[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind farm opponents try to prove it’s unhealthy for humans 

Credit:  By ERICA BAJER QMI Agency, www.lfpress.com 2 February 2011 ~~

CHATHAM – Those opposed to the Kent Breeze Wind Farm will attempt to prove the eight-turbine project near Thamesville will cause serious harm to human health.

Opening statements were heard during the first day of the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal Tuesday at the Chatham-Kent Civic Centre.

Lawyer Eric Gillespie, acting on behalf of appellants Katie Erickson and Chatham-Kent Wind Action Inc., said the focus of the case deals with the medical impacts on human health such as sleep disturbances, stress or psychological distress, inner ear symptoms, headaches and loss of enjoyment of life. He will call 10 experts from around the world – Canada, United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia – to give evidence about the effects turbines have on humans.

“The appellants’ case, in our submission, is based on science,” he said. “That science has evolved to the point where experts from around the world . . . will be coming before this tribunal to say that in their professional opinions the Kent Breeze Wind Farm, as approved, will cause serious harm to human health.”

Gillespie’s clients are appealing the approval of the wind farm, owned by Suncor, under the Green Energy Act.

The project was the first approved under the province’s newly amended Act. Ministry of Environment lawyer Fredricka Rotter said that’s the real reason for the appeal, not the alleged threat to human health.

“This is the first one (approval); they all jumped on the bandwagon,” she said. “All these experts that the appellants have rallied . . . are essentially advocates. All these experts have an anti-wind turbine agenda. That’s what this hearing is about.”

She said the appellant’s witnesses are not impartial, unbiased experts.

“A lot of it is fear mongering and rabble rousing,” she said.

“There has been lots of debate . . . but to date there has been no conclusive evidence that (turbines) will cause harm.”

Suncor lawyer Albert Engel noted nine of Gillespie’s 10 witnesses are members of a wind energy watchdog group called the Society for Wind Vigilance.

“The appellants are stretching the facts to meet the test in this particular appeal,” Engel said. “There’s no technical or scientific basis to prove these facilities pose serious risk to human health.”

Engel said Suncor went through a rigourous application process, including public consultation and noise assessments, to get approval for the wind farm, which he said is in line with the government’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act.

Rotter said the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities as in civil litigation. She noted that the tribunal’s focus is very narrow – it is not to question wind farms in general but to determine if this specific project will cause serious harm to human health.

“It’s not about reviewing the noise guidelines. It’s not about minimum setbacks,” she said. “The tribunal doesn’t have the right to sit in judgment about all these things.”

The Ministry of the Environment plans to call five witnesses, including director Mansoor Mahmood, who approved the Kent Breeze Wind Farm.

Suncor plans to call seven witnesses during the hearing, which continues Wednesday.

Turbine project: Review tribunal will hear that the medical impact of the previously approved Kent Breeze farm includes issues from sleep disturbance and stress to loss of enjoyment of life

[rest of article available at source]

Source:  By ERICA BAJER QMI Agency, www.lfpress.com 2 February 2011

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 educational 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 Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

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


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky