You are not logged in.

#16 2011-01-16 10:19:31

Not Intimidated
Member
Registered: 2011-01-14
Posts: 19

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

Bulldog:
I look forward to reading your peer reviewed and documented report backed by scientific research and empirical data, all of which will prove your grandiose (far fetched and totally baseless) conspiracy theory.

Our position is not affiliated with the smart meters issue.

The health problems associated with IWT's are real and they are increasing as more turbine developments are installed.

The sickness and ailments do not manifest themselves in a visible way (i.e. sores, broken bones) but nonetheless the health issues are real and they affect ALL all ages. If the health issues did manifest themselves in a more visible way then the people that are unaffected would stop their conspiracy talk.

You persist with your grandiose conspiracy theory ideas. Opposition to IWT's is not some upper class flavour of the day, trendy cause.

The issue affects all ages and people from all demographics, not just a few elite land owning gentry along a shoreline or in a cottage association.

Bulldog, the good news is that for now, you have stopped labelling us communist pinkos etc, which is a good start.

Think Harder Bulldog. Think Harder.

Offline

 

#17 2011-01-16 17:02:41

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

i can't think any harder as it hurts my brain,,,,,,,,,,,,,even when i am not close to  a wind turbine.  you, intimidated,   should realize being in your field of endeavour that everything we build,,,,,there is always people who are against it,,,whether it is a road, a new house, a wind turbine or a garden shed...........   

you are correct that if the wind turbine protesters grew a third eye when living near,,,,it would be a lot easier to say;" yes there is definitely a health issue here"  but alas that is not the case...............

the wind turbine protesters should look at the overall situation with carbon emmissions and air pollution being produced in coal fired generators as at Nanicoke ( the largest in North America)......  we can take these off line and have an electrical generation system of 10 to 20 percent wind power.......

i still do not have proof that you are not a communist pinko but i will refrain from that childish tom-foolery knowing now that you are out there......



the mental health issues should be investigated as well........

do i have a headache because there is a wind turbine 550 meters away or do i have a headache because i am mad at the wind turbine that is 550 meters away???????????

anyway if there is anything knew brought forward,,,,i will certainly try to digest it,,,,,,however it seems to be all of the same rhetoric i have heard before..........

Offline

 

#18 2011-01-16 22:06:29

Not Intimidated
Member
Registered: 2011-01-14
Posts: 19

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

Dear Bulldog:
Good to hear from you once more.

The health issues exist, and just because they do not outwardly manifest themselves like other health issues, they should not be ignored because they are real and they are not going away.

Low frequency noise created by the IWT's cause the headaches and lead to the lack of sleep. When a person cannot sleep then they cannot function properly and then they fall down the slippery slope towards ill health.

Some people's health may not be affetcted by IWT's and they are very fortunate. Some people however are affected after being exposed. Is it fair to impose the negative health effects of IWT's onto one group of people, in order to help save / lessen the suffering of the other people suffering from poor air quality? The health problems are being reassigned and not eliminated. Instead of curing one group of people, now there are not 1 but 2 groups of ill people. How can that be called progress?

The people opposed to IWT's have legitimate concerns that are being ignored by the provincial government, the provincial government agencies and the IWT corporations.

People oppose things because they are not being treated fairly and because they are not being represented properly by the governments and the civil servants who are supposed to represent and protect them.

(NOTE: Canadians went through the same scenario in the late 1970's and early 1980's with Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI). Crude oil prices were rising and governments offered grants to citizens to install this insulation, in an effort to stop burning so much oil for household heating. Not very long afterwards, people were getting sick from the UFFI, and the government was paying people to take the UFFI out of their house.)

Shutting down the carbon emitting sources of electricity destabilizes the base of power supplied to the grid. IWT's do not and cannot conribute electricity to the grid 24-7; so the provinical power grid needs a back up power supply to keep the operation of the grid stable. (i.e. keep a sufficient idling speed or the system stalls and black outs occur).

So supposing that the coal plants are shuttered, and when the IWT's are idle due to lack of wind, then we have to rely on the nuclear reactors or another energy source to pick up the slack and prevent black outs (i.e. natural gas or imported coal fired power). This back up supply needs to be fuelled and running at all times. So your concept of having IWT's responsible for 10% to 20% of the power supply will not be without it's consequences and its shortcomings.

Meanwhile, the coal plants from the Ohio Valley and Michigan will continue to belch emissions and the prevailing winds will carry those emissions here. Vehicles powered by fossil fuels continue to predominate and continue to cause pollution. What will be done to stop that?

