Society for Wind Vigilance - Advocates for authoritative guidelines for wind energy development to protect the health and safety of communities like yours.
Shadow/Light flicker
What is it? Watch this!
Children’s Safety
Did you know that the Nor’Westerview school is approximately 2 km. from the nearest proposed wind tower? How will this affect our childrens’ health?
- According to Dr. Nina Pierpont (a leading New York paediatrician), turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young.
http://www/commondreams.org/print/45405
Ice Rimes – Ice Throws
Here’s a story about Ice Throws from a Peterborough newspaper - ”Wind Turbine’s Deadly Shower “
Low Frequency Noise & Infrasound
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/wts-uncorrected-proofs-8-14-09.pdf
- Vibroacoustic disease is a chronic progressive cumulative systemic disease caused by high intensity/low frequency sound and infrasound
- Symptoms include : -sleep disturbance
- Headache
- Ringing or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus)
- Ear pressure
- Dizziness, vertigo
- Nausea
- Visual blurring
- Racing heart beat (tachycardia)
- Irritability
- Problems with concentration and memory
- Panic episodes with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep
EMF Electromagnetic Fields
Instead of producing “clean” electricity, the wind turbine process can create “dirty” electricity with electromagnetic waves and harmonic distortions. This can occur where the wind energy is converted into electrical energy and around substations where it is connected to the electrical grid. This electro-hyposensitivity affects people differently but in some cases the symptoms are so severe that it is actually driving people who live near wind farms, out of their homes.
Icing/Rime Ice/Cold Weather
- most turbines are made to withstand up to only -20C interesting)
- At present, there are currently no guidelines for dealing with potential dangers arising from ice thrown off wind turbines.
Structural failure – these wind turbine s have a life expectancy of 20 years or less — They wear out as a result of strong vibration
-
- Wind turbines have a shelf life of approximately 20 years
- Storm damage to turbines, poor quality control, lack of maintenance and component failure can contribute to tower collapse
- Blade failure can be far more damaging than structural failure. In Germany, blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of buildings.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk
Does our city have the ability to fight a fire like this?
Although we are told problems with turbines are rare, the fact is they happen. This turbine caught fire in our neighbor state of Minnesota on March 27th, 2008. You can see the fire and the smoking chemicals running down the side of the tower. What could the fire department do about it? Nothing. It’s too tall for the fire equipment to reach. The only answer they had was this: “Let it burn.” Imagine the damage to the heavily forested area of the Nor’Westers should a fire occur.
http://science.larc.nasa.gov/biomass_burn/images/fire.gif
If we can fight a fire like the above link, these turbines will be a walk in the park…
By: Fitjarald on November 12, 2009
at 5:34 pm
Fitj
Comparing forest fires to a fire in a 400 ft high tower?
Apples and oranges
Yuor credibility is fast going down the tube
By: Denis on November 23, 2009
at 2:47 am
I agree with your statement Denis!
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 5:43 am
The smoke from a turbine fire is toxic and can burn for days.
By: Ralph on November 27, 2009
at 11:12 pm
“Virtually everything with moving parts will make some sound, and wind turbines are no exception. Well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low. Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 metres away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 metres away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze. This is similar to the sound level inside a typical living room with a gas fire switched on, or the reading room of a library or in an unoccupied, quiet, air-conditioned
http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html
Source/Activity Indicative noise level dB (A)
Threshold of hearing 0
Rural night-time background 20-40
Quiet bedroom 35
Wind farm at 350m 35-45
Car at 40mph at 100m 55
Busy general office 60
Truck at 30mph at 100m 65
Pneumatic drill at 7m 95
Jet aircraft at 250m 105
Threshold of pain 140
As you can read from the data shown here, studies show that wind turbines emit less sound than the trucks passing by on the highway, which is located much closer to these homes, than the wind turbines would be.
By: Stephanie on December 7, 2009
at 5:14 pm
You’re correct in that everything with moving parts makes noise. But not everything makes sub-audible noise. You’re stats are sound (pardon the pun) however, the bigger issue is sub-audible noise produced by the turbines. Check these sites out:
http://www.nhwag.co.uk/noise.htm
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/windturbines.pdf
By: norwesterescarpment on December 10, 2009
at 6:45 pm
Irene, and I am assuming your name is that, you have no reputable scientific credentials with which to base your response to Stephanie.
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 5:45 am
Credentials?? Who has credentials in this project? Certainly not Horizon, certainly not Stephanie. No one here is claiming to be experts.
By: norwesterescarpment on October 14, 2010
at 5:15 am
a fire can happen anywhere. The fact that your opposed to wind turbines because they can start a fire is ridiculous. Electrical fires start in houses too and kill people. Should we abandon all electrical power as well because it can start a fire? Accidents happen with everything. We should not be living in a bubble because of it.
By: autumn on December 9, 2009
at 8:48 pm
You can find anything on the internet to say what you want!!!!!! Looks like we got a HUGE case of the N-I-M-B-Y syndrom on our hands here, too many people praise renewable “green” energy but when we hear that it is about to be put into our back yards people freak. If the turbines do any damage it will be minimal and only effect those who let it bother them. Thunder Bay should be honoured that they were chosen to have a green energy source.
This is comming from a resident and former attendant of the school placed 2 km away from the nearest estimated turbine. I can deal with nightmares, not global warming.
(Not-In-My-Back-Yard)
By: Norwesterview Student on December 15, 2009
at 3:18 pm
Interesting….that’s what most people said before they had turbines installed in their area.
By: norwesterescarpment on December 15, 2009
at 3:30 pm
Where is your data to support such a claim Irene?
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 5:46 am
Wow.. no deffence, because you know i am correct in this case, and you have talked to these people? or have you just read about it on the internet like everything else you have sited??
By: Norwesterview Student on December 15, 2009
at 3:56 pm
Really. You are correct? What backing to you have to make this claim? It works both ways.
By: norwesterescarpment on December 30, 2009
at 7:08 pm
I have recently been to Prince Edward Island, where they have over 50 wind turbines installed on various parts of the island. Talking to my friends who lived there, they said they loved the view and the wind farms didn’t do anything to the residents. In fact, the residents who had the wind turbines on their property were being paid to have these turbines on their property. I agree with Nor’ Wester View Student, everyone is so eager to “save the environment” and stuff, but as soon as the responsibility falls on their shoulders they back right off. Honestly, the wind mills will do nothing. We need to start doing our part to save the environment instead of being concerned about the appearance of things….
By: Green Lover on December 15, 2009
at 4:05 pm
…”Talking to your friend”, do you have any other credible endorsements on the project or just hearsay? It’s interesting that when CTV did a report in Southern Ontario no one stepped forward to voice their spport for the project. Yes, they get well paid to house the turbines. However, they soon find their property value diminishes when they try and sell. You’re right…the wind mills will do nothing…..nothing for the environment, nothing for our replenishment of energy and nothing for improving our health in the area. Just curious, would you buy a house with a turbine in the back yard?
By: norwesterescarpment on December 30, 2009
at 7:07 pm
I have to say that I am still disappointed with the responses that I read from you. There have been times when you are sounding combative. I would think it would be a better approach to give the people that criticize or don’t agree with the position, a few solid, scientific facts. This way it is much harder to argue with the position your organization has taken. However from what I have seen on this website is news stories or links to youtube. This “could” be credible information but without ANY scientific backing, its just a news “story”
By: robert graham on January 5, 2010
at 6:37 pm
Perhaps some replies have been somewhat combative. But have a look at the derogitory comments listed in this forum. Some comments originate from people who have no idea of what’s going on but are quick to flap their mouths. I am curious….what do you consider to be solid and scientific facts? Is it only a printed document? We have posted web links to a few scientific reports that are available in printed form but are also available online. I also encourage you to check out the windconcernsontario.com site. They have numerous links to scientific studies and reports. It’s true that a few Youtube links and news stories are just that. But something has to be said about the countless people who have come forward and admitted they made a mistake in welcoming this technology to their back yard. However, to answer your question, the material is out there. If you would like me to point you to specifics, I’d be happy to help out.
By: norwesterescarpment on January 6, 2010
at 6:18 am
I am in no way adverse to green energy or windfarms. What I am adverse to is the fact that we are going to be creating energy that we have no use for and why??? Northern Ontario already produces enough GREEN Hydro electric energy, in fact more than we need. So if we are producing this energy for someone else why can’t it be in their own back yards? If we need the energy I say go ahead, If we were burning coal or using nucular power for our energy I would say go ahead, but in fact we are doing none of those things so why do we need wind turbines????
By: Norwester neighbour on January 18, 2010
at 2:56 pm
Interesting picture of a windfarm and article regarding reduction in efficiency.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/offshore-wind-farm-photo-wake-effect.php
By: Jeff Wark on January 23, 2010
at 1:33 am
Bad Scientific Method?
Dr. Nina Pierpont’s ‘research’ does not pass scrutiny of her peers as the following excerpt from this web site reveals: http://this.org/magazine/2009/07/17/wind-turbine-syndrome-strong-feelings/
“One problem: WTS so far is based more on gossip than on science. Pierpoint’s entire project resulted from interviews with 38 people from 10 families, all of whom approached her to complain. “They’re all basically anecdotal,” says Toronto acoustics expert Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan. Pierpont’s research has not been published in peer-reviewed journals though it has found a home on the websites of dozens of anti-wind-energy groups, including Save the Bluffs, a Toronto group that opposes Toronto Hydro’s hopes to install wind turbines in Lake Ontario.”
Also, check out this response to Dr. Pierpont’s publication:
http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=37
And this article as well:
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2247190/wind-industry-slams-reports
Time to use reliable scientific method instead of anecdotal reports from small sample sizes (ie. 10 families). Let the real facts and data speak for themselves.
By: WaYnE on June 17, 2010
at 9:31 am
I totally agree! There needs to be true, reliable scientific methods used instead of useless reports. CanWea has done it too…..repeadedly. Just curious though, what real facts are you talking about? As far as I know that has not been a comprehensive, peer-reviewed report (funding the report like CanWea doesn’t count). The feds had a report with a larger sample size, but the sample did not include people who lived close to the affected areas.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 17, 2010
at 1:51 pm
The real facts to which I am referring are facts and data supported and published in peer-review articles as listed in the CanWea link in my previous post. There is an absence of proven scientific facts and data in Dr. Pierpont’s publication.
I am not familiar with all of CanWea’s publications, but the facts and data listed in the link I provided are indeed based on scientific method and data analysis. Just for clarification, why do the articles in the CanWea link not count?
By: WaYnE on June 18, 2010
at 9:14 am
Just because a large organization publishes something doesn’t mean it’s factual. CanWea is a group of wind supporters. They funded the report and are totally bias. I’m not disputing your claim against Dr. Pierpont as I haven’t read it yet however, I have read CanWea’s report and it’s full of holes. Again, the methods may be scientific, but that doesn’t mean it’s credible.
It’s interesting that by only reading data from a link and associated a name you assumed total credibility without question. Yet, a single doctor is easily flawed. That’s the nature of today’s communication. To answer your question about the report, here are the findings:
The problem is, CanWEA (with whom I’m more familiar) has consistently and publicly stated that no independent study is necessary (and they continue to do so in this Review), and I have every confidence they have argued the same in private with government officials who would have to fund any independent study. It is disingenuous to complain about the failure of independent groups to study the problem when you’ve been doing your best to make sure none of them will ever have the funds to do so.
The methodology section holds more clues to the real nature of this Review. One criticism they anticipated was that this was an Industry-sponsored report and thus bound to be biased. They counter this by stressing that the panel members were independent. How were the members selected, other than having lots of letters after their names? I am not familiar with five of the seven, but the two I am familiar with (Colby and Leaventhall) have a long history of supporting the notion that IWTs do not create any health problems. The sponsors figured, correctly, that they could safely be given the independence to prepare this Review, knowing ahead of time what the results would likely be. Left unmentioned was the fact that the sponsors in case of a bad review might simply not publish it. One wonders if there have been other, less fortunate, reviews that have never seen the light of day.
Note that, again from the Methodology section, this panel apparently never met, having merely had “a series of conference calls”. How were their references supplied – did they do their own investigation, or were the references supplied to them? Exactly how they came to include the 126 and exclude others is not revealed. The two searches on Pub Med as listed above yield a total of 39 hits, so there had to be some other supply of references. None of the panel went into the field and contacted any neighbors, victims or doctors. It is unclear if all, or any, of the panel members have even seen any of case studies of, say, Dr. Nissenbaum or Dr. Harry. It is unclear if any of the panel members read any of the reports by people like Dr. Hanning or Dr. McMurtry. None of these are part of their references. This Review (at least they had the integrity to call it a Review, as opposed to a study) is not a health study. It contains no new information. It is nothing more than a “literature review”, and an incomplete one at that. It is doubtful that any of the panel members have ever spent any time living close to any IWTs, or even know anybody who has.
Their resulting conclusions are either weak or inconsistent with some of their own words. As an example of weakness, in the Executive Summary page, the first of three conclusions is
“There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”
There are at least three problems with this one sentence. First is the “no evidence” statement. Actually there’s tons of evidence. They may not like the quality of that evidence, but I have to wonder exactly what sort of evidence they would like. After all, hundreds of consistent reports, gathered by doctors in the field, from all around the world, should count for something. Second, the “no evidence” is quite a weak disclaimer, used by just about every industry that produces something harmful to delay their day of reckoning. The third problem is the use of the word “direct”. All these noises can, and do, interfere with people’s ability to sleep, and that lack of sleep certainly leads to health issues, but are not “direct”. By this logic falling off a ladder is not a direct cause of injury; it’s the landing on the ground that is. Sounds like a serious case of denial.
The Acoustic Ecology institute blasted the report. Here’s the link if you’re interested: http://aeinews.org/archives/584
Conclusion
Let’s start from scratch. Numerous doctors from around the world have reported various noise-related problems with wind turbines. (1)Annoyance, (2)stress and (3)sleep disturbance are widely reported and hard to dismiss. In addition, two doctors (Alves-Pereira and Pierpont) have noticed additional problems and have proposed hypotheses –(4)VAD, (5)WTS and (6)VVVD to account for them. This Review was the wind industry’s attempt to deny the existence of all these problems.
But what is not said is at least as important as what is said, and this review spends a great deal of time critiquing the last 3 while saying nothing of significance about the first 3. Everybody knows that wind turbines cause annoyance with the neighbors. Everybody knows that annoyance can lead to stress and sleep disturbance. Everybody knows that stress and sleep disturbance can lead to health issues. None of that is refuted in this Review. How does this Review mitigate these uncontested facts? With the weasel-like “no evidence” of “direct” harm. Annoyance? Sure, there’s some, but it is too subjective to be studied. Stress? Nocebo and other psychobabble. Sleep disturbance? A small minority. And none of them are “direct”, at least if you parse the English language carefully enough.
Instead, the Review spends entire pages attacking the 3 hypotheses. I don’t know enough to evaluate either the hypotheses or the critiques, but I have to ask myself, “Are these hypotheses at least plausible?” And if so, shouldn’t any curious person want to investigate them further? Especially considering the potential harm, to thousands of people? In spite of numerous statements in the Review acknowledging that uncertainty, in the end they come down on the side of not investigating further. It would be interesting to ask each of the panel members to see if that is really the position they are advocating. But regardless of how history judges the three hypotheses, the remaining three issues are like the elephant in the room, an elephant the wind industry would rather not talk about too much.
This Review works very hard at looking authoritative and scientific. CanWEA and AWEA apparently are betting that for their intended audience the appearance itself will suffice, regardless of the actual (or rather, lack of) content. This Review is fatally compromised, and shame on those panel members who took part in this charade
By: norwesterescarpment on June 18, 2010
at 1:51 pm
Infrasound….
Links of interest in relation to infrasound citing wind turbines (newer models…not those used in the early deployment of wind farms).
Infrasound is all around us, it is caused by many natural sources, such as the wind itself, atmospheric disturbances (ie. thunderstorms), trains, planes and automobiles (couldn’t resist the movie reference). And any appliance device with moving parts and motors. Think of all the infrasound sources in our homes and yards from all of our major indoor appliances, outdoor equipment such as lawnmowers, snowblowers, chainsaws, hedge trimmers, etc. Even ceiling fans, especially ones which are faulty or not balanced properly, are also sources of infrasound (and I would hazard a guess that many homes have ceiling fans located above beds…close proximity to sleepers for 8 hrs at a time). And of course, these days many have home theatre systems with sub-woofers that generate very high dB levels of infrasound as compared to other more distant and lower level sources of infrasonic energy. Even iPods and bluetooth earbuds for mobile devices create infrasound directly into the ear canal.
There is also the workplace setting to consider from office to industrial generated sources of infrasound.
Wind turbines have been tested for infrasonic and audible range sound measurements at varying distances, elevations, topography, rural and urban settings, indoors and outdoors etc. The facts and data (from a number of reputable scientific and academic research sources) indicate that with respect to modern wind turbines there is no significant level or fluctuation and spiking of infrasound or audible sound energy and range of frequencies when compared to other natural and artificially generated sources that both rural and urban residential areas are exposed on a daily basis.
It’s the dB level (strength/power) of sound waves (audible or inaudible) that makes the difference. Kind of like the difference between ripples on a pond and big waves on a lake/ocean. It appears that wind turbine sound waves are like ripples on a pond.
http://www.acoustics.org/press/159th/oneal.htm
http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html
By: WaYnE on June 18, 2010
at 10:17 am
I’m not disputing your claims about other examples of infrasound. That doesn’t mean that a constant 24/7 effect from a turbine is less. Most of the examples you provided are intermittent and short in duration. You mention that turbines have been tested. Tested by a group that supports wind energy. Sounds fishy to me. They’ve been tested with meters but not people. Have a look at this link to further my point: http://aeinews.org/archives/584
By: norwesterescarpment on June 18, 2010
at 1:54 pm
So for the record, do you and the committee deny that many of the 24/7 household appliances (which operate 24/7 at closer proximity than wind turbines within the walls of our houses) do not contribute to infrasound sources?
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 7:05 am
What relevance does this have to infrasound releases from a 400ft turbine?
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:03 pm
I have examined, as thoroughly as I can, as a lifelong resident of Thunder Bay, and a university trained student, to examine both sides of the issues. With critical thinking employed, I find that the pros for wind turbines outweigh the negative and scientifically unfounded opinions of the opponents towards green clean wind turbines outstanding.
The intermittent claims of infrasound you cite are not legitimate from a scientific perspective if you have indeed read and understood my previous links.
I examine all claims from both sides, and look for scientific evidence, data, facts to prove either case. In all of my readings, especially readings of this committee’s so called facts, i am inclined towards wind turbine energy as being safe, green, having a low carbon footprint, and low impact on the ecosystems.
It seems that you are not giving both sides fair and equal examination.
So, is highway traffic noise, airline traffic noise, wind, river noise, intermittent in nature?
Who is the committee formed of?….what are their names and credentials? where do they live?…why do they speak or claim to have the best interests of all thunder bay and surrounding residents?
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 5:58 am
Really? You’ve looked at both sides of the issues? So far, I’ve read statements slamming any opposition findings while stating reports from a wind organization as the authority on scientific research. I also have a degree, and we didn’t learn to accept one source as factual. You are entitled to your opinion and so are we. Wind energy can be developed safely if done properly. This is nothing more than a money grab from a real estate developer in southern Ontario trying to make a quick buck from the province’s tax incentives. Wind energy does have a low carbon footprint however, it is not an efficient means of developing power. It can’t be stored and can’t be made reliable to supply power during peak demands if the wind isn’t blowing. I agree that’s not a reason to stop development however, careful thought should be placed regarding the location of the turbines. We have plenty of land here. The MNR website shows plenty of barren land that is just as breezy as the current site. Again, it’s all about money.
The members speak out regarding the best interests of the community as it pertains to their pocket book. The province is giving tax breaks to the developer. However, we are going to foot the bill to make the connection to the grid. We are going to be responsible for the decomissioning of the project in 20 years. We are going to pay the difference in cost per kilowatt hour when wind energy is to be used before any other method (about $13 cents per kw/hr). We will be responsible as taxpayers to make up for the shortfalls for the drop in tax revenue from houses in the area who will lose their value in the years to come. It doesn’t take a scientist to research that claim. Some businesses will be forced to close up shop resulting in the loss of employment. Loch Lomond Ski area alone employs far more than the jobs than Horizon plans to create.
You see, it’s not just a matter of saying we’re going green. I’m sure many supporters who call the folks in Neebing as “whiners” and “NIMBY”s will change their tune when they see how much this project is going to cost them personally. It’s already happened to other communities, and we’re the first project to be taken on city land. Heck, the city didn’t even negotiate a proper deal. Sault Ste. Marie negotiated almost twice as much (rent).
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:33 pm
Look up the definition of confirmation bias….and then consider critical thinking of both sides of the issue as I have proposed. To me it seems like there is something more than an opposition to the green clean energy generation of wind turbines. Wind turbines have a one-time CO2 footprint, as does solar panels or other passive energy generation alternatives. Are you then opposed to solar?
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 6:03 am
Please read our “About Us”, and Solutions & Alternatives before posting further irrelevant material. I say it again….you are missing our point.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:15 pm
Obviously you, and perhaps not the committee as a whole has read and understood the scientific findings I have provided. What is your real agenda?
What process do you have in place to inform your entire committee as a whole?
Why do you not consider and examine all of the evidence pro and con?
You will never speak on my behalf as a concerned citizen of thunder bay and surrounding region unless you show definitive proof that wind turbines are bad for this community from an ecological, economical, health, and sound alternative to moving towards a green and clean strategy versus our current dependency upon fossil fuels/
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 6:46 am
That’s becuase your findings are not scientic, or at least credible. CanWea represents the turbine industry and are therefore heavily biased.
Again, I direct you to the rest of our website. Here, you will find the rest of the answers to your questions. Until you read on, you are missing our point.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:10 pm
They’ve been tested with meters but not people. Have a look at this link to further my point: http://aeinews.org/archives/584
Again, not based upon true scientific method….so invalid.
Where is the real science to support the negative effects of wind turbines? What is your true agenda here?
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 7:00 am
WaYnE, this report is scientific. It was conducted without the financial support of Wind supporters or opposers. Anything coming from CanWea or AWEA as you use as gospel is slanted. What science do you believe in? Our true agenda is posted on this site. http://savethenorwesters.com/about/
We welcome you to read.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:08 pm
Are you and the committee opposed to green clean alternatives to energy production versus fossil fuel dependency?
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 7:08 am
WaYnE, judging from the 15+ comments you’ve made in a short period on only one page suggests you haven’t read much about who we are. We stated repeadedly on the forums as well as on our pages about our direction. To briefly answer your question we are not opposed to green alternatives.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:01 pm
Intermittent sound fluctuation really only affects some very, very sensitive people – certainly not “everyone.” How many of these “sensitive people” are there lurking about, waiting to scuttle your plans to harness the wind to get power? Studies put the number at 1 in 500,000. So, while it is a real problem – it’s just not a really pervasive one.
wind-noise-table
http://renaissanceronin.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/wind-noise-table.gif
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 7:39 am
I have two comments to this post. I see you have no sensitivity to the welling being of people. You’re stating that one person’s health doesn’t mean anything. What if that one in 500,000 people was a close family member of yours? I’m sure your stance would change. You’re quick to knock the credibility of any of our findings down yet you use data from someone’s personal blog to support your argument. What credibility does this report have?
By: norwesterescarpment on June 20, 2010
at 9:42 pm
Is this not in a way a blog? Only this is a one-sided blog. I have said before that I challenge you to prove me wrong, and yet you just retort with petty comebacks that are not backed by scientific fact. A scientific report/study, that is reported in peer-reviewed journals is valid, whether someone reports it on a blog. Don’t you get that?
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 5:50 am
This forum is not mean to be a mud sling. We try to inform to the best of our abilities. Not all the people on this forum have been polite. It does get tiring after a while. I agree with your comment about scientific study. There are such peer-reviewed studies out there. Sure there’s probably some bogus ones out there too. Some people just don’t like to read about a refuted report.
By: norwesterescarpment on October 14, 2010
at 5:18 am
Obviously you have not read my comment in your “about us” section. I have in fact read every statement in this ‘blog’. I have serious doubts about the credibility and motives of this limited group which seem to be self-serving. Irene Bond even stated on the local news that she is speaking on behalf of all the residents of Thunder Bay. Check out the fraudulent and misrepresented information/data/scale of the proposed wind farm project at the ‘kiosk’ located withing the Neebing Roadhouse. They can’t even spell!
I don’t like the reference to Nimbys and I have never used that derogatory moniker, but you seem to think or believe that is how I feel. What I feel is that YOU, have not given equal weight, nor scientific consideration to both sides of the issues.
I have further comments on what you have responded to my posts, but I feel that you are already biased towards a non-factual position. If that misrepresented photo at the Neebing Roadhouse is not removed, I shall be sending my city councilor a copy of that photo.
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 5:41 am
What I see as the ‘real’ issue here, is that residents of the Neebing area are being frightened into believing that their property values will decrease with the introduction of a wind farm. There are numerous non-partisan reports and studies of real estate valuations of residential properties within close proximity of wind farm developments, and there is no reported decrease in property value. If you believe that wind farms will decrease your property value, from where are you receiving this information?
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 6:01 am
Too late WaYne…some residents have already realized devalued property already. A few have come forward with reports of huges losses on their homes over the past six months. No, this one can’t be scientifically proven but why is it that housing has increased in the area but dropped in Neebing? Seems a bit too coincidental to me.
We received the information locally from residents. Also, two real estate agents in the area spoke of the issue. There are forms out there now that specify whether the house resides near a windfarm. It’s out there already.
By: norwesterescarpment on October 14, 2010
at 5:21 am
Feel free to delete my posts. I really don’t care because I get a sense that not too many people visit this site. As for the photo at the Neebing Roadhouse, I don’t care if that stays either. In my opinion it only serves to misrepresent the scale of the wind turbines. And without a reference point as to where the photo was taken from nor any reference to the distance from the camera to the wind turbines, it is not easy to determine if the scale is accurate.
By: WaYnE on October 12, 2010
at 8:23 pm
Wayne,
This is a free and open forum, we encourage you to express your personal opinions, right or wrong, we enjoy hearing from you so often.
By: Dan Fiorito on October 13, 2010
at 5:41 pm
I’m not sure why you would want your posts deleted.
As for the photos, they may not be to scale but neither were Horizon’s at their open house. They used wide angle lenses to make their turbines look incredibly small. Reference points and distances are useless unless the type of lens is included. Just ask any consultant in that field.
WaYne, although we have an organizational name, we’re not a profit company. We’re all volunteers. We all have jobs, families and other obligations. I personally, have spent hundreds of hours on the project and I live no where near Neebing. People label us Nimby’s but, I’m proof that it’s more than that.
I agree that facts can be misrepresented. Horizon is the master of that. DId you happen to attend an open house? Here’s a short video of their performance. They skated across questions, lied and appeared arrogant at times. This is not acting in good faith.
By: norwesterescarpment on October 14, 2010
at 5:35 am
Thanks Dan. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, but ‘facts’ and data can be misrepresented. Having said that, I am pleased and in full agreement, after watching last night’s council meeting, with the amendment to the potential lease agreement of NOT providing Horizon with the green light to cut one single tree down, or proceed with any construction activities or site preparations without first receiving ALL approvals from the REA process.
Also, despite the denial of certain members of our elected municipal government, this wind park proposal IS political given the looming election process. And I say that in terms of both sides of the argument for and against the wind park development.
By: WaYnE on October 14, 2010
at 3:17 am
the fires, if any, because it would be a low probability, would be suppressed in the same manner that most fires in northern ontario are tackled….via MNR CL-215 water bombers, just like how the wood chip fire at the mill near Neebing was handled today.
By: wayne on June 1, 2011
at 1:44 am
I don’t doubt they would assist. However, the policy that Horizon has is the fires are to burn until out and the area needs to be evacuated (about 25-30km radius I believe, but I don’t have the doc in front of me at this time)
By: Dan Fiorito on June 2, 2011
at 3:30 am
25 to 30km radius? so all of thunder bay, murillo, kakabeka would be evacuated?
By: wayne on July 28, 2011
at 5:09 am
Can you clarify the point your making? 25-30km radius??
By: Dan Fiorito on August 8, 2011
at 10:36 pm
Dan, it is you that have to clarify the 25 to 30km evac radius…scroll up and view your own comment!
By: wayne on August 12, 2011
at 1:38 am
That data is based on the Provincial recommendation, not ours.
By: Dan Fiorito on August 12, 2011
at 2:16 am
Dan, I have reviewed the Horizon documents and cannot find any reference to this ‘provincial recommendation’ that you speak of, that is why I asked you for clarification, and you have not provided any. Here is your original post: “However, the policy that Horizon has is the fires are to burn until out and the area needs to be evacuated (about 25-30km radius I believe, but I don’t have the doc in front of me at this time)”
By: wayne on August 14, 2011
at 2:51 am
Horizon does not provide the information, the province does Horizon’s statement was an answer from one of the open houses, the same open house where their “expert” claimed that there is the potential for the blasting to cause enough damage to potentially cause Loch Lomond Lake to slowly drain through damaged fissures. Search the Ministry of Environment site. Better yet, you win yet again! Lucky guy.
By: Dan Fiorito on August 14, 2011
at 2:49 pm
And by the way, if this ‘provincial recommendation’ exists, it is simply that, a recommendation. It is not a regulation, a mandatory compliance issue, law or anything else.
By: wayne on August 14, 2011
at 3:17 am
Wayne, it is part of a legislation, that’s the problem.
By: Dan Fiorito on August 14, 2011
at 2:33 pm
You still have not provided evidence of this ‘legislation’…and as per a comment by tiredofit, “Besides, Horizon has clearly stated that in the event of a turbine fire, they are to evacuate a 30km area (due to the deadly toxic fumes) and let it burn to the ground.
You yourself have cited Horizon, but I cannot find such a reference in their documents that are available to the public. Enlighten me please.
By: wayne on August 15, 2011
at 10:50 pm
When I have time I’ll look it up and post it.
By: Dan Fiorito on August 15, 2011
at 10:53 pm