|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
LOCAL ACTIONS and AWARENESS
BUILDING |
ON
HUMAN-MADE GLOBAL
ISSUES THAT DESTABILIZE
NATURE |
TO RESTORE
NATURE’S BALANCE ON
PLANET EARTH - OUR PAST, OUR
FUTURE |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Ontario’s Green
Energy Act Overview: Before
starting this section it would be fair to ask if NIMBY is an appropriate label
for the anti wind energy group in Prince Edward County (PEC) who have formed
an Alliance to Protect PEC from wind farms (APPEC). Since, in the APPEC position statement and many of
their presentations and petitions, they state “.... APPEC is therefore opposed
to the development of industrial wind projects in Prince Edward County.” This is a Not In My Back Yard argument; therefore we believe the label is
justified. It may be argued by some that NIMBY is a label
only for those who are driven solely by narrow local self interest. Experience has shown that some wind farm
opponents may have broader global concerns, however, they typically have not
felt motivated to articulate those concerns until the wind farm issue moved
to their back yards.
Responsible
citizens can take local action on
the these global issues by
encouraging the development of C02 free
energy flow from wind farms, even when in our back yard by visibly
supporting our Ontario Government’s Green Energy Act (GEA). In the end, we will remember not
the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. Before
starting: On the positive side, the very public NIMBYist arguments may have
been instrumental in encouraging the provincial government to take the lead
in establishing Ontario wide regulations that prescribe setbacks between wind
farms and homes. This would seem to be
much superior to each county dealing with wind farm developers, and people of
the county, who may not have the technical expertise and resources needed to
make fully informed decisions. This
essay has four sections Summary
of Section One: The Four Cornered box of the Wind Energy
Debate -We suggest
four extreme positions of polarization on the wind energy debate representing
four corners of a box in which each of us will fit somewhere, including the
middle if you are ambivalent or uncertain or timeshare more than one place. -There is a
quote by James
Lovelock to
illustrate one reason why the NIMBY message holds appeal to very many
people. It is instructive to see the
reasons why Lovelock recently became a NIMBYist. -There is a
video link that provides a stark picture of where global warming appears to be taking us if we do
not act decisively, collectively. In the end ... success or failure
will come down to an ethical decision, one on which those now living will be
judged for generations to come. Edward
O. Wilson, Scientist Summary
of Section Two: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, shame on me! About ten
years ago wind farm development was proposed in PEC. The title of this
section refers to how NIMBY messages were widely distributed. Enough people believed them to move council
not to approve wind farm development.
Will this happen again? The ball is now in the court of our Provincial
Government - which is in your hands.
Dr. Shann Turnbull President International Institute for Self
Governance
Summary
of Section Three: What a successful NIMBY movement would
deny us Here we
list a few of the great opportunities the future can hold if we embrace the
need for change and work toward a sustainable future, such as manufacturing
and business opportunities. We will
feel the moral satisfaction of knowing it
is the right thing to do. We will
join thousands of other organizational efforts around the world that have
accepted a form of conscious evolution,
a phrase used by psychologist Robert Ornstein to mean making decisions today
that are based partly on concern for humanity’s survival. You are
never given a dream without also being given the power to make it true. You
may have to work for it, however.” Richard Bach (Writer) Summary
of Section Four: Myths and Debunking Today we
live in a specialized world. Each of
us has our personal area of expertise or aptitude for understanding. We are bankers, mechanics, farmers, medical
experts, electricians, artists or teachers.
We all depend on the labour of those in other fields, even though we
may know very little about them. In
many of these areas governments provide regulations to ensure overall system
fairness and integrity and, we trust, to ensure that the average citizen is
well served. Globally,
Canada is seen as a very desirable country in which to live, so we must be
governed pretty well. Unfortunately,
with any significant regulatory change a few individuals or groups will feel
they are being treated unfairly.
Perhaps sometimes they are. But
we trust governments to govern for the long term well-being of the majority. Moreover,
when a specific area is to be changed by regulation, the vast majority of us
have little understanding of the nuts and bolts of the issue, or the
technical jargon use to describe it, so we pay little attention. The Ontario Government’s Green Energy Act
(GEA) sets out to ensure a viable sustainable energy flow for tomorrow’s
needs. The area of energy flow in
society is not a familiar subject for many of us. However when part of the GEA implies that
some of our local scenery may be affected by wind farms, this causes all of
us to become very interested. This keen
interest leaves many of us vulnerable to dubious or incorrect information
when we don’t fully understand the scientific criteria for change (see Carl
Sagan quote below). We can easily be
led to believe, for example, that energy from wind farms does not reduce C02,
or that small scale home solar and wind installations can provide for our
society’s vast energy needs. Section
Four provides a few specific examples of dubious or incorrect information
that may lead a casual reader to a false conclusion. It also gives references
to debunking material written by others. We've arranged a global
civilization in which the most crucial elements...profoundly depend on
science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one
understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.
---Carl Sagan, 1996 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
<<<<< Ontario’s
Green Energy Act >>>>>> Section One The Four Cornered box of the Wind
Energy Debate This essay
suggests there are four extreme positions of polarization on the wind energy
debate and that the majority of people fall somewhere between these
extremes. Some folks will be just
uncertain, and depending on incoming information may drift toward one or
another of the poles.
NBY1=Hopeless
PWE1=Hopeful NIMBY
Position One (NBY1=Hopeless): In
this group are people who have studied the dynamics of human activity as it
relates to our planet’s environment and have concluded that human societies
are incapable of controlling our population growth and ever expanding
footprint. Their view is that environmental collapse will inevitably lead to
vast human die-off, perhaps extinction. (As forecast by many
scientists including Sir Martin Rees, Past President of the Royal Society of
UK, and as illustrated in the title of his recent book, Our Final Century. Or
this article leads to relevant videos.) This
assessment leads some to think: “Since
there is no hope for the next generations, why change the familiar local
scenery within MY short life expectancy, when it won’t help in the long term
anyhow?” Some in this group may
publicly deny global warming or other threatening resource depletion issues. It
is a rude shock to most of us when someone reveals a NBY1 “Hopeless”
perspective; nevertheless, they appear to be plentiful and vigorous in
defence of their local comfort. James
Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, has joined this group (note
below.) NIMBY
Position Two (NBY2=Status Quo): This
group includes those who unquestioningly believe the future should and will
forever unfold very much like our familiar past. Most have gone through life after WWII,
during the era of fossil fuel driven growth while the global population
quadrupled. Jobs were plentiful and
governments and corporations established generous pensions. Many are now retired. This background can lead to a feeling of
entitlement as one grows older, causing exaggerated feelings of offence from
large wind turbines that may appear on one’s horizon. Some NBY2 folks have had no time or
inclination to study energy issues.
And they just don’t like the idea of such large visual changes in
their community when they cannot fathom the urgent need for wind farms. They may even be frightened by the recent
alarmist statements about Wind Turbine
Syndrome. People
in this category are very receptive to the messages from anyone opposed to
wind energy development. Pro Wind
Energy Position One (PWE1=Hopeful): Like
the NBY1 group, these individuals believe that our current growth trajectory
leads to overgrowth and die-off. The
difference is, they believe the collective human spirit can change our
trajectory and that we are capable of sweeping socio-political change. They are not prepared to give up hope that
it is technically possible to begin civilized orderly negative growth in
human activity until we are within the long term human carrying capacity of
our planet. In such a society ALL of
our resources would be renewable, energy, food, farmland, water etc. PWE1 people plead with moral passion in the
quest for renewable energy, one essential building block toward
recovery. They are willing to change
lifestyles and altered vistas today to enable a future tomorrow because
humanity is in an unprecedented crisis that demands action. The action needed is even more bold than
that taken by our past generation who preserved today’s freedoms by stopping
their normal life and prepared for war to defeat the Nazi threat. In today’s issues the consequences of
failure to act are even graver. Paul Hawken is clearly in PWE1 as can be
noted from his stark but passionate commencement speech at the
University of Portland. Pro Wind
Energy Position Two (PWE2=Uneasy): This
group represents many ordinary people.
Like the NBY2 people, they may not be familiar with energy issues and
terminologies. They read and absorb
information about pollution, global warming, human population growth,
endangered species, new forms of pandemics, gasoline prices, etc., etc. And they know in their mind, heart and
spirit that something is seriously wrong in our world. They feel uneasy when thinking in these directions
but nevertheless they would like to contribute in whatever way they can
toward corrective measures. Renewable
energy from the power of wind seems intuitively sensible. Even if modern wind turbines may loom large
on their horizon, they are a corrective step toward healing the planet for
those who follow, and are therefore desirable – even an elegant symbol of
hope. We suggest
that these four polar positions represent the outline of a box in which we
view the wind energy issue. The vast majority of us are likely floating
somewhere between the four poles. Your
accumulated basic beliefs and moral compass will determine where you are and
where new information may move you within this imaginary box. Can
we can escape denial and accept collectively that we are in crisis while we
wean ourselves from fossil fuels? Acceptance of crises can mean both, that we
enter the period of a long emergency and also that we enter an era of
exciting new headings in business opportunities and social priorities. With open dialogue there may be room for
compromise. Perhaps some areas of the county could be designated “no wind
farms”, or have solar energy parks interspersed to spread the concentration
of wind farms that some find so offensive. We need a County plan, a Provincial
and a Federal plan that takes into account of our limits to growth. In the epilogue of his 1987 book, “Gaia”, James Lovelock
made reference to human feelings that may be part of the underlying reason
that the NIMBY rhetoric is attractive to many. As he describes our inborn affinity with
our natural environment, Lovelock states: “It
may be that we are also programmed to recognize instinctively our optimal
role in relation to other forms of life around us. When we act according to this instinct in
our dealings with our partners in Gaia, we are rewarded by finding that what
seems right also looks good and arouses those pleasurable feelings which
compromise our sense of beauty. When this relationship with our environment
is spoilt or mishandled, we suffer from a sense of emptiness and
deprivation. Many of us know the shock
of finding that some peaceful rural haunt of our youth where once the wild
thyme blew and where the hedges were thick with eglantine and hay, has become
a featureless expanse of pure weed-free barley.” Many years
later, at his rural home/study near Coombi Mill, South Western England,
Lovelock was apparently moved by this sense of potential loss of a familiar
horizon. Last November I was visiting
an acquaintance in London, David Wasdell.
In a visit he had with Lovelock in the summer of ’08, in conversation,
Lovelock explained that a wind developer wanted to put a row of windmills on
his familiar horizon and he indicated that he holds no hope for humanity: So why spoil the view? Lovelock has taken a clear NBY1 position
and has become a vocal anti-wind, pro-nuclear advocate. In his 2009 book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia (on line), he claims to be an optimistic pessimist, in that the
inevitable human die-off from our past century of growthism will simply
reduce human population from nine to less than one billion. In May ’09, Lovelock was interviewed on CBC
by Anna Marie Tremonti. (David
Wasdell is a world leading scientist on global warming. A video of his Taellberg Sweden
presentation gives a chilling view of what we bequeath the young if we don’t
embrace rapid change. Trickery Fool me twice, shame on me. Will this
old adage apply to the residents of PEC with “shame on me”? About 1998 a
wind farm developer had a plan to enable land owners of Hillier to harvest
and profit from the wind. But a few
local NIMBYists arose: with pens and rhetoric they convinced the good
citizens of Hillier into believing that a wind farm would bring blight upon
the county of Prince Edward. Since
then hundreds of thousands of dollars did not flow into our
county. This process was repeated with
the Royal Road project. In the
meantime we continue to demand more and more energy flow from someone else’s
backyard, leaving us energy takers, not the energy providers we could be. Ontario’s
Great Lakes basin has the best wind energy resources potential in the
province. It also has the greatest
population density. Therein lies the heart of the problem. Or therein lies the solution: why not
harvest wind where we use the energy? Since we
live in a wind rich geographic region, opportunity knocks again for us to
enter the renewable energy era. But
the NIMBYists have arisen again, with more dubious and incorrect information. We-the-people
will need to decide just where our personal moral compass will point on this
issue. Will we be guided by short term
interests or toward long term survival strategies? Or will the
verbal rhetoric of the NBY1 people dazzle us collectively into focusing on
issues like today’s visual comforts, or on new corporations making profit
from wind farms, or on myths of vanishing tourist money, or housing value
plunges? Will the people
of PEC be fooled again? If so, shame
on us. It
appears now that the NIMBYist movement is attempting to influence the voters
of the entire province. Very much is
at stake here. If enough voters in PWE2=Uneasy move to NBY2=Status Quo then our democracy
will have been hijacked: This generation will have failed to create one of
the essential building blocks that could lead us toward a sustainable
society. Shame, shame on us! The losers
in this tug of war are our children, grandchildren and the rest of the Gaian
world of nature that evolved within the natural environment of the recent
historical past. Let us be
clear here. Wind farms in Prince
Edward County will not save our world from chaos any more than WWII was won
by the old airport on the hill above town.
But these are/were essential integrated links of an evolving system of
steps that lead toward a conscious
evolution and potentially a smaller footprint on our now stressed
planet. Many other countries are miles
ahead of Canada in this life and death struggle. Time is short. In 2008 Ecological Overshoot Day was September 23rd: On
that day we had used all the resources nature had generated that year. Can we refuse to help? What
the NIMBY movement would deny us Before
moving to the dubious or incorrect information, we list a few energy
solutions happening in other parts of the world and what Ontario’s Green
Energy Act can make possible in our province.
Hi
Voltage DC transmission lines - HVDC This energy
transmission technology enables efficient, vast, regional connection of smart
local grids. The province of Manitoba already has a HVDC line bringing
hydro power from northern rivers.
Several HVDC lines link various sections of European grids, while
dozens are in the planning stages, including linkage from sun rich northern
Africa to windy Europe. Such large scale
grid integration vastly reduces the intermittency issues of wind and solar. Smart local
electrical grids can operate as an integrated segment of a large system or
independently if necessary, making the overall system very robust. Transportation
via wind and solar In Israel,
Hawaii and parts of California, a company called Better Place has provided a wide distribution system of plug in
batteries for electric cars made by Nissan and Renault. Each rapid change battery will provide 150
kilometres of pollution free travel.
One 2 MW wind turbine provides enough energy to for 3000 cars. The company plans to enter Canada through
Ontario because of the enlightened Green Energy Act. (Link to TVO video) On June 30 Toronto Star reported Portugal is to
launch 1,300 automobile recharging sites in the next two years. Renewables
now meet 43% of Portugal’s electrical needs, and will fuel the 180,000
battery cars expected by 2020. Electric
trains We all know
that many commuter and light rail systems can be all electric. Most of the long haul systems in Canada are
diesel electric. It’s just a matter of time until renewable energy removes
the pollution of fossil “diesel” from this picture. Stepping
stone toward a sustainable civilization Vast areas
of industry must begin to shift from a fossil-fuel/nuclear driven society to
a renewable energy society. This
involves enormous infrastructure changes and new manufacturing opportunities
at both the local and provincial levels.
A report by the Pembina Institute indicates that Ontario could be
both fossil fuel and nuclear free in our electrical supply by 2020. On Canada
Day, July 1, our day to be proud Canadians, a Toronto Star header stated: “Canada dead last on green list: We have
fallen behind other nations on climate change plans”. Shame on us! But if the people of Ontario take
leadership we can help move our Federal Government to action as a doer participant rather than our usual
position of watering down vitally needed goals of protecting our young and
following generations. Perhaps they
would make a positive contribution to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen taking place in December
this year. This conference will look
for the political will to enact solutions aimed at reversing the deadly march
of C02 in the atmosphere. Ontario will
be able to encourage Ottawa to participate. You can
also help encourage government action on climate change by participating in a
local 350Degree
letter writing campaign. This campaign will advise our Federal
leaders that citizens demand positive action. Myths
and Debunking We are
fortunate to live in a country with free speech, where organizational
lobbying of governments is acceptable.
Unfortunately, the democracy that we hold dear is quite often highly influenced
by forces behind the scenes. Voters and
decision makers need to look very carefully at the NIMBYist rivers of
information. Considering
the voluminous flow of NIMBY presentations, web pages, letters to editors,
etc., one thing to consider before we start is a quote by William James
(1842-1910), the father of modern psychology: There's nothing so absurd that if
you repeat it often enough, people will believe it. The flow of
recent NIMBY data might cause the casual reader to think that wind farms: > are wildlife unfriendly; > do not reduce CO2; > are being scrapped in Europe; > cause massive flow of complaints in
Europe; > reduce real-estate values; > induce a medically recognized
sickness, etc. etc. Here are
some quick clarifications on these points. > Wind farms are wildlife unfriendly; Wind
turbines kill some birds but compared to other human activates, the effect is
negligible. The
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority commissioned a study that
indicates energy from wind is more animal and environmental friendly that
coal, natural gas, hydro or nuclear.
Or look at the position of Audubon society that fully supports
large scale wind energy. > Wind farms do not reduce CO2; Every
watt produced by wind is C02 free after, “energy payback”. According to a comprehensive Danish
study
a modern windmill will pay back the energy used in its manufacture and
installation in two to three months. For the remainder of its 20 year life it
produces CO2 free energy. And when connected
to the grid, it displaces energy from other sources,
such as coal or gas, at about one for one.
Discussed below under “blame wind farms for everything” >
Germany has plans for more coal fired power plants. Germany
has had plans for coal plants for many years. Almost all are on hold as wind
energy takes over, some have been eliminated.
Here is the German scene > Wind turbines are being scrapped in
Europe; Yes,
now that the industry has matured, the early pioneering models are being torn
down to make way for new larger models. How else would Europe average over
30% growth per year in wind energy development? There is huge growth globally also. See: http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/wind-energy-companies/273 The
Danish Minister for Climate & Energy indicates, full
speed ahead for wind. >Wind Energy is very expensive per kw. The
industry has matured. Have a look at
the dramatic price drop in the last few years: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator10.htm. Study after study show that large wind turbines have the highest rating among possible energy sources for our common future, such as Dr. Mark Jacobson’s at http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c > cause massive flow of complaints in
Europe; Studies
indicate that the majority of wind farms cause no complaints whatsoever. (Links
under Medical and noise complaints. below) > reduce real-estate values; NIMBYists
point to such data from? We are not
sure. Perhaps from NBY1 or NBY2 people
wishing to move to PEC. But
other data has gives a different story:
NBDufferinRealEst.pdf.pdf And
MPAC property assessment people have noticed no change: NB-MPACFeb09.pdf.pdf > induce a medically recognized sickness,
etc. etc. According
to medical reports from the U.K. and Ontario there is no such recognized
medical condition caused by wind turbines. However, there are sometimes valid
complaints about noise and sleep loss, and some reports of other symptoms.
Prudent setback guidelines can likely prevent this in new Ontario wind
farms. (Links
under Medical and noise complaints - below) >Blaming wind energy for problems from
other sources We often read letters indicating
that wind farm energy does not reduce C02 emissions. This example from GAP: “Over the next 20 years GAP will reduce
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by over 12 Million tons – compared to
Industrial Wind Turbines which will produce no measurable reductions.” What
nonsense. Every watt of energy from a
wind farm is produced with zero emissions.
In fact, clean green energy is such a valuable commodity that it is
often traded off in carbon credits in order for another country or
corporation to burn fossil fuel elsewhere.
This is a political issue
that can never be solved until there is enough renewable energy in the world
to make fossil fuel use redundant. 1.
Spinning Reserves: Energy grid operators have
spinning reserves. This is a flexible
energy supply at slow idle but ready to pick up sudden variations in load or
supply. The NIMBY rhetoric may create
the impression that spinning reserves are the result of wind energy
variability. These reserves were in
place long before wind energy was added to the grid. Not until wind energy reaches 20% of the
grid mix, will wind energy variability influence spinning reserves. This page leads to several
references. Profits are made by corporations
that are outside the province:
The Regan/Thatcher era started a global sweep of privatisation that removed
most local control of energy distribution and generation. Most of our large energy infrastructure is
now privatized, including nuclear facilities. This reality has nothing to do
with the wind farm debate. The FIT
program of the GEA attempts to bring some small energy profits into community
energy projects and to home owner’s hands. Debunking Debunk
One: Writer and
researcher Paul Gipe, addresses the conventional NIMBY messages. Gipe opens with: While it isn't humanly
possible to keep up with all the myths, misperceptions, and outright lies
about renewable energy and especially wind energy by those wed to fossil
fuels, here are a few links that shed light on the facts. Please read Gipe at: http://tinyurl.com/pzxypb Debunk
Two: The Department of Business and Regulatory Reform of UK has
produced a report entitled, WindPower, 10 Myths Explained. Debunk
Three: Our
neighbours on Amherst Island have a great page at http://www.whywind.org/index.html Debunk
Four: Local Green Alternate Plan Challenges
Green Energy Act (GAP VS GEA) A recent
concept is the Green Alternate Plan
GAP. It is presented as a replacement
for our government’s Green Energy Act (GEA).
A casual reader might be given the impression that with more
conservation and local homes equipped with solar panels, and a small windmill
or two, we eliminate the need for wind farms. The GAP
proposal was explained at the PEC open council meeting on May 28/09. The presentation was made by Ian Hannah,
one of three GAP developers, and was delivered in a professional manner. Many council members appeared to believe
that a vigorous program to install home energy systems of wind and solar
could actually eliminate the need for large scale wind farms. In terms of
energy scale, this would be like developing a scooter when you could develop
a needed bus. Scooters are useful and
a positive help, but will not have a significant impact in our shift from
fossil fuels. Moreover, the Feed In Tariff (FIT) program of the Green Energy Act already goes a long
way to promoting small scale home energy development. The GEA, along with existing government
conservation programs make most of GAP redundant. George
Knight of Big Island PEC makes a comparison that shows the enormous energy
gap between industrial wind farms and home energy possibilities. Click
here. An opinion
on GAP from outside the County comes
from Dr. Helmut Burkhardt (Professor
Emeritus Physics, Ryerson University) “Don,
that website is an impressive effort, and very dangerous, because the
nonsense of the content is not at all clear to the casual reader. One
example, the Denmark 'experience': "Wind power doesn't reduce CO2
emissions, costs consumers more and kills jobs". Totally wrong! In the fine print toward the end they show their
colours, when they say that Ontario is different from Denmark, as we get most
of our electricity from 'carbon free' nuclear power. Yes, I agree, the
nuclear industry may be supporting their effort.” Please
Note: If we prevent industrial scale wind
development, and if we stop fossil fuel use, what does that leave? Nuclear!!
Is this the non renewable option you wish to leave our children? Busy
Ontario adults with an interest in social issues and the politics of change
have a lot to deal with: economic uncertainty, sustainability, health care,
food and family. We are vulnerable to the message that suggests that we can
have our energy cake without wind farms.
The GAP plan certainly is appealing in that it helps support denial of
today’s issues of major significance that adults need to discuss and deal
with. You may
hear NIMBYists open a statement by repeating something like, “We support
green energy and wind energy...”.
However, for industrial scale turbines they demand setbacks from 1.5
to 2 kl. But in the great lakes basin,
where the maximum wind is, and highest rural populations, this makes wind
farm development close to impossible or at least impractical: Which it, of
course, the NIMBY goal. >> Issue
avoidance You are unlikely to hear a wind NIMBYist
say something like: “In order
to fill our looming energy gap, more uranium must be mined, more atomic
reactors must be built, more radioactive tailings will pollute the
countryside, more spent fuel rods will have no safe place for storage, which
will continue to be a problem for future generations.” Future
generations are simply not an issue for the NBY1 group as they expect there
will be none. And NBY2 seem unlikely
to have considered the issue.
Nevertheless, when asked about the energy gap, “Go Nuclear” has been
the usual APPEC answer up until the invention of GAP, the comprehensive
magical substitute for the GEA, as noted above. Extreme
focus Many people have a fondness for birds, and
PEC is a particularly good birding area.
Early in this NIMBY campaign birds were one point of extreme focus
with: “windmills kill bird” as subject of dozens of letters to the local
editors. But then along came Dr. Lyle Friesen, Canada’s specialist from Canadian Wildlife Service, who put the
issue in perspective at a public meeting sponsored by the local Environmental Advisory Committee. Dr. Friesen stated that yes, windmills do
kill some birds, but, “the
impacts to birds simply are not there”.
The count is so small compared to any other human activity that
they plan to stop monitoring wind farms because it is a waste of time. The extreme focus has now moved to another
issue close to home, human health. Medical
& Noise complaints An Ontario
examination of the issue by a medical team, indicate that the, “Wind Farm Syndrome” is based on a
gathering of reported effects by individuals but is not recognized by the
medical community as an illness. http://www.wind-works.org/LargeTurbines/Health%20and%20Wind%20by%20C-K%20Health%20Unit.pdf Why so much
noise about wind? Life is full of
choices, four doctors argue, and wind turbines are more healthy than the
alternatives Toronto Globe and Mail July 13/09 Doctors
John Howard, Warren Bell, Alan Abelsohn and Cathy Vakil The time for that choice is now. Do we allow our health
to suffer by continuing to rely on coal? Do we gamble on nuclear? Or do we
choose a less harmful path toward renewable energy? How do we compare a
simple annoyance and obstructed views with the suffering of hundreds of
thousands? Our diagnosis is clear - Ontario needs renewable energy, including
wind turbines.