Reduce the demand / need for energy consumption, reduce the need for fossil fuelled power generation, develop energy systems that do not make people sick and that do not cause environmental upset and civil discontent.

Ah, but there is not enough money being made and not enough jobs being created by doing that.

Therein lies the rub Bulldog.

Offline

 

#19 2011-01-16 23:50:06

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

"(NOTE: Canadians went through the same scenario in the late 1970's and early 1980's with Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI). "

ya intimidator,,,good point all that uffi stuff is now not that big of a deal......the real killer now in houses is deadly mould....................

we always have to have an enemy,,,,,,,,the media needs a bad guy too so on slow news days when there are no wars,,,,floods,,,,,shootings or fires,,,you can fill the rag up with evil wind turbines..................................

Last edited by bulldog (2011-01-16 23:53:43)

Offline

 

#20 2011-01-17 00:00:56

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

conclusion of study in the United Kingdom......


With regard to effects of noise from wind turbines, the main effect depends on the listener's reaction to what they may hear. There are no direct health effects from noise at the level of noise generated by wind turbines. It has been repeatedly shown by measurements of wind turbine noise undertaken in the UK, Denmark, Germany and the USA over the past decade, and accepted by experienced noise professionals, that the levels of infrasonic noise and vibration radiated from modern, upwind configuration wind turbines are at a very low level; so low that they lie below the threshold of perception, even for those people who are particularly sensitive to such noise, and even on an actual wind turbine site.

In response to concerns that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, says:


"I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines."
Notes
Prepared with assistance from:
Jeremy Bass - Renewable Energy Systems Group
Andrew Bullmore - Hoare Lea Acoustics
Malcolm Hayes - Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd
Mark Jiggins - npower renewables
Geoff Leventhall - Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics
Andy McKenzie - Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd
Marcus Trinick - Bond Pearce

Offline

 

#21 2011-01-18 21:40:36

mr.nelson
Member
Registered: 2008-02-06
Posts: 416

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

A group of farmers in Midwestern Ontario is turning to the courts in an effort to stop wind turbine development in Central Huron.

But the lawsuit could grow to include residents from across the province.

A proposed class-action lawsuit seeks damages from TTD Wind Project, Twenty-Two Degree Energy Corporation and individuals who put up wind turbines on their properties.

Lawyer Patrick Murphy of the Goderich firm Donnelly and Murphy has been hired to launch the proposed action.

Murphy admits the lawsuit could take years to get to court.

Murphy says his firm will advertise for anyone affected by wind turbines so a class of individuals can be developed.

He says only then can he go to court to apply for certification that his clients are affected by the turbines.

Murphy says there is the potential for the action to become widespread around the province of Ontario.

Murphy says once certification by the Court is achieved the action would become province-wide and not restricted to just Central Huron.

Murphy says his clients take issue with the companies and individuals on several fronts.

He says health concerns top the list including sleep deprivation from wind turbine vibration which can lead to depression.

Murphy says his clients also cite a drop in property values and the loss of enjoyment of their properties.

Last week, the province's Chief Medical Officer, Doctor Arlene King said that while there are irritants linked to wind turbines, there's not enough medical evidence to label them a health hazard.


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#22 2011-01-19 10:30:53

Blueline
Member
Registered: 2008-06-25
Posts: 191

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

mr.nelson wrote:

Lawyer Patrick Murphy of the Goderich firm Donnelly and Murphy has been hired to launch the proposed action.

Murphy admits the lawsuit could take years to get to court.

Murphy says his firm will advertise for anyone affected by wind turbines so a class of individuals can be developed.

So basically a law firm is rounding up a bunch of people for something that they know will take along time.  To me it just sounds like an incredible money maker for lawyers.

Last edited by Blueline (2011-01-19 12:21:17)

Offline

 

#23 2011-01-19 17:28:29

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

Blueline wrote:

mr.nelson wrote:

Lawyer Patrick Murphy of the Goderich firm Donnelly and Murphy has been hired to launch the proposed action.

Murphy admits the lawsuit could take years to get to court.

Murphy says his firm will advertise for anyone affected by wind turbines so a class of individuals can be developed.

So basically a law firm is rounding up a bunch of people for something that they know will take along time.  To me it just sounds like an incredible money maker for lawyers.

Most class action law suites are. They do serve a purpose however by allowing the similar issues of a group of people be handled collectively instead of tying up the court system with hundreds of little law suits.

Offline

 

#24 2011-01-20 00:04:21

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

we are continually become more like the yankees........soon our GNP will be totally focused on litigation settlements verses the manufacture of goods........

how many millions of dollars is a headache worth???????????????

Offline

 

#25 2011-01-20 08:44:52

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

bulldog wrote:

we are continually become more like the yankees........soon our GNP will be totally focused on litigation settlements verses the manufacture of goods........

how many millions of dollars is a headache worth???????????????

Bully...I doubt we will ever reach the litigation levels of the US as our judicial system is just different enough that it does not lend itself to that. Further legislated settlement caps in Canada make it less appealing.

What is the headache worth....no idea. It comes down to this in my mind, we have a government in power that is bound, bend and determined to ram through a energy program that will see our costs for electricity sky rocket. Currently less than $0.10/kwh is now being guaranteed at $0.80/kwh...to the wind and solar people.

Believe me the solar folks are dancing in the streets. A good friend is the head of operations for a large US solar company and they see Ontario as a hot bed of activity for his company....and a blank cheque for them more or less. I can beleive the wind dudes are having the same party.

In the midst of all this are conflicting reports on the value of this source of power and its related cost, and of course potential health issues surroundling it.

The government has taken a head-long approach to this and be danmed what anyone says. As citizens we really only have one choice when a government with a majority starts acting stupid.....take them to court. It is really the only place were we can hope to affect some sort of control.

The government's green energy program is reckless and it will cost the taxpayers billions. In the end the amount of power produced will have to be backed up by convential means (Hydro, LNG, and Nukes) as the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. In the past 30 days as an example you can probably count on one hand the number of sunny days we have had. According to the news this morning we will have a little more than 9 hours of daylight today. Not a weird thing by the way, it just happens to be the way things are at this time of year...the sun rises and sets and in the end 9 hours or so is all we get. So what does solar do for us for the other 15 hours? Wind is no different.

Whether or not the health aspects of Wind turbines is proven good or bad remains to be seen. However there is a substantial body of evidence that there are problems. I think it is worth a look before we start carving up the countryside and planting giant windmills everywhere.....the government does not think so...they want them erected and operating and then we will figure the whole health issues thing and the monumental cost to the public for doing this.

Offline

 

#26 2011-01-20 11:03:26

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

Blueline wrote:

mr.nelson wrote:

Lawyer Patrick Murphy of the Goderich firm Donnelly and Murphy has been hired to launch the proposed action.

Murphy admits the lawsuit could take years to get to court.

Murphy says his firm will advertise for anyone affected by wind turbines so a class of individuals can be developed.

So basically a law firm is rounding up a bunch of people for something that they know will take along time.  To me it just sounds like an incredible money maker for lawyers.

And seeing we all know Mr. Nelson = Lawrence Ryan he would know all about that as this is his profession.

Offline

 

#27 2011-01-20 23:34:25

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

i know what you are saying steel,,,,,,but take a look at the taxes on gas,,,,alcohol and tobacco.  they generate a pile of cash and they are dumped into general revenue and god knows where it goes at the other end,,,,,,,,,,,you could make the point that some of it will be offsetting the cost of electricity......

electricity has been a game of smoke and mirrors since we learned that the old ontario hydro was facing bankruptcy.......

regarding the provincial energy plan,,,i do believe that we can have between 10 and 20 percent of electriciy with wind power.....its done in other nations,,,,we are not being that innovative,,,, we are trying to catch up to other nations.....and maybe if we get to this point,,,,we can set an example for our neighbours to the south with over 1000 coal fired plants..............

in the construction field,,,,as i pointed out to the intimidator,,,no matter what  you build ,,,, somebody will fight it through litigation,,,environmental assessments and protesting,,,   the province streamlined the process because as a planet we don't have the luxury of time to deal with a few bleeding hearts who want to slow things up because they don't like wind turbines...... we have to get away from burning things and destroying the atmosphere.........

let the attorneys drag it out in court after the turbines are up and running,,,,lawyers are not that busy in goderich with the road grader plant gone and could use a bit of work anyway...............

