Kind of hard to accuse animals of suffering from “nocebo effect”…..but I’m sure they’ll try!

Re: Wind turbine noise

22 April 2014

Ladies and gentlemen sorry to get to the debate 2 years late, but I hope you find my contribution worthy. (1)

When it comes to psychogenic illness, it seems unlikely it is an illness that affects animals. This paper was published in 2013 from Poland, if I may quote. (2)

“The study consisted of 40 individuals of 5-week-old domestic geese Anser anser f domestica, divided into 2 equal groups. The first experimental gaggle (I) remained within 50 m from turbine and the second one (II) within 500 m. During the 12 weeks of the study, noise measurements were also taken. Weight gain and the concentration of cortisol in blood were assessed and significant differences in both cases were found.

Geese from gaggle I gained less weight and had a higher concentration of cortisol in blood, compared to individuals from gaggle II. Lower activity and some disturbing changes in behavior of animals from group I were noted. Results of the study suggest a negative effect of the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine on the stress parameters of geese and their productivity.”

In Portugal a study from Portugal suggested that foals born near wind turbines developed Equine Flexural Limb Deformities.

Also “Biologist Dr. Lynne Knuth, in a letter to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, testified as follows: “The problems with animal reproduction reported in the wind farms in Wisconsin are lack of egg production, problems calving, spontaneous abortion (embryonic mortality), stillbirth, miscarriage and teratogenic effects:

In chickens: Crossed beaks, missing eyeballs, deformities of the skull (sunken eyes), joints of feet/legs bent at odd angles.

In cattle: missing eyes and tails (updated Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee).”” (4)

There is more here. (5)

In conclusion it is possible in humans wind farm illnesses could be psychogenic. In animals it maybe a bridge too far.

1. http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1527

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597302

3. https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/4847/1/Deforma%C3%A7ao%2…

4. file:///C:/Users/DaveA/Downloads/viewdoc.htm

5. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62126

Competing interests: Freedom2Choose (F2C) are mainly known as a smoker’s rights group. I and our organisation have never received money, expenses or grace and favour from tobacco companies or agents. However I have been paid and remunerated by Pfizer who make smoking cessation drugs.

Dave Atherton, Chairman

Freedom2Choose, Flat 2 Wellington Passage, London E11 2AL

Wind Turbines….a waste of land, money, and communities!

4TH GENERATION FARMER MAKES RATIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST WIND TURBINES

Randy Williams — Rock River Times — April 22, 2014

This letter is intended to share some of the thoughts of a fourth-generation Boone County farmer in regards to the intention of the County to allow, and some neighbors to promote, wind turbines to be built in Northern Boone County.

It is important to recognize that the residents of this rural area have chosen to live in this rural area – to make their livings and to enjoy their lives – because of the residential and agricultural zoning that allows them separation from densely populated and designated industrial areas. The reason that designated industrial areas exist is to protect residential and agricultural areas from the byproducts associated with heavy industry, such as excessive sound, light, stray voltage, heavy traffic, and so on.

In bringing wind turbines to Boone County, some are essentially trying to disguise heavy industry as farming. Some have even had the audacity to call their decision to financially benefit from the wind turbines as “freedom to farm.” It would appear, in fact, that they are looking for freedom to have industry.

It seems to be not too far of a stretch to say that, if we have industrial turbines, why can’t we bring in some other industry? Maybe a big factory, like Motorola*, where they could make some electronics? If we call it an electronics farm, probably some industrious individuals could then say that qualified also as freedom to farm.

Someone else said, in the newspaper, “this could be Northern Boone County’s Chrysler.” Could it be that Northern Boone County does not need, nor does it want, a Chrysler? Aside from the logistical and financial untruths of this statement, the residents living in Northern Boone County have chosen to live in this rural environment because they enjoy the lifestyle offered here. If they wanted to live in the shadow of such a mecca of industry, they would live there.

So why, then, have some farmers agreed to the preposterous contract allowing wind turbines onto their property? One sentiment that could explain some of these behaviors is this: at a meeting last fall, someone said to the County Board “if you don’t give us these wind turbines, what are you going to do for us?” It seems to me that as a farmer, you are responsible for making a living by farming, not looking to the county to help you find a way to find subsidies, not demanding that the county allow you to benefit at the detriment of the health, financial well-being, and general lifestyles of your neighbors.

Last week, I drove to Spring Valley for some unrelated business which took me right past hundreds of windmills. It was interesting that on a nice, clear, breezy day, no wind turbines were turning, not one. I liken the wind turbines directly to Motorola, the story of the huge factory in Harvard being known only too well in this area, because of the similarity between the exciting promises made in building them, and the disappointing reality of both scenarios. I sadly wonder how much money was being made for those “farmers” from that day’s harvest,” just as I cringe at the supposed prosperity offered by the Motorola company for the communities in McHenry County.

It is my hope that members of the County Board will carefully consider the facts in making their decisions regarding the proposed zoning amendment and not be swayed by the unlikely promises or desperate pleas offered by wind turbine advocates.

Randy Williams
Poplar Grove, Ill.

Istockphoto image of a farm, barn

The Hypocrisy of the Faux-green wind promoters!

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE’S HYPOCRISY ON FULL DISPLAY AGAIN. THIS TIME WITH BISPHENOL A.

We all know that one of the components of wind turbine blades is Bisphenol A, which breaks down over time and exposure to the weather, feeding into the air.  The internal Vestas report which states that over 1 ton of hazardous waste is created with the production of every single turbine blade is well documented and has been discussed many times on this site.  Bisphenol A is one of those wastes that Vesta was referring to.

From the Greeley report:

“In a report released by the company, it was revealed that over the last four quarters waste from the Windsor facility increased by 44.7 percent and produced 36 percent more toxic waste than in the previous quarter.

Of that waste, almost ¾ of it was sent to landfills in the state. The waste consists of fiberglass epoxy resin, plastic, fiberglass dust and other items.

A Vestas employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the Gazette that he needs to shower every day prior to coming home to avoid harm to his children from the resins that get on his skin. The company has been cited by OSHA for violations related to chemicals used at the facility that have caused injury to employees.

The Greeley Report said an inside report indicates the plant produces approximately 40 blades per week with each blade generating 1 ton of waste.
Andrew Longeteig, A spokesman for Vestas, explained the reason for the increase in the amount of hazardous waste produced in 2011 was because of increases in production related to a record-breaking year for Vestas wind turbine sales in the United States and Canada in 2010.

He went on to say that none of the hazardous waste was considered toxic.”

Well, if hazardous waste isn’t toxic, exactly what is it?

Click here to see the Vestas report which states that they’re trying to reduce waste from the production of each blade to 2716 kg.

Anyway, back to Environmental Defence….They’ve published an article on their site stating that human exposure levels to Bisphenol A deemed ‘safe’ may be over-estimated.

“Their research found that human testes were more than 100 times more susceptible to some compounds, including BPA, compared to those in rodents. BPA is linked to prostate cancer, obesity, heart disease and possibly breast cancer. This means that current standards may be based on an underestimate of the risk posed to humans by BPA exposure.

Considering that according to the Canadian Health Measures survey 95 per cent of Canadians aged 3-79 have BPA in their bodies, this is a huge cause for concern. BPA was banned from baby bottles because it was declared toxic by Health Canada. However, it is still far too widespread in other consumer products like receipts, cans, and plastic food containers, and it may be worse for our health than previously thought.

More needs to be done to protect Canadians from toxic chemicals like BPA.”

Yet, when I contacted Environmental Defence a couple of years ago to try to get them to take action against the negative environmental effects of wind turbines on Ontario residents, they advised me that they don’t get involved in such matters.  Really?   So whose environment are they defending?  And what’s their criteria?  It seems they’re up in arms about Bisphenol A polluting the air, but if that material comes from wind turbines, then it’s okay?

At the same time, I tried to see if Environmental Defence would support an initiative to get industrial wind turbines built in and around the GTA, including along the shoreline.  Since they’re avid supporters of wind energy, I thought I could get them on board with getting them built near where they live.  Again, I was advised that that’s not an area that they get involved with.

Ahhh….green hypocrisy.  Always so easy to expose. — DQ

Energy Australia pulls the plug on Robertstown wind farm project

Great news for the tight little South Australian farming communities of Robertstown and Point Pass as Energy Australia pulls the plug on its plans to slam 40 giant fans into the heart of highly productive farming and grazing territory in SA’s Mid-North.

Here’s the story – as told by STT Champion, Mary Morris:

Colin & Mary

Colin Schaefer and Mary Morris celebrate a victory for common sense.

Colin Schaefer (Brady Creek) and Mary Morris (Buchanan) give the thumbs up to Australian Radio Towers workers as they dismantle an Energy Australia wind monitoring mast near Point Pass in the Mid North of South Australia.

Roberstown tower

Going, going …

This wind monitoring mast for the proposed Robertstown wind farm was taken down today by contractors under direction from Energy Australia. It was erected in 2009, a mere 500 m from a neighbouring farm house and close to the township of Point Pass and dozens of hobby farms and lifestyle blocks.

A second tower will be removed tomorrow near Inspiration Point, west of the township of Robertstown.

Initially local landowners were supportive when invited to take part in the project in 2005. However, local opposition to the proposed wind farm took off in late 2010, when the nearby Waterloo wind farm started operating and landowners who had signed up for Robertstown wind farm realised they could hear and feel noise and vibration from 8 km away.

Nine of the fourteen contracted Robertstown landowners believe they were misled about the impacts of the wind farm – especially noise – and no longer want to be part of the project. Colin Schaefer (pictured) was one of the contracted landowners who changed his mind when Waterloo wind farm started operating. He had worked on the construction at Waterloo and thought it was great idea – until the turbines started turning and his sleep was frequently disturbed.

A petition with 345 local signatures against any more turbines being built in the area south of Burra was presented to Energy Australia at a public information session at Marrabel in May 2012.

At the site today, Mary Morris thanked Clint Purkiss (Energy Australia) for removing the mast and asked him for his reasons for doing so. He replied “it’s fair to say, we listened”.

Mary Morris
14 April 2014

Robertstown tower 2

…. gone!

And here’s a Channel 7 News report on the victory:

****

 

****

Truth be told, a whole host of factors lined up to kill off the project.

In the end, Energy Australia didn’t have the land-holder agreements it needed to make the project viable.

One local farmer and grazier, Jim Dunstan (seen in the Channel 7 report) bought out a substantial property where the former owner had signed a land-holder agreement and was set to host a large number of turbines for Energy Australia. Jim managed to get rid of the contract, which meant the developer immediately lost the ability to erect a substantial part of its planned project. Nice work Jim!

Jim Dunstan is an avid environmentalist with a burning passion for Australia’s native birds and animals. He’s campaigned for years to keep a raft of planned giant fans from being built on the hills behind Robertstown – that would run North to Stony Gap and Burra – in order to prevent the destruction of the last-remaining habitat of the critically endangered Pygmy Blue-Tongue lizard (see below) – as well as to avoid having his many feathered friends sliced and diced by giant fans. So this retreat must be a doubly sweet victory for him.

pygmy blue tongue

No longer threatened by bulldozers, another local breathes a sigh of relief.

And, of course, the economics have caught up with wind power. Built and maintained on the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the steady stream of Renewable Energy Certificates – that have been driving up retail power prices and upon which the whole fiasco critically depends – the wind industry is facing the very real prospect of the subsidy trough drying up quite a bit sooner than it budgeted on.

The RET Review will almost certainly spell the end of the current 41,000 GW/h annual target. On current forecasts showing declining demand, that figure will end up with renewables notionally supplying more than 27% of total demand. Demand for sparks has fallen in the last few years – and will continue to fall – as industry, minerals processors and manufacturers – belted by escalating power costs – shut their doors and bolt for cheaper places to operate overseas. The target was meant to be 20% by 2020 – so there can no justification for the current figure.

The Panel in charge of the review are all keen advocates of real (ie stand its own 2 feet) business and the Coalition have made plain their avid dislike of corporate welfare – which is precisely what the RET/REC scheme reduces to – as Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor put it: “corporate welfare on steroids”.

Energy Australia would not have secured a Power Purchase Agreement for its Robertstown project – in the absence of which it will never secure the finance to build.

In the end, the decision to drop the project was probably more about avoiding throwing good money after bad – than about “listening” to locals. But, whatever killed it, the locals are over the Moon.

Mary-Morris

Ireland’s Wind Energy Policy brings out 2000 protesters!

Thousands protest over wind and energy policy

Tuesday 15 April 2014 23.03

1 of 4
The march ended outside Leinster House
The march ended outside Leinster House
The march ended outside Leinster House

Thousands have protested in Dublin city centre against the Government’s wind energy and pylons policy.

Organisers claim up to 4,000 people attended the march, which began at the Garden of Remembrance and ended outside Leinster House.

The protest was organised by Wind Aware Ireland, a new group combined of organisations against pylons and overhead power cables and those opposed to wind farms.

With increasing alarm over climate change in recent weeks, Ireland’s energy policy is under scrutiny like never before.

The matter is of acute political significance in many parts of the country as the Local Elections approach.

News that a wind energy export deal with Britain was off the table has done little to reduce concerns.

Environmental campaigners are calling for the Government to encourage communities to take ownership of future wind energy plans.

Meanwhile, the Government has set a tentative date of later this year for publishing its Climate Bill.

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin earlier said that Ireland faces particular challenges with regard to reducing its carbon footprint.

But, he said, Ireland needs a robust response to the issue of climate change.

Mr Howlin said Ireland’s agriculture sector would pose a challenge as it was not as intensive as others.

He said he believed that Ireland would hit its target of 40% renewable energy by 2020.

While there might be resistance in some sectors to this, he said, if people looked at the recent reports on climate change they would reflect that we need to do things differently.

The minister said that the Government is obliged to submit budget costings to the EU in April, but this was predicated on last year’s projections.

He said there were recent signs of new economic activity in the first quarter with more jobs, but the Government was currently working on last year’s projection of 2% growth.

He said there might be more growth than expected but the Government needed to be prudent.

Rural Ontario tirelessly fighting the Wind Fiasco!

East Oxford group files FOI for wind farm details

Joan KeithBy Jennifer Vandermeer, Norwich Gazette/IngersollTimes
NORWICH TOWNSHIP – The East Oxford Community Alliance wants to know how the Ministry of the Environment has been handling the Prowind Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm file. The alliance (EOCA) has filed Freedom of Information requests and asked the Ontario Ombudsman to look into it because of the number of changes that have been made to the project without due process for the public to participate.

Joan Morris, spokesperson for EOCA, said one issue is the “substantive changes” to the project since it was first filed with the MOE and considered complete and accurate. “A change to the project area was announced to the public only four days before the application was deemed complete by the Ministry on February 7, 2014,” Morris also said in a press release. “Apart from a cover page from the Ministry of Environment, none of the documents for public review and comment were modified to account for the changes.”Read article

Wind Turbines being placed in important birding areas. Green energy? At what cost?

Voices from the Thedford Bog: Wind turbines are “a social experiment, a mess, a failure”

IMG_4200

Protesters joined the remaining migrating tundra swans at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014, to condemn plans to build a bristling barrier of industrial wind turbines in what is a designated Important Bird Area. Every March some 10-15,000 tundra swans stop at the Thedford Bog and environs to rest and feed before continuing on their migration to the western Arctic.

Waterfowl scientist Dr. Scott Petrie told CBC News in 2012:

By putting the turbines in inappropriate places, it actually is tantamount to habitat loss. You wouldn’t put an office tower next to a coastal wetland, why would you put a wind turbine there?

Monte McNaughton, Progressive Conservative Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario (MPP) for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, reminded the protesters that his party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has promised, if elected, to repeal the Green Energy Act, the draconian legislation that has given unprecedented rights to industrial wind turbines over people, communities and wildlife. The Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009 in part as a response to the fake planetary emergency of man-made global warming/climate change.

“Worst economic policy ever”

“Worst economic policy ever”

CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)

The Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal governments have allowed the Ontario landscape to be despoiled and blighted by thousands of useless industrial wind turbines. The machines, towering as high as 50-storey buildings, built on a foundation that requires 800 tons of concrete each that will remain in the ground of prime farmland forever, have been erected in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis or human health studies, and accorded special rights by the Liberal government with its elimination of environmental restrictions inconvenient to wind companies.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to build thousands more of the extortionate-to-taxpayers, destructive, un-green industrial monstrosities.