[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


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

Ontario setbacks far from toughest 

Credit:  Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca 9 February 2012 ~~

I’m writing to express my concerns on the misinformation being disseminated by the Ontario government regarding industrial wind turbines and the setback requirements from homes and properties. I apologize for the lengthy email, but I feel it is an important issue for the residents of this province.

Both Premier Dalton McGuinty and Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley have been repeatedly quoted as saying that the setback requirements in Ontario are “some of the toughest in the world” and “the best in North America”.

Contrary to these claims, there are a multitude of townships and counties in the United States, other areas of Canada and various countries around the world, whose setbacks regulations and wind ordinances are clearly stricter than those in place in Ontario. I believe that Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Bradley are intentionally trying to mislead and deceive the people of Ontario. Their statements are simply not true.

I feel it is vitally important that the residents of Ontario are aware of this. It is a clear indication that the government’s concerns are for the wind company’s profits, and not the safety and well-being of the residents of this province.

The following is just a portion of a lengthy list of various wind ordinances that require stricter setbacks than those in Ontario, which are only 550m from homes. This information is easily verified by searching the different wind ordinances online published by the listed towns, townships and counties.: Digby and Antigonish, NS 1000m; Pictou and Colchester County, NS, 600m. Fayette County, PA, 1.8 km; Hillsdale County, MI, 1.6 km; Ellis County, KS, 1.5 km.*

These setbacks are from residences. There are many more ordinances that have setbacks listed from neighboring property lines that are far stricter than Ontario’s regulation of turbine height, less the blade length. There are also several international regulations that have further setbacks. Obviously, these countries place the safety of their citizens paramount to the profit of the wind companies.

Some countries are enacting setbacks as far as 2 km from peoples’ homes due to emerging studies indicating that there are, in fact, health, noise and safety issues associated with turbines.

Another area of serious concern is the exemption from setbacks for homes located on the properties that participate in the wind turbine project. These homes are not subject to the minimum 550m distance from turbines and are often in much closer proximity. Children, the elderly and pregnant women living in these homes are exposed, each and every day, to much higher levels of noise and vibration emanating from the turbines.

To my knowledge, the Ontario government has never conducted any studies on the shortor long-term effect that this will have on these vulnerable family members who are being exposed to noise levels far in excess of the regulations.

Why is there no law that requires that the children or other family members living in these homes be protected? Are the children in these homes acceptable collateral damage? Only the Ontario government can answer as to why they have clearly chosen to violate the rights of these children and fami- ly members, and not protect them in any way.

The simple truth is that Ontario’s regulated distances from industrial wind turbines are woefully inadequate and sub-par to many other jurisdictions, and fail to address the issues of health and safety for the nearby residents.

The issues facing the rural residents of Ontario are far from being properly addressed or resolved.

Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health did not conduct evidence-based scientific research, when they concluded that there is no “direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects”. Not one part of the CMOH Report from May 2010 reviews the present-day experiences of those in the municipalities in Ontario who have dealt with the impacts of sound from existing wind turbines.

Many other international studies have concluded the opposite findings to the CMOH and outline the impacts wind turbine sound has on people further than Ontario’s regulated setbacks, not to mention the impact turbines have on property values, along with shadow flicker and visual pollution.

As the setback distance in Ontario is measured only from houses, it can limit neighboring property owners from utilizing portions of their own properties, resulting in what is basically an illegal easement on adjacent properties.

Virtually all turbines being installed in Ontario are in productive agricultural and rural areas. Yet the setbacks in Ontario do not take into account the proximity to livestock structures (barns, stables, etc). These animals are being put directly in harm’s way in the event of a turbine fire or structural failure. The loss of a livestock building containing farm animals would be financially catastrophic for most farmers.

I think the time is well overdue that the deception and dishonesty of the Ontario government with respect to industrial wind turbines be exposed and that the people of Ontario learn the truth about the inadequate regulations that are seriously affecting the rural citizens of this province and their livelihoods.

Trish Crang

Singhampton, ON * Editor’s note: selected from a much longer list to save space.

Source:  Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca 9 February 2012

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 Funding
   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