Offline

 

#28 2011-01-24 18:40:34

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

i was quite amused by yet another editorial in the sneacon beacon today pointing out the dangers and fatalities of wind turbines from some sort of organization out of scotland.......

and i quote:



"An interesting article by Caithness Windfarm researchers in Scotland reveals that up to April 1. 2008, 482 wind energy accidents had been reported, with 49 fatalities. If you compare these figures to the safety record of nuclear energy in Canada, it is obvious that alarmist claims about nuclear energy are not supported by the facts."


i have looked at their website and would like to add the following....

traffic accidents do not count,,,,,in ontario this would be called careless or dangerous driving,,,,,keep your eyes on the road......do not stare at the wind mills.......

fatalities during the construction,,,maintenance and delivery of wind turbines is not due to the wind turbine itself,,,,  this is safety in the workplace and would fall under the ministry of labour  in ontario.....i have worked on 65 turbine sites and have never witnessed a death or heard of one......

the study talks about 49 fatalities and one must assume that this is based on a world wide total involving tens of thousands of windmills from when the first one was built but who knows............

also if you are unfortunate enough to parachute into one or fly your plane into one,,,all i can say is that perhaps you should have found a hobby to match your skill and ability........  wind turbines are equipped with navigational lights and are registered with the federal government for their maps and fly zones.....

well  lets hopes for the sake of scotland that there may be a dram of truth in the facts somewhere.......................

Last edited by bulldog (2011-01-24 19:08:31)

Offline

 

#29 2011-01-24 21:42:03

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

Or perhaps it was just a blatant support for the nuclear industry....it is a "safe" form of energy.  Let's just build more reactors---they don't clutter up the landscape with those annoying navigational lights flashing all the time....

Offline

 

#30 2011-01-25 01:28:48

mr.nelson
Member
Registered: 2008-02-06
Posts: 416

Re: wind turbines,,yeh or nay

Wind power case clouds industry’s future
RICHARD BLACKWELL

A panel of Ontario Divisional Court judges will begin hearing a challenge today that, if successful, could throw a wrench into the province’s burgeoning wind power industry.

The case, brought by Ian Hanna, a resident of Prince Edward County, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, argues that regulations in Ontario’s Green Energy Act, governing how far turbines must be from houses, are illegal. If the court agrees, new wind development could come to a standstill.

The case will also be an opportunity to air the views of those who feel wind turbines are unhealthy. Mr. Hanna’s argument is based on the premise that the minimum setback in Ontario – 550 metres – does not take into account the possible negative impacts to human health that turbines may cause.

Essentially, he argues, there is no medical evidence that the setback is safe, and that by publishing its regulations without sufficient proof, the province has breached the “precautionary principle” in its own environmental bill of rights. That principle says the government has to show an activity is safe before it is approved.

Indeed, Mr. Hanna’s court filings say, the government knew there was literature that raises concerns about turbines, and spells out that not enough was known to settle the setback issue.

A court victory, said Mr. Hanna’s lawyer Eric Gillespie, would essentially put a moratorium on building any new wind farms in Ontario. That would be a huge victory for wind farm opponents, who say there need to be far more studies done on health impacts. “If the court determines that [Ontario] has insufficient science to support its decision, then governments, the wind industry and communities will have to look very closely to determine in a more scientific way where industrial wind turbines should be located,” Mr. Gillespie said.

Increasingly, opponents have been protesting the spread of wind turbines, insisting that they cause health problems and calling for more detailed studies before the devices become even more ubiquitous. Both sides have cranked up the rhetoric recently; last week, one anti-wind group complained that a wind farm developer had called it a “group of terrorists.”

To support his client’s case in court, Mr. Gillespie will present evidence from three physicians who say turbine noise and vibration can cause high stress, sleep deprivation and headaches among people who live near them.

The government argues, in a document filed with the court, that the doctors’ conclusions are suspect, and that it reviewed all the literature available on the issue, and held public consultations before creating the guidelines.

It also says that complaints about possible health effects from turbines come from a small number of people, while the government’s role is to try to clean the air for all residents of Ontario by shifting to renewable power.

There is “no conclusive evidence that wind turbine noise has any impact on human health,” the government filing states. Available information suggests a 550-metre setback is adequate, it adds, and that that distance is “clearly conservative,” given the existing studies. It dismisses the data about health problems as “anecdotal hearsay.”

The government also argues that a new environmental review tribunal set up under its Green Energy Act is the right place to air health issues, not the provincial court.

Dianne Saxe, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in environmental issues, said she would be very surprised if Mr. Hanna wins his case. She said he is stretching the precautionary principle beyond what it actually covers. And the government “should have no trouble at all proving that it considered the health concerns of the anti-wind activists, because they were very vocal,” even appearing at legislative committee meetings, she said.

Ms. Saxe thinks it is likely the court will deal only with the narrow legal aspects of the case and not make any substantial ruling on the health effects of wind turbine placement.


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 


Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB