[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

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

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Ounce of prevention worth pound of cure  

Credit:  The Daily News, thedailynewsonline.com 5 November 2011 ~~

Vote for People First!

History always repeats itself. Thus, the old saying, ‘‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’’

FACT: Industrial wind installations worldwide have caused detrimental health problems for those living too close. Orangeville will NOT be the exception to this sad reality.

So how will Orangeville’s conflicted Town Board members handle the resulting negative impacts? Do you actually believe that a call to an Invenergy, LLC, hotline – as proposed by current Supervisor Susan May will resolve problems??? Do you actually believe that conflicted Town Board members will have any interest in handling your resulting problems with Invenergy??? Will they set aside money for future litigation of landowner against landowner, or the potential lawsuits against the town of Orangeville for the endangerment they have inflicted on their resident’s health, safety and welfare???

Consider this…

There are well over 100 Ontario, Canada, residents within industrial wind project areas reporting adverse health from exposure to industrial wind turbines. Some of these victims are currently being housed elsewhere at the developer’s expense. Others have had their homes bought out by the wind developer. Other victims live in self-funded safe houses, or have abandoned their homes altogether to protect their health. The balance continues to suffer in their existing homes. These statements cannot be denied.

As stated in the 1/22/11 document, ‘‘Adverse Health Effects and Industrial Wind Turbines,’’ which was presented to, and ignored by the Orangeville Town Board: Decision makers need to ‘‘give serious consideration about the risk to health and do not approve any industrial wind turbine facilities until authoritative human health research has been conducted to determine authoritative guidelines for safe setbacks and noise levels.’’

Human health research is urgently needed to determine authoritative regulations for safe setbacks and noise levels. Until this research is conducted, no further industrial wind turbine development should occur.

Why haven’t current Orangeville Board members sought these kind of safety assurances for the people they were elected to serve and protect? The sad, simple answer has been repeated often by elected officials and developers alike: ‘‘It’s all about the money!’’

Another testimony which was presented to, and ignored by the current Orangeville Town Board at the DEIS Public Hearing (which can be viewed on the Public Service Commission website), is a letter from my husband’s cardiologist, Dr. Decker Weiss.

Dr. Weiss states, ‘‘It is my opinion that with Mr. Orr’s particular medical issues, that he would be particularly susceptible to the presence of this project (Stony Creek Wind Project). Let it be known that to go forward with this project would cause harm to my patient.’’

Dr. Weiss further explained, ‘‘In the interest of protecting my patient’s health I have reviewed the proposal for the Stony Creek wind farm. The first is the issue of the power-lines and wind turbines themselves. Over the past few months I reviewed several hundred papers and medical statements. I have spoken to experts in the fields of energy and medicine, and have come to the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between the presence of this type of energy system and the negative impact to the health of persons living in proximity. There can be little doubt that there is an abundance of evidence demonstrating repeated similar medical issues in multiple regions with similar issues worldwide.’’

So what have professionals in the field determined to be ‘‘safe’’ setbacks?

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile between giant turbines and homes. If you’re under a mile, you’re asking for trouble, said Alex Salt, an otolaryngology professor of Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on ‘‘Wind Turbine Syndrome,’’ recommends 1.25 mile setback. In France, Mariolaine Villey-Migraine concluded that the minimum setback should be 3 miles. In Australia, the Waubra Foundation maintains at least a 10 km setback is needed!

Voters of Orangeville, certain protections can be insisted upon by new governing strategies based on putting the welfare of all residents ahead of corporate welfare and personal financial agendas. It is essential to your future health, and that of your families, that you replace the incumbents with a new town board dedicated to the protection of People First.

Cathi and Bob Orr

Orangeville

Source:  The Daily News, thedailynewsonline.com 5 November 2011

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

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

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter