come forward with any suggestions for compensating landowners and local communities, seemingly leaving it to government to regulate.

“The UK government has suggested a lump sum payment and then 1 per cent of revenue going forward. This is very limited compared to the model that operates in the US where landowners can get over 20 per cent of revenue over the life of a well.”

About Breitling Energy Corporation
Breitling Energy Corporation is a growing energy company based in Dallas, Texas engaged in the acquisition of lower risk onshore oil and gas properties and the exploration and development of such properties. It intends to utilize a combination of acquisitions and growth through the drill-bit to increase reserve and production value. Its oil and gas operations are focused primarily in the Permian Basin of Texas and the Mississippi oil window of southern Kansas. It also has various properties in North Dakota, Oklahoma and Mississippi. For more information, visit http://www.breitlingenergy.com.

Protect Oak Ridges Moraine, and the Rest of Rural Ontario!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Oak Ridges Moraine wind project a threat to Ontario’s water

The provincial government should revoke its approval of a wind project on the Oak Ridges Moraine and stop allowing development to take precedence over the protection of our water

 
 
Sign on a rural property near the proposed development site on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

FRED THORNHILL

Sign on a rural property near the proposed development site on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

 
By: Maude Barlow and Cindy Sutch Published on Mon Jul 07 2014

The Sumac Ridge wind project is the first industrial wind project approved on the environmentally sensitive and protected Oak Ridges Moraine, the rain barrel of southern Ontario. The approval sets a precedent to open up the Oak Ridges Moraine for other wind projects and industrial development of all kinds. The project is currently under appeal before the Environmental Review Tribunal and has received a record number of 43 requests for status from community and First Nation groups.

Sumac Ridge is one of five proposed wind projects on the Oak Ridges Moraine that residents have been fighting for the last five years. Community members have spent significant amounts of time and money trying to protect and preserve the moraine. When the Sumac Ridge wind project was posted on the Environmental Registry, 2,874 comments were registered. Frustration with the process is mounting along with the fees of lawyers and experts hired to prepare for the Environmental Review Tribunal.

While wind power is a sustainable green energy alternative to the environmental harms associated with fossil fuels, as with every industrial development, it can have important impacts in vulnerable areas and these must be fully assessed. The Sumac Ridge project and the other proposals will require the construction of access roads, clear-cutting of significant woodlands and the delivery of thousands of truckloads of gravel, sand and concrete onto the moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine is one of the last continuous green corridors in southern Ontario. The remnants of tall grass prairie and oak-pine savannas in the eastern portion of this ancient landform are globally threatened ecosystems and may be impacted by wind development.

The Sumac Ridge wind project will be located in a part of the moraine that provides both terrestrial core and corridor habitat and is a critical refuge for birds, bats, threatened and/or endangered plants and animals, and numerous species at risk. Most importantly, it is a high aquifer vulnerability zone, a groundwater recharge area and at the headwaters of the Fleetwood Creek and Pigeon River. The Ministry of the Environment must revoke its approval of the Sumac Ridge project and stop allowing industrial development to take precedence over the protection of our water.

There is no time to lose. The world is running out of accessible clean water. We are polluting, mismanaging and displacing our finite freshwater sources at an alarming rate. We need a new water ethic that places water and its protection at the centre of all policy and practice if the planet and we are to survive.

This new water ethic should honour four principles.

The first is that water is a human right and must be more equitably shared. The United Nations has recognized that drinking water and sanitation are fundamental human rights and that governments have obligations not only to supply these services to their people but also to prevent harm to source water.

The second principle is that water is a common heritage of humanity and must be protected as a public trust in law and practice. Water must never be bought, hoarded, sold or traded as a commodity on the open market and governments must maintain the water commons for the public good, not private gain.

The third principle is that water has rights, too, outside its usefulness to humans. Water belongs to the earth and other species. Our belief in “unlimited growth” and our treatment of water as a tool for industrial development have put the earth’s watersheds in jeopardy. Water is not a resource for our convenience, pleasure and profit, but rather the essential element in a living ecosystem. We need to adapt our laws and practices to ensure the protection of water and the restoration of watersheds, a crucial antidote to global warming.

