Picton Gazette: Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor; Re: Clean and Green, Blowing in the Wind etc– Jan. 9/16
 
It seems the new owners of the Gazette have decided to restart a conversation around
renewable infrastructure, a topic which has involved the County in a big way since at
least 2007.

The problem now, as it was then, is location.

Proponents of wind and BESS projects always seem to propose inappropriate locations
– in the case of several wind proposals, aided and abetted by the previous provincial
government, projects were slated for major migratory flyways and in endangered
species habitat. The province under the last Liberal government removed planning
decision making from municipalities and let applicants propose projects wherever they
liked.

Speaking of birds, the numbers cited by Chris Fanning are the Wind industry’s numbers
which have been shown to undercount deaths by at least a power of ten due to flawed
methodology promoted by paid advocates for the wind industry. Successful appeals to the Environmental Review Tribunal proved that irreversible harm would come to Blandings turtles and little brown bats, again due to poor location of the projects.

The other major problem with location is proximity to people’s residences. Study after
study has shown that the 550 metre setback used by our previous government (and not
yet modified) is wholly inadequate to prevent serious health concerns for those who live
nearby. Enlightened countries are raising that setback to 2 km. If any new projects are
allowed by the current Government it is hoped new setback guidelines and noise
guidelines that include infra sound would be adopted first.

Wisely the Conservative government returned planning power to municipalities in 2018
so we, with local knowledge, can make determinations about appropriate locations for
renewables. The County has built several provisions into its new Official Plan to ensure
that its rights and the environment are protected.
 
Beyond the very real environmental and health problems is the completely backwards
economic regime put in place by the province which favours proponents over the public.
Renewable energy has first right of access to the system – so it is paid for
whether we need it or not, and sadly, the wind blows and sun shines mostly
when we do not require the power   – just look at the IESO hourly charts on their
website.

So save it into batteries right? Well, the battery contracts are set up so that
operators charge them at night when power is cheapest (no sun, little wind) so
they can sell it back into the system when prices are high. This means most
excess renewable generation is NOT charging batteries. Further it is not
necessarily connected to wind or solar.

Another immutable fact is that the race to build more and more high-tech renewable
infrastructure is actually creating even more emissions. In looking at any technology the
end-to-end process must be examined. In the case of Wind this includes the mining of rare minerals, the huge transportation damage, the tons of cement used and tree cutting, the cementing of farmlands and the decommissioning damage.CO2 emissions are in fact accelerating as we humans race to try to preserve our excessively extractive way of life by replacing one technology with another. Rather than attempting to maintain our constant growth economies, we really need to  figure out how to reward reduced growth and preservation of the environment.

APPEC will continue to strive to protect prime farmland, protect the environment, fight
to protect human health, support climate change and the democratic rights of Municipalities.

Gord Gibbins
Chair, APPEC

Membership Dues

To become a member of APPEC send a cheque ($15.00 for individuals and $25.00 for couples/families) payable to: The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County,P.O. Box 173,Milford, Ont.   K0K 2P0  

Membership fees are to be paid annually.

Please include your name, mailing address, and street address (if different from mailing address), email address and phone number. Note the preferred method of contact is through email. If you are joining APPEC, add our email to your address book to ensure that our messages do not get caught in your spam filter.

To become a member of APPEC using Paypal, use the Membership Buy button below.

Individual Membership Annual Dues

CA$15.00

Family Membership Annual Dues

CA$25.00

Recent Editorial in the publication “Environmental Disease”

Wind turbines and adverse health effects: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation by Anne Dumbrille, Robert McMurtry, and Carmen Krogh – ‘Big noises: Tobacco and Wind’

In the absence of a direct means of assessing causality by experiment, Dumbrille, McMurtry, and Krogh^[1] have resorted to the nine criteria devised^[2] by the English Statistician, Austin Bradford Hill, to assign causality. They have applied them to the putative adverse health effects associated with wind farm noise and have found all nine to be upheld.

Bradford Hill’s outstanding contribution to Public Health, with Richard Doll, was assembling a cohort of 40,000 British Doctors to study the epidemic of lung cancer that emerged in the first half of the 20^th century. They showed^[3] extremely strong associations between the number of cigarettes smoked and the development of lung cancer and other diseases. These associations were well known to the Tobacco Industry, which had suppressed the scientific evidence for years,^[4] but eventually, the companies were made to apologize to the public.^[5] For how long have the adverse health effects of wind turbine noise been known?

In 1967, a UNESCO publication discussed,^[6] “…the dangers of sounds we cannot hear,” defining Infrasound as <30 Hz. By 1973, the Russians had defined safe upper limits for Infrasound (<20 Hz) in various settings.^[7] In the 1980s, Kelley et al. investigated a single turbine in America where around 12% of families within 3 km were impacted by noise emissions.^[8] The passage of the rotors past the turbine’s supports caused low-frequency pressure pulsations to be directed into the complainants’ dwellings. The situation was aggravated by a complex sound propagation process controlled by terrain and atmospheric focusing. The impulsiveness of the emitted low-frequency acoustic radiation was identified as a major problem. Various recommendations were made concerning noise reduction and as to how the Low-Frequency Noise should be measured.^[9]

In the UK in 1990, The Batho (Noise Review Working Party) Report devoted^[10] a single, important, page to Low-Frequency Noise, observing that it could have a serious effect on the lives of those affected by it: “The noise may be inaudible to the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and its measurement often requires sophisticated monitoring techniques.” It was stated that the normal A-weighted scale was not appropriate for its measurement, and the problem was a real one, recommending in bold: “…that full support should be given to the current program of research.”

In the UK in 2001, a Report on Low-Frequency Noise by Stanger was prepared for the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.^[11] It drew on the Batho Report but went much further. Two years later, when the British Prime Minister launched^[12] his country’s “Our Energy Future,” largely based on wind energy, there was no mention whatsoever of Low-Frequency Noise. What had happened? Although all potential sources of renewable energy were being considered in the early 1980s, by the mid-1990s, wind energy was deemed paramount by the UK’s Government.^[13] In 1996, the Department of Trade and Industry, whose remit was to create the optimal environment for business success, with no brief for environmental protection, established The Working Group (WG) on Noise from Wind Turbines.^[14]

The WG brief was to identify noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection, without unreasonably restricting development. Of its 14 members, six were directly, and two indirectly, connected with the wind industry, three were civil servants and three EHOs, with no medical or planning input whatsoever. The impact of Low-Frequency Noise was discounted, so A-weighted noise measurements were recommended, and only turbines to a hub height of 32 m were considered.^[14] The WG’s chief concern was to promote wind energy, irrespective of its impacts on rural communities. This resulted in the highest night-time noise limits permitted anywhere. A proposed review 2 years after 1996 never took place.

In 2011, a letter written by the CEO of the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, to the Danish Environment Minister, which was leaked and translated, asked why it was:^[15]

…that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they make less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is simply not possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all.

It seems that, in common with the tobacco industry, the wind industry was well aware that its products were inimical to health. The introduction of larger turbines is also problematic because the larger the turbines, the more noise they produce.^[16]

Over half a century ago, Hill wrote^[17] that Public Health should be, “…ever striving for improved environmental quality with the accompanying reduction in disease morbidity and mortality.” We still have a long way to go to adequately protect people’s health from the impact of wind farm noise, as the authors’ findings have so amply demonstrated.

References

 

1.	Dumbrille A, McMurtry RY, Krogh CM. Wind turbines and adverse health effects: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation. Environ Dis 2021;6:65-87.   [Full text]
2.	Hill AB. The environment and disease: Association or causation? J R Soc Med 1965;589:295-300.
3.	Stampfer M. New insights from the British Doctors Study: Risks for persistent smoking are substantially larger than previously suspected. Br Med J 2004;328:1507.
4.	Brandt AM. Inventing conflicts of interest: A history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health 2012;102:63-71.
5.	NBC News. Big Tobacco Finally Tells the Truth in Court-Ordered Campaign; November 27, 2017. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/big-tobacco-finally-tells-truth-court-ordered-ad-campaign-n823136. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 25].
6.	Lehmann G. Noise and Health. Paris, France: UNESCO Courier; 1967. p. 26-31.
7.	Stepanov V. Biological Effects of Low Frequency Acoustic Oscillations and Their Hygienic Regulation. Moscow: State Research Center of Russia; 1967. p. 15. Available from: https://docs.wind-watch.org/Stepanov-et-al-2003-infrasound.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 26].
8.	Kelley ND, McKenna HE, Hemphill RR, Etter CI, Garrelts RI, Linn NC. Acoustic Noise Associated with the MOD-1 Wind Turbine: Its Source, Impact, and Control. Golden, Colorado, USA: Solar Energy Research Institute, a Division of Midwest Research Institute; 1985.
9.	Kelley ND. A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions. Colorado, USA: Presented at the Windpower’87 Conference and Exposition, San Francisco. Solar Energy Research Institute, a Division of Midwest Research Institute; 1987. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3261.pdf.
10.	Department of the Environment. Report of the Noise Review Working Party (Batho). London: HMSO; 1990. p. 27. Available from: https://file:///D:/Documents%20-%20Copy%20(4)/Purdon/WIND/Batho%20Report%20SEARCHABLE.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 27].
11.	Stanger. Report: Low Frequency Noise: Technical Research Support for DEFRA Noise Programme; 2001. Available from: https://file:///C:/Users/2606452/Documents/Zoom/Casella%20Stanger.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 27].
12.	Department of Trade and Industry. Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy. London: HMSO; 2003.
13.	Wilson JC. A History of the UK Renewable Energy Programme, 1974-88: Some Social, Political, and Economic Aspects. PhD Thesis. Glasgow, Scotland (Published privately): University of Glasgow; 2010. Available from: https://file:///C:/Users/2606452/Documents/Zoom/2010WilsonJohnPhD.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 29].
14.	The Working Group on Noise from Wind Farms. The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms. ETSU-R-97 Final Report, Department of Trade and Industry. Available from: https://file:///D:/Documents%20-%20Copy%20(4)/Purdon/WIND/ETSU_Full_copy__Searchable_.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 29].
15.	Letter Written by the CEO of the Danish wind Turbine Manufacturer, Vestas, to the Danish Environment Minister; 2011. Available from: https://file:///C:/Users/2606452/Documents/Zoom/Denmark%20Vesta%20Translationz_7644%20compressed.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 30].
16.	Møller H, Pedersen CS. Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;129:3727-44.
17.	Hill AB. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1974.

 

 

Closure of White Pines Wind Project moves to monitoring period.

Photograph, taken from Royal Street, of gate on access road for White Pines wind turbines, 8,9,10.

The closure of the White Pines Wind Project is complete according to the proponent’s website (http://www.whitepineswindfarm.ca/).

WPD’s most recent monthly reports states ” December 15,2021
In November, the planned decommissioning planned civil works were completed, and project moved to the monitoring period.”
We believe this means that the access roads that haven’t been removed will remain as they are now. The only work that remains now is, in conjunction with the County, the evaluation of the condition of the roads. When the evaluation has been completed, the roads will be restored to their original condition if required. Additionally, some restoration of the trees along some of the routes will also be required.

How to make a tax-deductible donation

If you wish to make a donation and receive an official income tax receipt please make your cheque out to the “County of Prince Edward Legal Appeal Fund” and mail it to Shire Hall 332 Main St. Picton, ON. K0K 2T0 or drop your cheque off at Shire Hall during office hours Monday to Friday 8:30 am – 5:00 pm. The name and address on the cheque should be the name and address that you wish to appear on the official income tax receipt that will be issued. If your cheque has incomplete information on it (for example your name is printed on the cheque but there is no address) please provide this missing information in a brief note that accompanies your cheque. You will receive an income tax receipt in the mail.

“Save the South Shore” Fundraising Dance November 29, 2019

“SAVE THE SOUTH SHORE” FUND RAISING DANCE
A FUN FILLED EVENING OF FOOD, FRIENDS AND DANCING TO THE ROCK’N TUNES OF THE REASONS

• Picton Yacht Club: 7:30 pm
• Tickets $60 each, $100 for a couple, all cheques should be made payable to South Shore Legal Fund
• For tickets call 613-242-9913 or 613-848–5837 or buy in person at the Royal LePage office located at 104 Main Street, Picton.
• Tickets available through Pay Pal on this site – look to the right hand column and scroll down

Your single ticket gives you one chance at winning two Executive Class tickets to Europe, while a couple’s ticket gets you two chances to win. Additional tickets to score this popular prize will be sold at the dance.

Canoe

The winning bid for our 17 ½ foot Traveler Canoe will be revealed at the dance. Many of you may have seen this impressive craft at the Milford Fair. The canoe was hand crafted by Dick Bird and is estimated to be valued at $7,000 Canadian. If you were ordering this canoe from the US, there would be a 2 year waiting period. Dick will deliver the prize canoe within 50km of Milford. The minimum bid for this canoe is $2,500 and sealed bids should be sent to:

South Shore Legal Fund
P.O. Box 173
Milford, ON K0K 2P0

Two Executive Class Tickets to Europe

As with last year’s Black Tie & Blue Jeans fund raising event, the chance to win 2 Air Canada Executive Class Airline Tickets to Europe is back by popular demand! The airline tickets must be used within one year of the dance and, once booked, are not exchangeable. As mentioned above, your dance tickets are good for chances to win this trip, with additional draw tickets available that night. If not able to attend tickets will be $50 for 1, $100 for 3 and $25 each for additional ticket. Email gord.gibbins@optimumre.com or call 613-242-9913 to order.

Save the South Shore Canoe Fundraiser

NEW Fund Raising – Atkinson Traveller Canoe

I would like to report that Orville and I had a very positive meeting with Todd Smith in early August. We are confident that the decommissioning of White Pines will proceed in October.

Your Board is currently planning a number of Fund Raising activities. Due to the generosity of Hastings & Prince Edward Land Trust VP, Dick Bird we are offering a new, hand built Atkinson Traveller canoe by sealed bids (minimum $2500). The bidding is now open and will end at a special event we are planning (date to be confirmed).

Please see below a picture of the Atkinson Traveller example. Please google “Northwoods Canoe Company” for more information about this type of canoe, more pictures etc. You will note this Company charges $4600 us (Approx $6000C) for such a hand crafted canoe and there is a 2 year wait list. Dick’s canoe will be on display at the Milford Fair, Saturday September 14. Bids will be accepted at the event or can be sent to APPEC, Box 173 , Milford On K0K 2P0.Please put the sealed bid, with your bid amount, name, email and phone number in a small envelope inside the larger mailing envelope. All bids will be opened on the closing date. If there is a tie for the winning bid, each person will be given 1 opportunity to increase their bid.

We are extremely grateful to Dick for all the hours spent crafting such a fine canoe. This is a fantastic chance to own a superb canoe. Additional Fund raising activities will be announced in coming weeks as we all strive to pay our obligations to Eric.

Gord Gibbins
Chair

Annual Yard Sale – June 8, 2019

This year’s Annual Yard Sale for the South Shore Appeal Fund will be held Saturday, June 8^th from 8 am to 2 pm.  The Yard Sale will take place in front of the barn beside Prince Edward Animal Hospital, at 14011 Loyalist Parkway.

Donated items can be dropped off before 8 am on the Saturday morning of June 8 to the site of the yard sale. For people who will not be able to bring their smaller items on Saturday morning, they can be brought to Royal LePage, 104 Main Street Picton, on Friday June 7 from 2pm to 6pm. Please help by pricing your donated items. For large items or other drop off locations please email contactus@appec.ca.

Unfortunately, we cannot accept: large appliances, mattresses, bedding, baby equipment, (toys but not stuffed are okay), clothing and safety helmets. All other good quality donations are very much appreciated.

It takes a LOT of volunteers to run a successful yard sale and we are counting on you for your help.

1. We need 4 or 5 volunteers for Friday night to sort, price and pack up items dropped off at Royal LePage, and to load your cars with the items to bring to the site Saturday morning.
2. We need volunteers to be at the yard sale site for 6.30 am to 8 am to help set up the tables and put all the items out.
3. We need volunteers to help in shifts during the yard sale.
4. Finally we need volunteers to help pack up everything at the end of the sale.

Please email me directly if you can volunteer for any of the times on Friday or Saturday.   jcmleewis@kos.net

Termination of White Pines Wind Explained

Todd Smith on White Pines Wind Termination

According to articles published in the Globe and Mail, National Post and Toronto Star over the last couple of weeks, wpd is distorting the story of the development of the White Pines Project by presenting itself as a victim of the impending legislation. In fact, Dr. Brosamle, CEO of Wpd AG, asked for reconsideration of the cancellation of White Pines, saying that cancellation was due to “no fault of its own”. Here’s an op-ed written by Gary Mooney and published in last week’s Times documenting ten major failings / faults of Wpd that justify cancellation of the project. You can read it here.

As previously reported, the new government passed the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act (WPWPTA) on July 25. In a statement made in the Ontario Legislature on July 25th, Todd Smith stood up and clarified the reasons for cancelling the wpd White Pines Wind Project and provided answers to NDP and Liberal critics as wells as these newspaper articles. It is highly recommended that you view Todd Smith’s speech in the Legislature by clicking here.

These are some of the facts that Todd Smith told the legislature about wpd and the White Pines Wind Project:

1. Todd repeated several times the PC Conservative slogan “A Promise Made, Promise Kept”. and included a County slogan to “Keep the County Naturally Green, Turbine Free”.
2. He responded to claims of damage to the reputation of the Ontario government for cancelling the wpd White Pines Wind Project.
3. This government does not fear contractual chill within Ontario because wpd did not honour it’s agreements with the province
4. Wpd missed milestone dates (2 years past long stop date)
5. wpd’s inability to comply with the terms of its original Feed-In-Tarif (FIT) contract that required wpd to produce 75% of the original nameplate capacity. With the removal of wind turbines by the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) for environmental reasons and due to poor placement, only 9 out of the original 29 proposed turbines remained reducing the capacity from 60MW down to about 18MW.
6. The IESO amended the power contract to support the new capacity without public consultation or notice
7. To protect endangered species, wpd was charged 3 times by the Ministry of the Environment
8. wpd’s continued non-stop construction during the Blanding’s Turtle Active Season (May 1 to Oct 15th) which was contrary to the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Avoidance Measures and after telling the ERT it would not do so
9. wpd’s defiance of the impending legislation by accelerating construction after the July 10th announcement to terminate the project even after they were advised by IESO it is in wpd’s best interest to stop construction immediately
10. With the embedded solar capacity in PEC, there is a legitimate question that the County is already a net neutral municipality
11. In April 2018, Todd had a conversation with the IESO and conveyed to them how important the wpd White Pines Wind Project would be to a new government and that it would likely be terminated if the PC Conservatives won the election.
12. The IESO issued the Notice to Proceed (NTP) on May 11th, 2 days into the election campaign and in violation to the caretaker convention. This is highly irregular and counter to government policy
13. Todd also named some of the many County residents that have been involved in the fight for many, many years
14. wpd’s consistent disrespected for local opposition and with APPEC’s legal action / appeals
15. wpd and the government at the time ignored the fact the Prince Edward County declared themselves an Unwilling Host.
16. With the Ostrander Point Wind Project terminated by that ERT due to environmental reasons and in protection of endangered species along the Prince Edward County South Shore, wpd and the government at the time ignored the conclusions of the ERT and kept on with legal action for wpd White Pines Wind causing County residents enormous costs to fund the legal appeals. The government at the time and wpd should have known it would not end well with White Pines as the project got significantly reduced.
17. There was a referendum in South Marysburgh where 90% voted against having wind turbines