WIND TURBINES-HEALTH EFFECTS FROM

WIND WATCH SITE
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/
BETTERPLAN-HEALTH EFFECTS FROM WIND POWER-SITE
http://betterplan.squarespace.com/-health-and-safety/
THE FRIENDS OF ARRAN LAKE
http://www.gwag.ca/media/pdf/Arran_Lake_REPORT.pdf
GROUP JOINS TURBINE OPPOSITION-AUDIO
http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=31811
WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/gloves-off-in-wind-farm-showdown/

THESE WIND TURBINES STILL NEED ELECTRICITY TO RUN.SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SCAM FOR THE CITIZENS TO PAY CARBON TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENTS AND THE BANK OF THE WORLD THE IMF TO PAY FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDERS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

DOCTORS LINE UP TO WARN OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM WIND TURBINES FEB 7,11 KEITH STELLING ARRAN-ELDERSLIE-THE SUN TIMES

Editor: The following information was presented to the Arran Elderslie Council by the Friends of Arran Lake.

Increasingly,people worlwide are complaining of adverse health effects from wind turbines.At first they were not taken seriously.But the first International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects in Picton Ont. last Oct is changing that.Medical scientists are begining to understand that there is a real problem related to the low frequency noise emitted by these huge industrial machines.British sleep Medicine specialist,DR CHRISTOPHER HANNING of University Hospitals in Leicester says:in my expert opinion,from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of the available research,I have no doubt that...industrial wind turbines generate sufficient noise to disturb the sleep and impair the health of those living nearby...Ill health has driven families from homes which were around 900m from wind turbines.

Dr Alec Salt,professor of Otolaryngology at Washington University,St Louis, told the conference:allowing turbines to be located 550 meters from people's homes is insane.
He has analyzed the infrasound from the turbines - sound waves of less than 20 cycles per second.Although you cannot hear such low frequency sound,it is easily detected by the ear and can have effects on the body. We are only just beginning to understand that infrasound can disturb sleep,probably by stimulation of subconscious neural pathways to the brain.Sleep disturbance over a prolonged period of time is known to be extremely hazardous to health,causing high blood pressure,diabetes and increased mortality...for people living in homes up to 5 kilometers away from the wind turbines.

Dr Salt warns that the effects of high levels of infrasound generated by wind turbines build up slowly on people.For most,there are no effects while in the vicinity of wind turbines for short periods-until they try to sleep in nearby homes.A Canadian trained Doctor practising in Maine has made a study of his patients living near wind turbines and compared it with a control group outside the turbine area.Dr Michael Nissenbaum found that 82%(18/22)of exposed subjects reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation,verses 4%(1 PERSON)in the non-exposed group.41% of exposed people reported new chronic headaches(verses 4% in the control group)with increased prescriptions amoung the exposed group.He emphasized the link between sleep deprivation and cardiovascular disease.

Dr Robert Thorne of the Australian Acoustical Society,an Enviromental Health Research Associate at Massey University,N.Z,found that people living within 1 to 4.3 km of the Waubra,Australia wind project complained of sleep disturbance, headaches, sore eyes,rning in the ears,earaches,dizziness,loss of balance and high blood pressure.Farmers complained that the worst affect is experienced while working their farms.Australian physician Dr Sarah Laurie is so concerned that she has recommended to people within 5 km of the Waubra wind farm to check their blood pressure with a 24-hour monitor and see a doctor if it is over 140/80 when they first awake in the morning.Dr Robert McMurtry,former Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario,said that the review by ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr Arlene King has little relevance for an emerging technology beccause it did'nt bother to investigate complaints of actual patients.As a literature review it contains no original research.

Its conclusions are not even supported by the content of the references cited.The review admits that ontario doesn't have a protocol to verify compliance with existing wind turbine noise limits nor appropriate guidelines for wind turbine low frequency noise.The review was a government-convened attemp to justify unsound practices of wind turbine development while denying the adverse health effects being reported by ontario families.Epidemiologist Dr Carl Phillips,Professor of Public Health Policy,University of Texas Medical School,says:there is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby.

The action of people choosing to leave their homes at considerable inconvenience and financial loss rather than endure the adverse effects of the turbines provides and objective measurment in epidemiology of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena.Dr Ross McKitrick ,Professor of Enviromental Economics at the University of Guelph stressed that wind turbines can't replace coal plants and they will do nothing to reduce smog in ontario because most of our remaining smog precursors originate in the U.S.Energy Author Robert Bryce added:wind-generated electricity has had minimal,if any,impact on CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS in Colorado and Texas.(There are Similar statistics for Germany).Everybody(should)question what the Ontario Government and the wind industry would like us to believe,he said.

filed: February 7, 2011 • Maryland, Opinions-Wind power advocates full of hot air Credit: By Ajax Eastman, The Baltimore Sun, www.baltimoresun.com 7 February 2011

Ever wonder why sailing ships no longer ply the oceans with goods and passengers? It’s a question wind energy advocates might ask themselves. They ignore the fact that the wind doesn’t blow consistently and that its intermittent nature makes wind an undependable source of power and restricts wind generators from consistently reaching their potential.The relative effectiveness of a generation facility to produce electricity is called its capacity factor (CF). It is the ratio of what a generating plant produces compared to what it could produce at full capacity. The annual average CF for wind turbines located offshore is about 40 percent, but that falls to about 25 percent during the summer, when the winds are weakest. For wind turbines located onshore, the annual average CF is about 30 percent and can drop to 13 percent in the summer.Proponents of wind power argue it is a good choice because, among other things, it reduces greenhouse gases. They compare industrial wind energy with power plants fueled by oil, coal and natural gas that generate tons of carbon dioxide. However, they fail to recognize that because of the unpredictable nature of wind, carbon-fueled plants will continue to underpin the load. This is particularly true in the summer, when the winds are at their lowest and the demand for power is highest.Proponents of wind almost never compare industrial wind to nuclear power, probably because in every aspect of electricity generation, nuclear beats wind by a long shot. The following are informative comparisons.

–Capacity factors. The capacity factor of the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States is 90 percent. In other words, nuclear facilities crank out electricity around the clock, 365 days of the year, at pretty near their total capacity. Compare that to the results of a study from a group of wind power advocates at the University of Delaware that modeled data from offshore meteorological stations from Maine to the Florida Keys. Their results show that a large offshore turbine array would attain a 90 percent capacity factor only 2.2 days a year, and that 20,000 five-megawatt turbines would be needed to equal the full generating capacity of those 104 reactors. Even 1,200 turbines would not supply electricity as dependably as a new reactor like the one proposed at Calvert Cliffs.

–Greenhouse gas reduction. Neither wind turbines nor nuclear reactors emit carbon dioxide. But because wind turbines are minimally productive more than half the time, fossil fuel power plants will be needed as backups and will contribute to greenhouse gases. Note that no coal-fired facility has been closed due to the installation of wind turbines.

–Electricity rates and costs. The proponents of wind use the high cost of building nuclear reactors to argue that the electricity they produce will be costly. They’re wrong because they fail to account for the low efficiency of wind; for the need for carbon-fired backup plants to compensate; for the much shorter working lives of wind turbines; and for the enormous subsidies, grants, tax incentives and tax breaks for wind from federal, state, and local governments. In fact, the expensive wind turbines, especially offshore, would never be built without these subsidies that in some cases pay for 50 percent of the project’s cost.After coal, nuclear is the least costly generator of electricity for the ratepayer. After solar, wind is the most expensive.

Gov. Martin O’Malley has introduced legislation that will require Maryland’s public utilities to commit to long-term contracts to purchase offshore-wind-generated electricity to guarantee a market for offshore wind, even though it will increase costs to ratepayers. In Massachusetts, millions of ratepayers can expect a 2 percent hike in their electric bills due to the planned Cape Wind project.

–Environmental impacts. The proposed Calvert Cliffs 3 nuclear reactor would be sited on about 350 acres. The 1,200 offshore wind turbines needed to produce the same amount of energy would require 74,000 acres. On shore, 2,400 turbines would be needed and would require 8,500 acres. This is a lot of land or water and a big impact on the rich mountain ecosystems and habitats or ocean ecosystems about which we know little.There are numerous reasons why nuclear energy should be seriously pursued. But the question here is: Should inefficient industrial wind be pushed blindly, given its potential for greatly increasing our energy bills, requiring up to 50 percent taxpayer investment, and causing enormous environmental damage? We should rewrite state laws, like Maryland’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard or Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, as clean energy portfolio standards that include new nuclear reactors. Such a change would greatly expand clean, non-carbon-emitting solutions for future electricity demands.Ajax Eastman has served on the board of the Maryland Environmental Trust, as past president of the Maryland Conservation Council, co-chairman of the Maryland Wildlands Committee, and on numerous other state boards and commissions. This article is distributed by Bay Journal News Service.

filed: January 27, 2011 • Ontario-Turbines, Green Energy Act face court challenge-Credit: By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter, Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca 27 January 2011

The fate of Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA), as it relates to wind turbines, might hinge on whether a Divisional Court panel of three Superior Court judges rules that the government should have sought proof that there are no harmful health effects from turbines or rules that the government considered adequately whether a standard setback of 550 metres is safe.An application for a judicial review, brought by lawyer Eric Gillespie representing Prince Edward County resident Ian Hannah, was heard Monday in Toronto over objections from government lawyer Sara Blake, who argued that the court had no jurisdiction as it involves a wind farm proposal that should be subject to the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process.The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) is a party to the hearing but only as a friend of the court and so far only apparently to the extent of submitting information. But its position reflects that of the government.

In our view this application has no merit and should not be before the court. The proper forum for issues related to setbacks for wind turbine projects is through the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process. The REA is designed to ensure that renewable energy projects are developed in a way that is protective of human health, the environment, and Ontario’s cultural and natural heritage, said CanWEA’s media relations officer, Ulrike Kucera in an email response.The judges have reserved their decision to allow time to review the complex submissions from both sides, but Wind Concerns Ontario is considering that a victory. It says essentially that to have had the case heard at all was a win, and cites three hurdles that it consider it has overcome.

First hurdle: having the case heard;Second hurdle: the court heard evidence from experts whom the government side said were unqualified;Third hurdle: the fact of the reserved judgment, as an indication that the panel is reviewing all submissions – including those of the turbine opponent.

Mr. Gillespie’s submissions generally were that the provincial ministry did not consult doctors and did not follow what is known as the precautionary principle by which a proposal should be rejected if there is uncertainty about its effects.Ms. Blake defended the process of the GEA drafting as, she said, the minister reviewed scientific studies. She said the doctors cited by Mr. Gillespie lacked the (expert) qualifications required, and described one of them as an advocate against wind farms because an area near his home is being considered for a possible wind farm.On Tuesday, Mono council unanimously passed a motion by Councillor Fred Nix, asking the provincial government undertake independent third-party clinical research on the health effects of low-frequency noise from wind turbines on nearby residents.In an interview, Mr. Nix said the motion was largely symbolic, since municipalities have limited authority under the Ontario Green Energy Act.This says to the government what a rural municipality thinks, said Mr. Nix. They say a safe setback for turbines is 550 metres.Do we have a research that says this is safe? I say we don’t.

While he admitted a motion passed by a single, relatively small municipality bears practically no weight, Mr. Nix was hopeful the message would bring other towns and cities on side and they could make their collective case through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) or the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA).
There is strength in numbers, he said, he said. We will have a lot more powers if we can get more municipalities on our side.The outcome of the court hearing is of vital interest to the Whittington Coalition for Our Right to a Healthy Living Environment, the group opposing a 6.9 megawatt wind turbine installation at Mono- Amaranth Townline and 15 Sideroad, in large part because they believe the 550-metre setbacks are inadequate.But it is of critical interest to the Ontario government itself as it has been relying on a deal with Samsung and a South Korean turbine service proponent to create thousands of industrial jobs while bolstering Ontario’s production of green wind energy.