Finally, while there is enormous potential for water conflict in a world of rising demand and diminishing supply, water can bring people, communities and nations together in the shared search for solutions. Water can become nature’s gift to humanity and teach us how to live more lightly on the earth and in peace and respect with one another.

Let it start in our own backyards.

 

Maude Barlow is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians and served as senior adviser on water to the 63rd president of the United Nations General Assembly. Cindy Sutch is the Chairperson of Save The Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition in Ontario and a Director of The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation.

 

 
 
 

Wind Weasels Don’t Care Who They Hurt!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

US Judge Orders Lake Wind’s Noisy Turbines to be Shut Down – AGAIN!

July 7, 2014 by 

judges-gavel

Back in February, a Michigan Judge ordered wind power outfit, Consumer Energy to produce a plan to rid its Lake Winds wind farm of excessive noise levels (see our post here). It elected not to; and, instead, appealed that decision.

Once again, the court found that noise levels from the operator’s turbines were well in excess of the relevant noise standard. So now the operator will be forced to produce a proper noise mitigation plan – and abide by it – or risk being shut down altogether.

The result is a “we told you so” moment for locals – who had their own acoustic experts predict – long before it was built – that the wind farm could never comply with the criteria set for turbine noise. No surprises there.

Here’s the latest on the Lake Winds saga.

Court Backs Finding of Wind Turbine Noise Problem
Michigan Capitol Confidential
Jack Spencer
28 June 2014

Lake Winds energy plant in Mason County now has to mitigate noise of its windmills

Michigan’s 51st Circuit Court has ruled that Mason County was justified in determining that wind turbines at the Lake Winds Industrial Wind Plant near Ludington are too noisy.

In his June 16 decision, Judge Richard Cooper denied Consumer Energy’s appeal to have the court overturn the county’s finding that the wind plant was exceeding the county’s established decibel level limits.

In a highly technical explanation, Judge Cooper said it was reasonable for the county to take into account the impact of maximum wind speeds that are not outside the norm. He also rejected the argument that excessive noise levels occurring only during certain periods of time should be allowed.

Lake Winds is a 56-turbine facility located south of Ludington. It was the utility company’s first wind plant project in Michigan. Residents who live near the $255 million plant began complaining of health problems shortly after the turbines began operating. They filed a lawsuit on April 1, 2013, arguing that noise, vibrations and flickering lights emanating from the wind plant were adversely affecting their health. Among the symptoms noted in the lawsuit were dizziness, sleeplessness and headaches.

In September 2013, the Mason County Planning Commission determined that the wind plant was not in compliance with safety guidelines. CMS Energy, which is the parent company of Consumers Energy, then appealed that decision to the Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals and lost. In January, CMS took the case to court and it has now lost again.

CMS spokesman Dennis Marvin said the utility has yet to decide whether it will appeal Judge Cooper’s decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

“Obviously, we were disappointed by the decision,” Marvin said. “We are still evaluating whether or not to appeal. In accordance with the court’s ruling we are cooperating with Mason County on our mitigation plan.”

Mason County has hired experts to continue tests at the wind plant. However, because wind speeds are generally low in the summer the testing isn’t likely to resume until September, at the earliest. Under the mitigation plan, affected wind turbines are now operating at reduced power levels to lower the sound level.

“CMS energy has no one to blame but themselves,” said Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a non-profit organization that is concerned about the construction of wind turbines in the region. “The citizens living inside Lake Winds wind plant paid for independent noise studies of the project before it was built. Independent analysis demonstrated that the turbines would not only exceed the noise ordinance as proposed by CMS and adopted by Mason County but that the turbine noise would create widespread complaints and result in legal action by those subjected to this industrial development in a rural environment.”

Lake Winds is part of the utility’s effort to meet Michigan’s renewable energy mandate, which requires that 10 percent of the state’s energy be produced by in-state renewable sources by 2015. Though the mandate was ostensibly aimed at reducing carbon emissions, the 2008 law did not require that emissions be monitored to measure the mandate’s actual impact.

“This should be a warning that there is a price to be paid for ignoring the clear acoustical science that predicted this social disaster long before the first shovel of dirt was ever turned,” Martis said.
Michigan Capitol Confidential

The lead plaintiff in the case, Cary Shineldecker lives in this house. Oh, and you might just pick a teeny weeny turbine that Consumer Energy decided to spear into the Shineldecker’s backyard.

lake winds

Shineldecker Home

Margaret Atwood Reaches Out to Help Citizens in Midhurst, Ontario

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
Teresa —

 

Like so many classic Canadian farming communities, my village of Midhurst, Ontario is surrounded by forest, fresh country air and beautiful landscapes. My husband, two boys and I routinely take hikes and have picnics in the fields and forests across from our house. 

But now, our idyllic village has become ground zero in the fight to preserve Canada’s fast-disappearing farmland and natural areas from sprawling mega-developments — all because the Ontario Government made a special loophole in the ‘Ontario Places to Grow Act’ allowing a private developer to turn Midhurst from a village of 3,500 into a city of 30,000. 

We started a petition demanding the Ontario Government close this unprecedented loophole and save Midhurst. Through the magic of twitter, Margaret Atwood found out about our petition and was inspired to lend her support! Check out this video of her visit to Midhurst and hear her explain in her own words what is at stake and why you should sign too:

 

Margaret Atwood Midhurst Video Appeal

You may not have heard of Midhurst, but what the Ontario Government decides to do here should matter to all who believe that farmland and nature are more than places waiting to be paved, and that local communities should have a say in how they grow and change.  

The special loophole, designed just for Midhurst, is the opposite of everything the Ontario Places to Grow Act was designed to do — protect farmland and stop unsustainable, sprawling mega-developments. Our story is a warning that the unsustainable sprawl that has devoured nearly half of our farmland in Ontario, and has irreparably damaged precious natural areas, will continue along this destructive path unless we speak out. 

During the Ontario Provincial Election, Premier Wynne met with a few members of our community. She appeared concerned and promised that if elected she would review the development plan. We now plan to hold Premier Wynne to her promise, and with the support of tens of thousands of people we hope she will be convinced to close the loophole. 

As a mother, I knew that I had to try to preserve the future of our community, our farms and our natural areas.  I got involved because there has to be a better alternative than to sacrifice so much to the benefit of just a few people who, as Margaret Atwood put it, stand to make a lot of money. Please join our community, Margaret Atwood, and over 5000 people, and sign our petition calling on the Ontario Government to stop the mega-development and save Midhurst. 

Thank you,

Margaret Prophet, 

Midhurst, Ontario

What the Liberals are Doing To This Once-Proud Province….Disgusting!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Sovereign Debt Crisis Alive & Well In Canada – Ontario is one of the largest debts in the world among sub-sovereign governments

Posted on July 4, 2014 by 

Ontario

Those that have been yelling about hyperinflation complete ignore the fact that there are 3 major levels of government Federal-State/Province-Municipal/City and the latter two cannot print money. All three levels simply consume and debt has been the major crisis for centuries. Back in 1514, in the Stutgart/Tubingen area, the lord owed about a million gold coins. He could not pay the debt and the lower classes were revolting over taxes. He was forced to create a parliament among the nobles who then assumed the debt in return for power.

This story of a debt crisis has been replayed countless times throughout history. It is unfolding on a worldwide basis from Austria and Germany, throughout Europe, into North America, Japan, and Asia right into China. Why governments borrow with no intention of ever paying anything back and always go into collapse is just mind-blowing. We never even once learn from the past constantly repeating this boom bust cycle that leads to war and civil unrest.

Even in quiet Ontario, Moody’s has warned about a debt downgrade. The Thursday’s Throne Speech unfolded against the backdrop of a stern warning where the newly re-elected government is not showing enough progress tackling the province’s $12.5-billion deficit and stabilizing its massive debt load, which is one of the largest in the world among sub-sovereign governments. This is the price of socialism and it is being pushed off the cliff with great force. Do not confuse this with denying people a helping hand. The extreme left and the extreme right agree on one thing – more power to government. Both extremes are equally dangerous.

Moody’s Investors Service changed its outlook on Ontario to “negative,” a possible prelude to a downgrading of the province’s credit rating.Thursday’s Throne Speech unfolded against this very serious outlook in Canada.

 

3 MW Wind Turbines a Threat to Rural Village of Cesme

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Nina Pierpont Warns Against An Entirely Avoidable Turkish Wind Farm Disaster

July 5, 2014 by  

Calvin-Nina001

NINA PIERPONT, M.D., Ph.D.

June 30, 2014
Ms. Esen Fatma Cesme Belediyesi (Municipality)
İnönü Mah. 2001 Sk. No: 2 Çeşme / İZMİR
Turkey

Dear Ms. Kabadayi-Whiting,

I write to you at the request of Madeleine Kura, who tells me the charming, historical town of Cesme is about to have half a dozen 3 MW industrial wind turbines built on the edge of town, a mere 500 m from people’s homes. (I’m told that at least one of the turbines will be 300 m from a school.) Furthermore, all this construction will be in hilly terrain.

Let me explain, clinically, why this is a bad idea. In 2009 I published what was then the definitive study of health effects caused by wind turbine infrasound on people living within 2 km of industrial turbines. The book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” (K-Selected Books), included 60 pages of raw data in the form of case histories (using case cross-over studies), demonstrating that living in proximity to wind turbines dys-regulates the inner ear vestibular organs controlling balance, position, and spatial awareness. Effectively, sufferers experience symptoms of sea-sickness, along with several related pathologies.

It turns out all this has been well known since the 1980s, when the US Department of Energy commissioned a report on wind turbine health effects — the report subsequently published by physicist Dr. N D Kelley and his colleagues at the Solar Research Institute in Golden, Colorado, bearing the title, “A Methodology for Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise Generation,” Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, v. 104 (May 1982), pp. 112-120.

In this paper we have presented evidence to support the hypothesis that one of the major causal agents responsible for the annoyance of nearby residents by wind turbine noise is the excitation of highly resonant structural and air volume modes by the coherent, low-frequency sound radiated by large wind turbines.

Further, there is evidence that the strong resonances found in the acoustic pressure field within rooms [in people’s homes] . . . indicates a coupling of sub-audible energy [infrasound] to human body resonances at 5, 12, and 17-25 Hz, resulting in a sensation of whole-body vibration (p. 120).

I discovered the same thing in my research. What Kelly et al. refer to as a “sensation of whole-body vibration,” I refer to as Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD): “The internal quivering, vibration, or pulsation and the associated complex of agitation, anxiety, alarm, irritability, tachycardia, nausea, and sleep disturbance together make up what I refer to as Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD)” (“Wind Turbine Syndrome,” p. 59).

Five years later, Dr. Kelley gave a follow-up paper at the Windpower ‘87 Conference & Exposition in San Francisco, titled “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions.” Just so you understand the terminology, “emissions” means “noise & vibration.” And the term “low frequency” includes infrasound. And the antiseptic phrase “community annoyance” is code for Wind Turbine Syndrome — except the name had not been coined in1987. (I created it decades later.) Kelley’s research once again had been funded by the US Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093.

We electronically simulated three interior environments resulting from low-frequency acoustical loads radiated from both individual turbines and groups of upwind and downwind turbines. . . .

Experience with wind turbines has shown that it is possible . . . for low-frequency acoustic noise radiated from the turbine rotor to interact with residential structures of nearby communities and annoy the occupants. . . .

The modern wind turbine radiates its peak sound power (energy) in the very low frequency range, typically between 1 and 10 Hz [i.e., infrasound]. . . .

Our experience with the low-frequency noise emissions from a single, 2 MW MOD-1 wind turbine demonstrated that . . . it was possible to cause annoyance within homes in the surrounding community with relatively low levels of LF-range [low frequency range] acoustic noise. An extensive investigation of the MOD-1 situation revealed that this annoyance was the result of a coupling of the turbine’s impulsive low-frequency acoustic energy into the structures of some of the surrounding homes. This often created an annoyance environment that was frequently confined to within the home itself (p. 1, emphasis in original).

I am attaching a copy of Kelley’s 1987 paper.

Besides my research, which pretty much duplicates Kelley’s, there is the work of Dr. Alec Salt, Professor of Otolaryngology in the School of Medicine at Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri), where he is director of the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory. Professor Salt is a highly respected neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear disorders and in particular the mysteries of the cochlea.

Prof. Salt’s research dovetails with mine and with Dr. Kelley’s. For many years, acousticians and noise engineers have vigorously maintained that “if you can’t hear it, it can’t hurt you.” That is to say in the case of wind turbines, “If you can’t hear the low-frequency noise in the infrasound range, it can’t hurt you.” (lnfrasound, by definition, is noise below the hearing threshold, typically pegged at 20 Hz and lower. People feel infrasound in various parts of the body, though typically they cannot hear it.) In any case, Professor Salt and his colleagues have demonstrated conclusively, definitively, that infrasound does in fact disturb the very fine hair cells of the cochlea.

With this discovery, one of the main arguments advanced by the wind energy industry — namely, that wind turbine infrasound was too low to be harmful to people, since they could not hear it — was demolished. Prof. Salt has proven that, “If you can’t hear it, it can still harm you.”

This past winter, Professor Salt and his colleague, Professor Lichtenhan, published “How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People?” Acoustics Today, v. 10 (Winter 2014), pp. 20-28. The following is a lengthy excerpt:

The essence of the current debate is that on one hand you have the well-funded wind industry (1) advocating that infrasound be ignored because the measured levels are below the threshold of human hearing, allowing noise levels to be adequately documented through A-weighted sound measurements; (2) dismissing the possibility that any variants of wind turbine syndrome exist (Pierpont 2009) even when physicians (e.g., Steven D. Rauch, M.D. at Harvard Medical School) cannot otherwise explain some patients’ symptoms; and (3) arguing that it is unnecessary to separate wind turbines and homes based on prevailing sound levels.

On the other hand, you have many people who claim to be so distressed by the effects of wind turbine noise that they cannot tolerate living in their homes. Some move away, either at financial loss or bought-out by the turbine operators. Others live with the discomfort, often requiring medical therapies to deal with their symptoms. Some, even members of the same family, may be unaffected. Below is a description of the disturbance experienced by a woman in Europe we received a few weeks ago as part of an unsolicited e-mail.

From the moment that the turbines began working, I experienced vertigo-like symptoms on an ongoing basis. In many respects, what I am experiencing now is actually worse than the ‘dizziness’ I have previously experienced, as the associated nausea is much more intense. For me the pulsating, humming, noise that the turbines emit is the predominant sound that I hear and that really seems to affect me.

While the Chief Scientist [the person who came to take sound measurements in her house] undertaking the measurement informed me that he was aware of the low frequency hum the turbines produced (he lives close to a wind farm himself, and had recorded the humming noise levels indoors in his own home) he advised that I could tune this noise out and that any adverse symptoms I was experiencing were simply psychosomatic. . . .

Given the knowledge that the ear responds to low frequency sounds and infrasound, we knew that comparisons with benign sources were invalid and the logic to A-weight sound measurements was deeply flawed scientifically. . .

From this understanding we conclude that very low frequency sounds and infrasound, at levels well below those that are heard, readily stimulate the cochlea. Low frequency sounds and infrasound from wind turbines can therefore stimulate the ear at levels well below those that are heard. . . .

No one has ever evaluated whether tympanostomy tubes alleviate the symptoms of those living near wind turbines. From the patient’s perspective, this may be preferable to moving out of their homes or using medical treatments for vertigo, nausea, and/or sleep disturbance. The results of such treatment, whether positive, negative, would likely have considerable scientific influence on the wind turbine noise debate. . . .

Another concern that must be dealt with is the development of wind turbine noise measurements that have clinical relevance. The use of A-weighting must be reassessed as it is based on insensitive, Inner Hair Cell (IHC)-mediated hearing and grossly misrepresents inner ear stimulation generated by the noise. In the scientific domain, A-weighting sound measurements would be unacceptable when many elements of the ear exhibit a higher sensitivity than hearing. The wind industry should be held to the same high standards. Full-spectrum monitoring, which has been adopted in some reports, is essential. . . .

Given the present evidence, it seems risky at best to continue the current gamble that infrasound stimulation of the ear stays confined to the ear and has no other effects on the body. For this to be true, all the mechanisms we have outlined (low frequency-induced amplitude modulation, low frequency sound-induced endolymph volume changes, infrasound stimulation of type II afferent nerves, infrasound exacerbation of noise-induced damage and direct infrasound stimulation of vestibular organs) would have to be insignificant. We know this is highly unlikely and we anticipate novel findings in the coming years that will influence the debate.

I suspect you are beginning to get a clear picture of the problem — and why I’m writing to you.

The typical symptoms of what is now known worldwide as Wind Turbine Syndrome are: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus (ringing or buzzing in the ears), ear pressure, dizziness (a general term that includes vertigo, light-headedness, sensation of almost fainting, etc.). nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia (rapid heart rate), irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise when awake or asleep.

Does everybody living near wind turbines experience Wind Turbine Syndrome? By no means! What I discovered is that people with (a) motion sensitivity, (b) migraine disorder, (c) the elderly (50 years and older), (d) inner ear damage, and (e) autistic children and adults — all these are at statistically significant high risk.

The solution is simple: industrial wind turbines must be set back, well away from people’s homes, schools, places of work, and anywhere else people regularly congregate. In my 2009 report, I recommended a minimum setback of 2 km in level terrain. Studies done around the world since then have persuaded me that 2 km is not sufficient, especially in hilly or mountainous terrain — as with Cesme. In Cesme’s case, setbacks should be more in the order of 5 km or greater.

Hence my alarm when notified by Ms. Kura that Cesme is considering 500 m (or less) setbacks. This is wholly inadequate. I guarantee that, unless the setbacks are increased substantially, there will be numerous victims of Wind Turbine Syndrome.

There’s more. Dr. Salt referred to Dr. Steven Rauch, above. Dr. Rauch, a physician, is the Medical Director of Harvard Medical School’s renowned Clinical Balance and Vestibular Center, part of the Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary. Dr. Rauch was recently interviewed by The New Republic:

Dr. Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS [Wind Turbine Syndrome] is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTS suffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test for either condition but “Nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim” (“Big Wind Is Better Than Big Oil, But Just as Bad at P.R.,” by Alex Halperin in The New Republic, June 16, 2014).

Dr. Rauch made a similar statement to ABC News last fall.

I met with Dr. Rauch in Cambridge, Mass., several years ago. He has read my “Wind Turbine Syndrome” book. You’re welcome to contact him for his clinical opinion. Notice, he actually treats WTS victims, and furthermore his specialty is neuro-otology — precisely the clinical specialty appropriate to WTS, since WTS is mainly a vestibular disorder. (You might consider Dr. Rauch the “pope” of vestibular disease.)

Shifting gears, a group of mechanical engineers at the University of Minnesota recently mapped the airflow turbulence patterns of a 2.5 MW wind turbine. Their technique was ingenious: “A large searchlight with custom reflecting optics generated a two-dimensional light sheet next to the 130-m-tall wind turbine for illuminating the snow particles in a 36-m-wide by 36-m-high area.” They literally mapped the vortices being hurled off the turbine blades, using a blizzard (!) as a kind of background screen. Visit this website to see and savor the dramatic results. http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/new-study-uses-blizzard-measure-wind-turbine-airflow  Click open the video and notice the pulsed pressure waves from the blades — punching holes, as it were, in the swirling snow. You can watch the video on YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHl_0s4qqUY.

Think of volleys of acoustic artillery, much of it in the low frequency and infrasound range. Imagine the residents of Cesme being bombarded by this day and night.

You are looking at the huge, pulsed, sound pressure waves responsible for Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Ms. Kura tells me the turbines destined for Cesme are 3 MW. Several years ago, the noted Danish noise engineer, Professor Henrik Moller at Aalborg University, published a paper titled “Low-Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 129, no. 6 (June 2011), pp. 3727-3744. Moller and his colleague, Christian Sejer Pedersen, demonstrated that “the larger the turbine, the ongreater the ILFN (infrasound and low frequency noise) produced.” The following is the abstract of their paper:

As wind turbines get larger, worries have emerged that the turbine noise would move down in frequency and that the low-frequency noise would cause annoyance for the neighbors. The noise emission from 48 wind turbines with nominal electric power up to 3.6 MW is analyzed and discussed.

The relative amount of low-frequency noise is higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines (2 MW), and the difference is statistically significant. The difference can also be expressed as a downward shift of the spectrum of approximately one-third of an octave.

A further shift of similar size is suggested for future turbines in the 10 MW range.

Due to the air absorption, the higher low-frequency content becomes even more pronounced when sound pressure levels in relevant neighbor distances are considered.

Even when A-weighted levels are considered, a substantial part of the noise is at low frequencies and, for several of the investigated large turbines, the one-third octave band with the highest level is at or below 250 Hz.

It is thus beyond any doubt that the low-frequency part of the spectrum plays an important role in the noise at the neighbors.

Given all of the above, you can see why I am concerned for the residents of Cesme.

A final word. The clinical literature, including publications by the World Health Organization on health effects from infrasound exposure, typically use the word that Dr. Kelley used in his reports to the US Department of Energy — “annoyance.” It’s really not an appropriate word. It vastly understates the sickness caused by infrasound exposure. (A mosquito bite is an annoyance. Wind turbine infrasound, on the other hand, triggers a debilitating cascade of illnesses whose features I enumerated, above.)

In medicine, we clinicians are morally bound to exercise what’s called the “precautionary principle.” That is, if we don’t know for certain that a procedure is harmless, we are obliged to exercise extreme caution in performing the procedure, in this instance building industrial wind turbines — which are well-known to produce impulsive (i.e., amplitude-modulated) infrasound — near people’s homes. This is, after all, common sense.

For decades, the wind industry flatly denied their turbines produced infrasound. It took monumental efforts by people like me to debunk this fallacy. Wind industry advocates likewise argued that only downwind turbines created noise, that is, low-frequency noise. Dr. Kelley and his research team effectively debunked that falsehood, in the articles referred to above. Finally, the wind industry clung to the fiction that, “If you can’t hear it, it can’t hurt you.” Professor Salt deflated that one.

It’s time to recognize that the global wind industry has hidden behind a series of (what turned out to be) falsehoods. Their untruths have been exposed and corrected in the published clinical and scientific literature, as shown above.

There is no excuse for building wind turbines in proximity to people’s homes.

Sincerely,

Nina Pierpont, M.D.*, Ph.D.**
*M.D. from The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
**Ph.D. from Princeton University in Population Biology/Evolutionary Biology/Ecology
***B.A. (Biology, with honors), Yale University

For a pdf version of the letter click here.

To find out what Neil Kelley’s research was all about see our posts hereand here and here.

For an insight into Prof Alec Salt’s work see this video.

And, for a taste of what the good people of Çeşme will get to suffer if this disaster is realised, see our post here.

Cesme Turkey