Doctors support turbines, criticize fossil, nuclear options

Orangeville Citizen

August 09, 2012

By WES KELLER

Freelance Reporter

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) is describing Health Canada’s study of health impacts from wind turbines as “superfluous (and) a waste of time and a waste of public funds.”

“It’s curious Health Canada has taken an interest in studying the health impacts of something as benign as wind energy when for years health and environment experts have been cautioning about the negative impacts of fossil fuels on human health,” Farrah Khan of CAPE says.

CAPE says a 2010 Ontario study “reviewed 40 years of scientific research on wind turbines and human health.”

It noted that the report by Chief Medical Officer Arlene King report concluded that “the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.”

“She also found that ‘community engagement at the outset of planning for wind turbines is important and may alleviate health concerns about wind farms.’ This puts any physiological impact from the very ordinary sound of a windmill into serious doubt.”

Community involvement was at the heart of the plan for what has become Dufferin Wind Power, originally totally owned by a group of Melancthon farmers and 401 Energy of Markham but now owned largely by a Chinese company.

Much of the criticism levelled by opponents of that development centres on foreign ownership, but the alleged health impacts haven’t been forgotten. Persons affected say they are genuinely ill since the advent of other wind farms in the area.

A question asked at a recent information meeting was, in effect, “If the turbines didn’t cause the illness, why did we become ill after they went into operation?”

A multi-disciplinary study commissioned by the Canadian and American wind energy associations recently found that the most serious effect on nearby residents was “annoyance.” And the degree of annoyance was related to how the person felt about turbines prior to development.

On the other hand, according to CAPE, “Canada’s health community is shocked at the growing evidence of illness connected to the fossil fuels industry. In 2009, the Alberta Cancer Board reported cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan, downstream from the tar sands, were 30 per cent higher than expected.”

CAPE quotes the Ontario Clean Air Alliance as saying that in 2009, coal plants in the province “were connected to 246 deaths, 342 hospital admissions, 406 costly emergency room visits and almost 123,000 illnesses such as asthma attacks.”

While turbine health impacts continue to be debated, CAPE says the health impacts of coal are a certainty.

It is also critical of the health risks posed by nuclear radioactive waste. “Spent fuel remains highly toxic and radioactive for thousands of years. But nuclear reactors, even in their normal day-to-day operations, emit radiation. A 2008 German government study found an elevated risk of leukemia for children living within five kilometres of the country’s 16 nuclear plants.”

Although preferring wind energy, CAPE acknowledges that any form of energy production inevitably has some negative impact on the plane, noting that wind turbines are not perfect, generate some sound and their appearance is not pleasing to everyone.

“But coal-fired generating stations, nuclear power plants and the tar sands all contribute to serious illness.

“We’re comparing a minor annoyance from the sound of blowing wind to the severity of cancer, asthma and brain damage. Our energy choices do impact our health and renewables like wind are our safest bets,” CAPE concludes.

Health Canada study having no effect yet on wind farms

Orangeville Banner

July 26, 2012

By WES KELLER

Freelance Reporter

In the face of calls for a moratorium on wind turbines pending the outcome of Health Canada’s study of alleged human health issues, Quebec has announced a fourth call for tenders for the commissioning of a new 700-megawatt wind energy block.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) says the federal health study is unwarranted “because the balance of scientific and medical evidence to date clearly concludes that sound from wind turbines does not adversely impact human health.”

CanWEA says Québec Premier Jean Charest has reaffirmed “his government’s commitment to renewable energy by seeking to attain the 4,000-MW objective set in its 2006-2015 energy strategy.”

“The vast majority of Canadians choose wind energy as a top source for clean and safe new electricity,” CanWEA said in a news release on the health issues. “When discussing an issue as important as our energy future we must look at the facts.

“It is clear that the balance of research and experience to date – including hundreds of thousands of people living and working near wind turbines in 89 countries around the world – concludes that wind energy does not adversely impact human health,” said Chris Forrest, vice-president of Communications.

It cites reports by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, the National Public Health Institute in Quebec, and most recently by an expert panel report to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Department of the Environment, as evidence of no health impacts.

“An Oracle Research poll conducted this year found that 78 per cent of Ontarians believe that wind energy is one of the safest forms of electricity generation. According to Dr.

Robert Oliphant, President and CEO of the Asthma Society of Canada, ‘In all forms, renewable energy is a safe and healthy alternative to fossil fuels’.”

But critics, such as the Melancthon residents opposing a Dufferin Wind Power (DWP) project, remain unconvinced of the reliability of studies to date.

At a Horning’s Mills information session Tuesday, a DWP panelist was chided for citing only positive findings of studies on turbines and health. His response was that the studies he had named had already reviewed the published negative materials.

There, the main thrust of questions on health could be expressed as, “if turbines don’t affect health, why are people getting sick after they are in operation?”

Jeff Hammond of DWP reiterated that causation hadn’t been proven. He said DWP “has to build a safe wind farm. We’ll follow the rules.”

Apart from health, there was an accusation that DWP wants to buy the former CP Rail corridor, and that it has an agreement with The Highland Companies.

Both allegations were denied. DWP, said Mr. Hammond, is simply negotiating an easement beside the rail bed. He said there has been no corporate contact with Highland.

Someone asked why the county is taking over the Melancthon landfill. Mayor Bill Hill, who was in the audience, was called on to respond that the county is not taking over any dumps but merely the collection of waste. He said he had no idea where the allegation had originated.

What happens when a turbine catches fire? Other than using the automatic internal extinguishers, you just let it burn itself out.

A frequently asked question centres on decommissioning at the end of the 20-year contract.

The meeting was told that if decommissioning should occur, the turbines, towers and some underground cables would be removed and the base cut away below grade. This would all be funded through securities DWP is posting.

But Mr. Hammond said it is more likely that the turbines would be replaced with newer, more efficient ones, and the contract renewed.

Dufferin Wind Pioneers II

We're continuing to post the letters from the investors (also landowners) of the Dufferin Wind project.  We believe that their words say so much more than those of the people who are opposed to the project.

Dufferin Wind Pioneers

Dufferin Wind Power is probably the largest community originated wind project in Ontario, if not Canada.  You can learn more about it here.

It's quite a story of local farmers getting together to collectively develop the resource blowing over their farms.  It's also a great story of how people can become committed towards wind power when they are the ones who initiate the project and contribute their own capital.

As a tribute to these people, we are going to publish the letters that they wrote to their local municipal and county representatives in support of granting their project's access to local road and rail allowances.  Each letter is different in perspective and tone, so we'd recommend that you read each one.  It's an amazing testimony as to how rural entrepreneurs organize themselves, assume financial risk and find the right people to help them achieve their goals.

There are a large number of these testimonials, and each is different, so we'll dedicate a number of blog entries to this theme.

Click on each image to read it in full size.