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

 

Dear Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Elizabeth F. Marshall,

Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association

Author – Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”

Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board

Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc

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

President All Rights Research Ltd.,

Steering Committee – International Property Rights Association

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

1-705-607-0587Collingwood, ON

 

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

Wind Energy Insurance Claims Massachusetts Devastating

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


Wind Energy Insurance Claims Massachusetts Devastating

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

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

Fact :

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

Who:

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

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

When:

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

Today Six years later:

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

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

What:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsibility :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wind Pushers Struggle to Avoid Accountability….

Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

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


Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————————————

Falmouth, Massachusetts 2010

Article :

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

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

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

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

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

Note # Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda from Billings, Montana, Tells the Truth about Wind Turbines…

Casper Star-Tribune

Prescott: Wind an unreliable source of energy

Editor:

So-called “fossil” fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) provide cheap, plentiful and reliable energy, have helped to lift billions of people out of poverty, provided fertilizers to increase the food supply, and contribute to over half of the products in our homes, offices and elsewhere. They are the primary energy source for over 80 percent of the world’s population. These fuels are found in abundance in Wyoming and Montana.

On the other hand — wind, solar, geothermal and a few others provide perhaps 5 percent of our energy needs. They owe their existence to the truckloads of cash (your cash) shoveled out of D.C. to support them. So, as I read the recent article (“Proposed Wyoming wind tax increase draws local opposition”), I thought, who did not see this coming.

Albany County Commissioner Tim Chestnut is quoted: “While [wind] is expensive right now, it is the future.” Yes, and Kathleen Hartnett White (the director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the TX Public Policy Foundation) can show you the future. Germany, with heavily subsidized wind and solar projects, has electricity rates triple that of the U.S., and electricity is now deemed a “luxury good” by a million households. They are now burning wood. Germany is deemed to be in an “energy regression.”

In addition to the extremely high cost of installation, there is the noise of the blades, the visual impact, unreliability and their notorious ability to act as “avian Cuisinarts.” It is highly likely that the motor on the windmill/turbine will burn out before it ever turns a profit. And what backs up these unreliable wind projects? Reliable coal-fired plants using cheap and abundant coal. The only way the wind energy scam can continue is through the use of never-ending subsidies, increasing rates and taxes from you. Think of that big windmill as Obamacare for your HVAC.

LINDA PRESCOTT, Billings, Montana

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

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

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

 

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

How Green Energy Hurts the Poor…

Commentary

How Green Energy Hurts the Poor


     Print

The clean energy mantra is so loud that it often drowns out the feeble cry of energy poverty. Many Americans are finding it more and more difficult to pay their utility bills, yet this important issue is nearly absent from the debate about America’s energy future.

Modern progressives, who have long fancied themselves as champions of the poor, now see energy policy only through the lens of climate change. Their call to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, at any cost, drives public policy. Consequently, the sources of our most reliable and affordable electricity, existing coal power plants, are being shut down across the country as overzealous federal and state regulatory mandates force utilities to use less reliable, and more expensive sources such as wind and solar power.

For those on fixed incomes, increasing energy prices mean that the gap between what they can afford to pay and what they are paying for electricity is widening. If we continue to push aside cheap coal-generated electricity for more expensive alternatives, many more of the nation’s poor will fall into that gap as they struggle to keep their lights on and their refrigerators running.

To be considered affordable, utility bills should be no more than 6 percent of one’s income. But according to new research, energy costs now represent 20 percent or more of income for many of the poorest Americans. That affordability gap of 14 percentage points translates into an extra $40 billion per year.

Only about 1 in 5 families eligible for the federal government’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program actually received funding last year. While climate change evangelists might suggest the answer to this affordability crisis is more funding for energy assistance programs, that’s only a Band-Aid solution that ignores the critical issue of why energy costs are rising.

While low-cost natural gas—thanks to the shale revolution—has moderated rises in energy prices, we cannot assume that natural gas will stay cheap forever. Today, natural gas is the largest source for generating the nation’s electricity. It also heats half of American homes and is being exported in ever-growing volumes.

In the past, when natural gas prices spiked (which they have a history of doing), utilities could turn to abundant, reliable and low-cost coal power to hold down energy costs. But many of those coal plants, once the backbone of our electricity sector, are now gone or are threatened with regulation-induced death. While coal is still used to generate a third of the nation’s electricity, an ever-lengthening list of EPA regulations continues to push critically important coal plants into early retirement.

But renewable energy can’t fill that void any time soon. Despite receiving tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, wind and solar still generate less than 6 percent of the nation’s electricity and remain undependable sources of electricity generation.

Improving the environmental performance of our energy sector is a worthy goal. But doing so by regulatory fiat, while trading reliable and low-cost energy for more expensive and less reliable alternatives, is not the right path forward.

Purposefully driving up the cost of energy, while millions of Americans already struggle to pay their utility bills, is irresponsible. We cannot cut the world’s carbon emissions alone, but we can certainly make U.S. energy poverty a full-blown crisis if we continue on our current course.

Innovation and competition, not heavy-handed regulation, are the keys to keeping the cost of energy from breaking household budgets. Maintaining, or even lowering, energy costs must be as important a consideration in U.S. energy policy as any efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


William F. Shughart II is Research Director and Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University, and editor of the Independent Institute book, Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination.

Wind Turbines Near Great Lakes….Hazardous to Birds!

Study calls for 18-km turbine setback

By John Miner, The London Free Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jminer@postmedia.com

twitter.com/JohnatLFPress 

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

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

Heartbreaking Facts that Wind Turbine Neighbours Live With…

MELODIE MCLANE: YOU KNOW YOU LIVE TOO CLOSE TO A WIND PROJECT IN VERMONT WHEN …

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Melodie McLane, who is a neighbor of the Georgia Mountain Community Wind project.

• You dread checking the mail because you probably have another filing from the Department of Public Service that supports the wind developer in every way possible, even though they supposedly work for you.

• You do a slow burn because someone has written that you will participate in the Public Service Board’s noise investigation only because you lost. Lost what? The right to sleep at night?

• You spend every Sunday afternoon meeting with the neighbors that are still speaking to you to write discovery questions, answers, briefs, comments and to do research.

• You have stupid looking equipment set up near your house to monitor sound from the turbines.

• You laugh at the look of shock on people’s faces when you tell them to be aware that everything they say is being recorded outside when that stupid looking equipment is there.

• You have to sign a release saying that you give yourself permission to listen to your own conversations before the wind company will release the raw data from the monitoring to you.

• You plan your barbecues and neighborhood parties around whether that stupid looking equipment is there.

• You go ahead and have that barbecue or party regardless and get perverse pleasure out of blasting loud music all night at that stupid looking equipment in order to drown out all conversations.

• You realize the noise from the turbines gets louder when they take that stupid looking equipment away.

• You think you are going to stroke out if one more person says “I drove over to New York and listened to the ones there and couldn’t hear anything.” Were they running at full capacity?

• You understand why your father used to sit and swear at the television when a politician was talking.

• You know the true meaning of “campaign donations” and “follow the money.”

• You have “wind friends” who you can talk freely with about the stupidity of wind and then you have “regular friends” with whom you never discuss wind.

• You go to work ticked off and exhausted because you could hear the turbines rumbling all night, even with your windows shut.

• You are dreading summer, even after one of the most miserable winters on record, because the noise is worse when you open your windows.

• You used to love a good snowstorm but now it just means more noise with all the moisture in the air and southwesterly winds.

• You used to love going to bed at night in the summer with your windows wide open, listening to the rain. Now you shut your windows and turn the fans on to drown out the turbine noise, because it’s always louder when it rains.

•You look out at your garden and remember how peaceful it used to be to work in it. Now it’s just an annoying place to be.

• You used to love having your morning coffee on your south porch, but now you are driven away from it by noise.
You try sitting on your back porch, but the noise is worse back there because the noise bounces off from the ledges behind your house.

• You open your door in the morning and think you hear a jet flying over really low, but then realize it’s just the turbines.

You have pet names for noises that come from the mountain. There is the airplane noise, train rumbling noise, whale noise and semi-truck noise.

 

• You open your door in the morning and think the turbines are really loud, but it’s just a jet flying over really low.

• You have pet names for noises that come from the mountain. There is the airplane noise, train rumbling noise, whale noise and semi-truck noise.

• You are angry because the turbines are running and you can’t sleep.

• You are angry because the turbines aren’t running and someone ruined a perfectly good mountain for no reason.

• You want to stroke out every time you hear a wind developer say that you only complain about the noise because you didn’t want the project there in the first place. You didn’t want the wind project so close to your house because you knew it would be noisy.

• You want to stroke out every time you hear a wind developer say that only “two or three” neighbors complain about the noise. Those neighbors are the only ones who are ridiculously close to the project.

• You are shocked when the project owner starts using the Facebook group, Victims of Industrial Wind, to tout the merits of wind when most of the people in this group are suffering from sleep loss every day from wind.

• You are shocked when that owner says on his Facebook page that he has a Trunk Monkey by each turbine on Georgia Mountain to keep the anti-wind people away. Trunk Monkeys shoot people with guns and beat people up with tire irons.

• You are up checking the victims group at 4 a.m. on a regular basis to see if someone else is being kept awake by the noise.

• You are in constant disbelief at how loud 45 dBA is.

• You know that some people will make nasty NIMBY comments about this when they read it, but you have been bullied and called names so much that it doesn’t even hurt anymore.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

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

PolitiSite

Pioneer in Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Fact-Checking

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

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

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem