[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

MOH targets ill effects of turbines  

Credit:  By Jonathan Sher, The London Free Press, www.lfpress.com 12 December 2010 ~~

In recent years, the burgeoning wind energy industry has been able to count as an ally public health officials in Ontario – but that may soon change.

Dr. Hazel Lynn, the chief medical officer of health in Grey and Bruce counties, is laying the groundwork for what would be the first Ontario-based study to examine the link between wind turbines and ill health.

Lynn was asked by her health board to come up with a way and will present options for a study when the board next meets in January.

She comes to the task with a mindset startlingly different from the public health hierarchy in Ontario – she believes the absence of proof is the start of the debate and not the end.

Turbines emit low-pitched sounds, some so low they’re sensed only as vibration. Some turbine opponents argue those vibrations disrupt the body’s normal rhythms and cause a long list of ailments. An American doctor, Nina Pierpont, reported complaints of headaches, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate, irritability and problems with concentration and memory.

“It’s really difficult to show causality from environmental exposure,” Lynn said, citing the decades it took to prove cigarettes caused cancer.

A family doctor, whose work took her from British Columbia to Nigeria before becoming a medical officer of health a decade ago, Lynn has seen how people suffer after wind turbines go up, especially in and around the village of Ripley in Bruce County, where she estimates 15% of the population reports ill effects from turbines such as difficulty sleeping and headaches.

“I know there are communities affected,” she said.

But a look at community effects was cut out off the final draft of a report written this year by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Arlene King.

King found no evidence turbines caused illness and no reason to believe such a link was possible.

At the time of that report, Lynn said she suspected King had removed a section on community impact because it would have looked bad politically for her to criticize other Ontario ministries.

It’s not just King whose findings are frequently cited by the wind industry.

The top public health official in Chatham-Kent, Dr. David Colby, one of a dozen or so professionals asked by that industry to review prior medical studies on wind turbines – Colby and his team decided the so-called health link was more science fiction than science.

But Lynn respectfully disagrees, arguing Colby’s review is dated and examined the wrong thing – audible sound measured in decibels, rather than sub-audible frequencies that can be felt rather than heard.

She’s also certain about this: The distress caused by turbines has been made worse by a couple of things that could have easily be done differently:

Queen’s Park used Ontario’s Green Energy Act to take away decision-making power from towns and cities.

Lease deals with wind energy companies only benefit a select few landowners, rather than entire communities.

In Italy, a small community agreed to wind turbines and solar power too with revenue going to the entire community.

“That could have happened in Ontario,” Lynn said.

She also object to the minimum setbacks for wind turbines in Ontario – 550 metres – and says Germany and France are now considering buffers more than twice that distance.

“If you don’t mind 10 to 15% of people being distressed, put the turbines within 550 metres,” she said.

Source:  By Jonathan Sher, The London Free Press, www.lfpress.com 12 December 2010

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.