Wind opponents preparing to become sick

In the last few months, a flyer appeared in the mailboxes of residents near the Plateau wind projects in Grey Highlands.  Click on the image to view it full size.

The flyer is not signed but it does reference windvigilence.com, a website where there are pages and pages suggesting what symptoms you are expected to begin suffering.

Strangely enough, those types of suggestions have been proven to influence people to the point where they start to exhibit the symptoms.  It's called the nocebo effect and has been observed with radio frequency sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, fluoridation, vaccination, etc.

Here's another article that shows how prevalent the effect is, even regarding the expectations of the food we eat.  It also highlights a few historical examples:

● In a study in the early 1980s, 34 college students were told an electric current would be passed through their heads, and the researchers warned that the experience could cause a headache. Though not a single volt of current was used, more than two-thirds of the students reported headaches.

● Drinking water fluoridation was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945. Calls began coming in to city offices from people complaining of sore gums and peeling tooth enamel. One woman even claimed that all her teeth had fallen out. These calls arrived in early January, when some press reports had stated that fluoridation would begin, but some weeks before the actual advent of fluoridation on January 25.

● Call it fear of spraying. In one study researchers spewed distilled water from planes over residential neighborhoods without telling anyone what the spray contained. The intent was to gauge public phobia of chemicals. Sure enough, the experimenters were soon deluged with complaints from frightened folks who claimed the spray was causing cows to abort, dogs to shed and children to get sick…

● A Paris household blamed three installed cell phone antennas in their area for causing headaches, nosebleeds and a metallic taste in the mouths of some residents. The one problem with this complaint—the antennas were never activated.

So, you'd think that the wind opponents would want to find a solid scientific basis on which to make their claims.  The University of Waterloo has assembled a team of health professionals under the direction of Dr. Bigelow and Dr. McColl, professors at the School of Public Health and Health Systems:

“We’ve assembled a multidisciplinary team in order to carry out one of the first in-depth

clinical and epidemiological assessments on the human health effects of both audible and low

frequency sound from wind turbines,” explains Bigelow. “By including nursing professionals

and other specialized health expertise on the team, we’re hoping to use clinical and biological

markers of stress to examine the association of exposure to wind turbine noise with sleep

disturbances, fatigue, headache, depression, and other psychophysiological problems.”

This would appear to be exactly what wind opponents were looking for.  However, in an email dated November 10, 2011 Ian Hanna, Chair Wind Concerns Ontario, stated:

Wind Concerns Ontario has become aware that Siva Sivoththaman PhD, the Research Chair tasked with the assignment of researching the potential adverse health effects of renewable energy mainly wind turbines, and members of his team have begun trying to survey rural Ontario residents and conduct noise measurement studies.

WCO strongly recommends that you do not participate in these activities. 

Does that mean that this flyer and its results is intended to replace the University of Waterloo study?  What data would you trust?

Ombudsman clears International Power and Grey Highlands Council

On June 27, 2011, Grey Highlands Council was scheduled to receive two draft by-laws involving a number of permits and agreements with Plateau Wind Inc.  Apparently, during the lunch hour, members of Council and a member of the Grey Highlands staff were seen having lunch together with persons from Plateau Wind (International Power) at a local restaurant.

Subsequently, a complaint was lodged with the Ontario Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman released his report on September 21.  To view the complete copy of his response, click here.

In his report, the Ombudsman observes ....

"According to the information provided to our Office, three members of IPC arrived at the same restaurant where you were having lunch, shortly after you arrived.  They were invited to join you at your table.  We understand that the discussions that took place over lunch were mainly casual in nature, but that some of the conversation may have involved general discussions about the wind turbine project.  We also understand that the items that were on the agenda for the June 27 afternoon Council session were not discussed over lunch."

.... and then concludes ....

"Under the circumstances, we did not conclude that the lunch gathering constituted a "meeting" for the purpose of s. 239 of the Act.  When we spoke on September 21, however, we noted that Council members meeting informally could attract speculation about the nature of the discussions taking place, particularly when those discussions take place in close proximity to official council meetings.  Council members should be vigilant in ensuring that a casual social conversation does not drift into improper areas."