Dr. Howard and Dr. Bell are chair and past founding president,
respectively, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
Dr. Abelsohn and Dr. Vakil are CAPE board members.
On October
21/09, Ontario’s Medical Officer of Health,
Dr. Arlene King stated publically that there are no known health risks
from wind turbines. In data
from Europe, a survey was done of many wind farms by University of
Gothenburg, “Project Wind Farm Perceptions: Visual and Acoustic impact of
Wind Farms on Residents in Holland.” http://tinyurl.com/pu88zn (Very long). Page 6 of the study states: “Attitude and economic involvement of
respondents Almost all respondents (92%) were
satisfied with their living environment, though many reported changes for the
better and changes for the worst. One in two respondents was (very) positive
towards wind turbines in general, but only one in five were (very) positive
towards their impact on the landscape scenery.” Page
7 of the study states: “Health
effects There is
no indication that the sound from wind turbines had an effect on respondents’
health, except for the interruption of sleep. At high levels of wind turbine
sound (more than 45 dba) interruption of sleep was more likely than at low
levels. Higher levels of background sound from road traffic also increased the
odds for interrupted sleep. “Annoyance
from wind turbine sound was related to difficulties with falling asleep and
to higher stress scores. From this study it cannot be concluded whether these
health effects are caused by annoyance or vice versa or whether both
are related to another factor.” A later paragraph indicated that
anyone who found windmills visibly offensive would be more likely to be
affected by sound also. If you have
been led to believe that complaints about wind farms in Europe is a very large
issue, this is not supported by recent university and government studies
indicating the vast majority of wind farms operate with no complaints
whatsoever. New report eases concerns over wind turbine noise “A
comprehensive study by Salford University has concluded that the noise
phenomenon known as aerodynamic modulation (AM) is not an issue for the UK’s
wind farm fleet. AM
indicates aerodynamic noise from wind turbines that is greater than the
normal degree of regular fluctuation of blade swoosh. It is sometimes
described as sounding like a distant train or distant piling operation. The
Government commissioned work assessed 133 operational wind projects across
Britain and found that although the occurrence of AM cannot be fully predicted,
the incidence of it from operational turbines is low. Commentating
on wind farm worries, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said: “Where
there are legitimate problems we will address them. But it is essential that we produce more wind power if we are to meet
our climate change and security of supply aims.” Out
of all the working wind farms at the time of the study, there were four cases
where AM appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for three out of
these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form
of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent
installation, investigations are ongoing. “Based
on these findings, Government does not consider there to be a compelling case
for more work into AM and will not carry out any further research at this
time; however it will continue to keep the issue under review.” http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file31270.pdf
Another
independent study comes from the U.K. Dept. Of Trade and Industry. It covers low frequency noise and infrasound/health issues. The first paragraph indicates of the 126
wind farms studied only 5 received complaints of a low frequency noise issue.
Therefore such complaints are the exception rather than a general problem for
all wind farms. Setbacks to homes in the survey
areas were from 17 meters to 2 kl. (17 meters is just beside the base!) <<<<<<>>>>>>
NBY1=Hopeless PWE1=Hopeful
From polarize to compromise Responsible citizens will have to
examine
What is important?
What do your children, grandchildren say? They have a greater stake in the
future than us. Is there room for comprise in the
middle? The Green Energy Act can be seen
here. Words worth repeating: In the end ... success or failure
will come down to an ethical decision, one on which those now living will be
judged for generations to come. Edward
O. Wilson, Scientist >>>>> This web page has been drafted by
Don Chisholm, and has been a team effort from others in the County
Sustainability Group Energy Team. Latest revision date Aug. 10/08 This is intended to be public
information. Permission is granted to forward to
others. Please review our main page at http://www.countysustainability.ca >>>>> Recommended
reading: An essay, Lumberjacks in Eden, by Peter Hall: http://www.hunterhall.com.au/content/upload/files/Lumberjacks_in_Eden.pdf Why smart
people do stupid things: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/feature/why-people-are-irrational-kurt-kleiner/ |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
