We’re gonna have a Party!!!

Tribute Dinner for ERT Appeal

APPEC is holding a tribute dinner on June 15^th at the Grange winery.  It is part fundraising event for the health phase of the Environmental Review Tribunal appeal and part celebration that the hearings will have concluded.   This is a time to get together and recognize the successes already achieved.

The dinner will honor Bill Wightman, a veteran opponent of wind power development, who foresaw the harms for the County back in 2000 and stalled an early project on appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.  Friend and long-time supporter Bob Cluett will be the MC.

Harley Guernsey will provide one of his excellent BBQ pig roasts, and the Grange will provide each guest with a complimentary aperitif and glass of fine wine.   A Weber barbecue worth $1000 will be auctioned.

The Grange, 990 Closson Road, Hillier, is booked for Saturday, June 15, 6-10 p.m., with dinner at 7 p.m.  Dress is casual/country.

Tickets are $100 per person, payable by cash or cheque at the entrance.  All profits go to the legal costs of the Ostrander Point appeal.

Please reserve your tickets as soon as possible by contacting Duncan Fischer, drfischer@sympatico.ca or 613-476-6573.  Since this is a fundraising event with limited seating, please ensure you are able to keep your purchase commitment.

Come for good food and wine, good company—and a good cause!

May 16th at the ERT

Report on May 16^th ERT Hearing on Health Appeal
by
Paula Peel

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard the testimony of Helen Fraser, who used to live near the Melancthon project, and of a pre-turbine witness, County resident Dr. Karen Hatchard. 

 

Examination of Helen Fraser 

Mrs. Fraser identified receptor #134 on the Ministry of the Environment map as her former home of 31 years.   She confirmed that turbines are located to the west, north and south in a “C” pattern, with the closest 423 m away.    

Both Mrs. Fraser and her husband had pre-existing medical conditions.  However, their symptoms noticeably increased after the project started up.  Mrs. Fraser’s fibromyalgia worsened as did her chronic fatigue.  She felt a constant tickling in her ear as though something were crawling around inside.  A “strobing,” or flicker, effect coming into the home caused nausea and debilitating headaches.  On calm nights, Mrs. Fraser could feel her heart beating to the pulse of the blades. 

Mrs. Fraser noted that the turbines rotated according to wind direction and that the pain was at its worst when they displayed a side profile. They made a “horn” sort of noise and a popping sound that was disruptive. 

Initially the Frasers had no idea why they were feeling so unwell.   However, they began to notice that their symptoms disappeared whenever they left home, and returned when they came back.  In 2006, on a trip to the east coast, they were symptom-free for 25 days.  Within 24 hours of returning home the symptoms recurred. 

Ms. Fraser described leading a normal life in the country until the turbines started up.  Then their social life was dramatically altered.  Noise made it impossible to use the deck outside.  People asked how they could live with the noise.  Mr. Fraser moved into a basement room without windows so he could get sleep. 

A year or so after the project became operational the Frasers accepted a buy-out from Canadian Hydro, the project developer.  They left their home in 2007.  Mrs. Fraser said they never would have left otherwise—they were forced out of their home.  Their choice was staying and being ill or moving and getting their health back.  Moving away from the turbines was really their only course of action. 

 

Cross-Examination of Helen Fraser

Sam Rogers, yet another lawyer for Gilead, spent a tedious few hours reviewing Mrs. Fraser’s medical records from 2001 to the present time.  His questioning confirmed that Mrs. Fraser’s chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia dated from 1990.  More than once, Mrs. Fraser said that symptoms were more severe when she lived near wind turbines.

Sylvia Davis, lawyer for the Ministry of the Environment, noted that Mrs. Fraser could see only a few turbines from her house.  Mrs. Fraser said that she could not avoid looking at them because they were so close.

 

Re-examination of Mrs. Fraser    

Mr. Gillespie asked Mrs. Fraser about two people on her road and seven others in the area who have moved away.  She also knows other people struggling with conditions from turbines who cannot afford to move.  

 

Examination of Dr. Karen Hatchard

Dr. Hatchard, a chiropractor, said that because of her interest in health she began reading on the subject of turbines.  She learned that people with motion sensitivity and vertigo seem to be affected more.  Dr. Hatchard has been prone to vertigo since youth.  When she visited Wolfe Island, flickering caused a vertigo effect and made her feel light-headed.  She is concerned for her well-being and about her ability to continue working to support herself and her family.  

Dr. Hatchard confirmed that she lives in the vicinity of Ostrander Point and she often walks near there. 

 

Cross-Examination of Dr. Hatchard

Gilead lawyer Bryn Gray asked why concerns noted on Dr. Hatchard’s witness information form were not raised during her annual physical examination.  Dr. Hatchard said she has learned to manage her health.  She disagreed with Mr. Gray that hearing sensitivity and vertigo are two different things.  She said that if her hearing is affected this can cause a vertigo attack.

 

 

May 15th at the ERT

Report on May 15^th ERT Hearing on Health Appeal
by
Henri Garand

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard the testimony of Lisa Michaud, whose family resides near the Kent-Breeze wind project, the subject of the 2011 Chatham-Kent ERT appeal.

Examination of Lisa Michaud

The Michaud family’s self-built home is known as receptor 210 of the Kent-Breeze project, which was constructed and began operation while an ERT appeal was taking place.

The Michauds had little prior knowledge of the project. They first learned of it in a notice addressed to “Occupant” just before the developer’s final public meeting in September or October 2009. They attended the meeting and asked questions, but left with mixed feelings and no information on harmful effects.  They did not know of the ERT appeal until the decision was released in July 2011.

Ms. Michaud has a number of pre-existing medical conditions: fibromyalgia, high blood pressure, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and back pain.  Her husband has also suffered from high blood pressure and back pain, and her son has seasonal allergies.

Since wind turbines started operating in May 2011 she has experienced severe vertigo, sleep disturbance and breathing problems due to sound and vibrations, popping and buzzing in her ears, and distress due the effects on her family and home life.  Both her husband and son have also been ill with vertigo, including vomiting.  All these symptoms either are reduced or disappear when the family is away from home.

Family members have received medical attention for specific symptoms like vertigo.  However, treatment has been complicated by their family doctor’s loss of license, substitute use of hospital emergency services, and finally, a new family doctor’s refusal to discuss wind-turbine effects or to provide related treatment after the family had launched a lawsuit.

Initially, Ms. Michaud contacted wind developer Suncor and the Ministry of Environment (MOE).  Complaints to the MOE resulted in only one field officer’s visit, without any testing for compliance.  Later, the Michauds were informed that the personal information they had provided had been stolen from an MOE vehicle.  The Michauds eventually approached every level of government, including the Ontario ombudsman.  Ms. Michaud also used social media like FaceBook to present her concerns.  When no one gave any real assistance, the Michaud family filed a $1.5 million lawsuit against Suncor.

Cross-Examination of Ms. Michaud

MOE lawyer Sylva Davis reviewed Ms. Michaud’s medical history, focusing on her pre-existing conditions and treatments.  She asked whether Ms. Michaud was aware that some medications could have the side effects of headache, dizziness, nausea, and muscle and bone pain.  She also asked whether Ms. Michaud had sought therapy, such as that received for PTSD.  Ms. Michaud replied that she has lived with stress all her life and has not sought therapy for it.  The PTSD -related therapy was specific to a single problem.  She added that the symptoms she has experienced since the turbines began operation are different from the symptoms associated with her pre-existing conditions.

Ms. Davis explored Ms. Michaud’s feelings about wind development and was told that the Michaud family feels “abandoned by government” because they were not consulted at the outset, or even contacted personally by the developer, and had no say in the approval process, yet they are exposed to the risks.  Ms. Michaud used to regard home as an “oasis from the stress of the world”; now it is “not a safe place.”  Although only one wind turbine is visible from her house when leaves are off the intervening trees, she feels “nauseated and annoyed” when seeing wind projects in the area.

Gilead Power lawyer Bryn Gray confirmed that the Michauds live 1,110 m from the nearest turbine and that audible noise is worst when the house is downwind.  He asked why medical records are incomplete and was told that either the records are not readily available or the family cannot afford to obtain them.

Re-examination of Ms. Michaud

APPEC lawyer Eric Gillespie asked Ms. Michaud about the train traffic on a rail line 200 m from her house.  She said the number of trains has not changed since the family moved to the property in 2005, and train noise does not disturb them.  When asked to compare her new symptoms with those from pre-existing conditions, she said the new symptoms are experienced only in the house or elsewhere around wind turbines, and they started with turbine operation and have never left.

May 14th at the ERT

Report on May 14^th ERT Hearing on Health Appeal
by
Henri Garand

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard the continuing testimony of Monica Elmes and the full testimony of Mike Davey, both APPEC witnesses.

Examination of Monica Elmes (contd.)

APPEC Lawyer Eric Gillespie asked about pre-existing medical conditions in the Elmes family.  Ms. Elmes said her health, as well as her husband’s and 11-year-old son’s, was excellent before the Talbot wind project began operations.  Since then her husband Neil has suffered from sleep disturbance, fatigue, and vertigo leading to lower work productivity, less enjoyment of life, and less tolerance for stress at home and work.  Her son’s asthma has returned after a four-year absence.  The medical advice her family has received is to consider relocation and to take medication for high blood pressure and vertigo.

The Ministry of Environment (MOE) has responded to Ms. Elmes’ complaints by sending field officers without equipment for measuring compliance with noise limits, by scheduling visits during business hours despite reported night-time noise, and by advising her to continue to file complaints.

Ms. Elmes said she is aware of 22 other project residents who have also complained to MOE in spite of living outside 40-dbA computer-modeled noise contour lines.  Some have sought relief by installing air conditioning, buying waterfalls that emit white noise, sleeping in their basements, or even abandoning their homes.

Cross-Examination of Ms. Elmes

Gilead Power Lawyer Bryn Gray confirmed that Ms. Elmes lives 1,776 m from the closest wind turbine, within 2 km of two other turbines, and within 2.5 km of two more.  She dislikes the views from a house with turbines on three sides.  As spokesperson for the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group, Ms. Elmes has written on the harmful effects of wind development on wildlife, property values, and rural character.  She believes that wind projects are a waste of taxpayer and ratepayer money, wind turbines are inefficient generators of electricity, and wind development is a scam.  She feels it is “criminal for the government to proceed with development in light of health effects.”

MOE lawyer Sylvia Davis confirmed that Ms. Elmes has not been given a written diagnosis that her own and her family’s symptoms are caused by wind turbines.

Re-examination of Ms. Elmes

Eric Gillespie asked Ms. Elmes why she has a record of only one medical appointment.  She said she seldom sought medical care even for injuries like her current poison ivy rash and broken toe.

Examination of Mike Davey

Prior to wind project construction Mr. Davey had lost a kidney to cancer surgery, displayed diabetic symptoms, and developed chronic kidney disease from high blood pressure.   But he was in recovery until two wind projects were constructed and started operating in 2009 and 2010. His health problems now consist of sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, tinnitus, memory and concentration loss, chest pressure and palpitations, muscle and bone pain, and recurrence of diabetes.  Besides medication he seeks relief by sleeping in the basement, in his car, or outside, including on one occasion a ditch.

An August 2012 MOE study of noise at Mr. Davey’s home found an average sound of 44.3 dbA, though much higher levels were recorded between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.  It concluded that the wind turbines are in compliance if other noises are factored out, but it recommended a follow-up study.  Nine months later, no such study has taken place.

Mr. Davey has sought medical attention but has found doctors unwilling to acknowledge a connection between his symptoms and wind turbines.  A sleep centre diagnosed sleep apnea, though he had not suffered from it while bedridden and recovering from cancer surgery.  He was twice denied a cortisol test, a screening procedure that will be used in Health Canada’s study of wind turbine health effects.

Mr. Davey is not a member of the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group and has not written letters opposing wind development.

Cross-examination of Mr. Davey

Gilead Power lawyer Darrel Cruz led Mr. Davey through a long list of the medical procedures and medications he has received.  Mr. Cruz pointed to discrepancies between the records and Mr. Davey’s statements, and suggested that Mr. Davey’s diabetes is related to his weight, chest pains are due to reduced blood flow to his heart, and muscle and bone pain are caused by osteoarthritis.   Other conditions were not confirmed by medical reports.

MOE’s Ms. Davis asked why Mr. Davey had connected his symptoms with wind turbines.  He said it was due to his own and a neighbour’s sleep disturbance after the turbines started.  His subsequent research made him think that his other symptoms are related to low-frequency or infrasound.

When asked how he generally feels about wind turbines, Mr. Davey said he likes their appearance but is concerned about the value of his property and its salability because of health effects.

Re-examination of Mr. Davey

Mr. Gillespie confirmed that Mr. Davey lives 747 m from a wind turbine in the Talbot wind project (2010) and is 2.4 km away from the Boralex project (2009).  He reviewed Mr. Davey’s medical history with respect to the start up of each project and established the coincidental chronology.

 

ERT Hearings Resume – May 15th – 9:30 AM

The Ostrander Point ERT (APPEC) Appeal resumes on Wednesday May 15th – 9:30 AM – at the Sophiasburgh Town Hall in Demorestville, Ontario.

More residents of Ontario, who suffer the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines operating too close to their homes, are scheduled to testify on Tuesday.

Please come out and support these caring and brave individuals who are stepping up to share the serious challenges, they continue to experience to their quality of life and health (and that of their respective families), caused by these huge, industrial machines.

On behalf the citizens of Prince Edward County, APPEC would like to express our deepest sense of gratitude for their generosity and courage.

May 9th at the ERT

Report on May 9th ERT Hearing on the Human Health Appeal
by
Henri Garand

The first day of the Environmental Review Tribunal on the human health appeal consisted of the opening statement by APPEC lawyer Eric Gillespie, disputes over admissibility of evidence, and testimony of the first witness.

 

APPEC Opening Statement

Eric Gillespie explained that the present appeal will build on a 2011 ERT decision.  In the Erickson appeal in Chatham-Kent the ERT, after hearing from 25 expert witnesses, concluded the following:

1.      Sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, vertigo, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, and panic episodes can all be symptoms of exposure to wind turbines.

2.      The symptoms indicate “extreme annoyance” and are “serious” effects.

3.      It is not necessary to demonstrate the mechanism causing the effects, whether noise, low-frequency sound, or infrasound.

4.      Wind turbines can cause adverse effects “if placed too close to people.  The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”

Consequently, APPEC will call 17 witnesses.  Eleven of these live near the Melancthon I and II, Kruger, Clear Creek, Talbot, Wolfe Island, and Kent Breeze wind projects.  They have two elements in common: similar health issues and residence within two km of a wind turbine.

Three witnesses live near the proposed Ostrander Point project and have pre-existing conditions that make them susceptible to wind turbine exposure.

Three expert witnesses will provide relevant background and opinion.  Dr. Robert McMurtry and Robert Thorne, Ph.D. were qualified as medical witnesses in the Erickson appeal.  Dr. Sarah Laurie has wide experience assessing patients living near wind projects.

In contrast, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Gilead Power are calling witnesses on acoustical engineering who will testify that the Ostrander Point project is the same as other projects in complying with the 550-m setback and 40-dbA noise level based on noise modelling irrespective of geography or demographics.  APPEC will have little conflict with such evidence.

Other expert witnesses for MOE and Gilead will revisit the issue of causation.  But as the Erickson appeal demonstrated, the debate is over.  APPEC accepts the ERT finding that turbines located beyond 550 m cause “annoyance.”

 

Ministry of Environment Statement

Lawyer Sylvia Davis made no opening statement except to dispute APPEC’s interpretation of the Erickson ruling.  She identified six witnesses: Denton Miller, MOE Approvals; Brian Howe, HGG Engineering; and Drs. David Colby, Cornelia Barnes and Kieran Moore.

 

Gilead Power Statement

Lawyer Bryn Gray made no opening statement.  He identified six witnesses: Shant Dakouzian, Helimax noise assessments; Al Lightstone, acoustical engineer; G. Leventhall and Werner Richards, on low-frequency sound and infrasound; and Chris Olsson, Ph.D. and Dr. Robert McCunney, both on health studies.

 

Ministry of Environment Background Witness

Coreen Schofield, senior program coordinator, MOE Approvals and Access, displayed a series of maps identifying where APPEC witnesses live in proximity to wind turbines. She explained that “receptor” refers to a building, structure, or vacant land used in the determination of setbacks.  She said that Noise Assessment Reports are based on computer models and that complaints are handled by the MOE’s compliance branch.

All parties had previously agreed that Ms. Schofield would provide exclusively background information on witness locations. Mr. Gillespie therefore objected when Ms. Davis introduced a document that cited municipal populations, the number of project participants who are receptors, and the number of receptors closer than APPEC’s witnesses to turbines.  To enable the hearing to carry on, the ERT Panel ruled that all the exhibits (maps and explanatory documents) would be accepted for identification purposes, but the parties would make submissions later on relevance.

 

Medical Records

A new Gilead Power lawyer, Daryl Cruz, questioned the status of the medical records provided by APPEC witnesses.  He argued that they should be accepted as business records of medical services but not as records giving medical opinions.  Such opinions constituted hearsay unless doctors were called to confirm the truth of the opinions or diagnoses.

Ms. Davis stated that medical records had also been submitted for witnesses’ family members.  Witnesses could not testify on this hearsay evidence.

Mr. Gillespie argued that the records had been sought by MOE and Gilead and that their provision was supposed to avoid the need to call doctors.   Though witnesses might not be able to cite diagnoses, they could testify to their own experience and their direct observations of family members.

Co-chair Robert Wright said the ERT Panel would defer a decision on medical records in order to give time for submissions. In the interim it would accept witnesses’ testimony, barring hearsay, and would weight the evidence.

 

Other Medical Information

Mr. Cruz questioned the admissibility of interrogatories (178-item questionnaires) and other forms completed by witnesses upon the request of MOE and Gilead.  The ERT Panel directed all parties to discuss the problem.  An agreement was reached to treat the interrogatories as preparatory material but to accept the forms as equivalent to witness statements and admit them as evidence, subject to removal of hearsay.

 

Testimony of Monica Elmes

Monica Elmes, the first of APPEC’s witnesses, described the experience of living near the 20 wind turbines visible from her home.  Her family had been approached about participating in the wind project, but research led to her questioning the impacts.  As a result she has been ostracized by participating neighbours.  She is presently the spokesperson for the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group.

Though Ms. Elmes had expected protection from regulatory setbacks, the noise level was obvious when the turbines started operating.  The noise affects enjoyment of her property and sound levels inside her house during the summer.  Audible noise disrupts sleep in a house that relies on open windows for cooling. 

Her own sleep is not affected during the winter, but her husband suffers from continuing sleep disturbance and has also had attacks of vertigo.  He finds relief by sleeping away from home or in the unfinished basement, which requires his shutting down the furnace and thereby cutting off heat to the house.

Ms. Elmes also spoke about the overall impact on the quality of her life.  She said she is distressed when some neighbours call late at night complaining to her about the turbines.  On the other hand, friends from outside the area now decline to visit.

Before wind turbine operation Ms. Elmes said the ambient night-time noise levels in her house measured 25-27 dbA.  Now the level is in the 40’s to low 50’s.  So far she has made 180 complaints to the MOE’s “spills line” about the lack of compliance.  MOE field officers came several times but not when the noise was as loud, and they brought no equipment to measure it.  However, they advised her to keep filing complaints.  She also asked for the wind company’s noise protocol and abatement policies, but she was told these would only be available through a Freedom of Information Act request.

IMAGES OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY…

ALL WORTH PROTECTING!!!