Monthly Archives: September 2010
Here’s a fun survey to fill out for the Ministry of Energy and infrastructure. For once a survey that lets you write your answers!
Concerned about the Bornish Wind Development? Be sure to attend the municipal candidate’s debate to ask questions and make an informed decision on who to vote for in the upcoming municipal election.
North Middlesex All-Candidates Debate
Date: October 7th
Place: Ailsa Craig Community Centre Read the rest of this entry
On Monday September 20th, the large turnout of 80+ residents to the Adelaide-Metcalfe council chambers certainly influenced the decision of council to defer voting on the land severance application for NextEra. Note that it can be submitted again, or it will be put forward in another form or another property.
Stopping this severance does NOT stop the Bornish or Adelaide Wind Developments. It DOES send a powerful message to council that residents object to special privilege for wind companies. No matter that the planner tried to explain it as another special effect of the Green Energy Act, the severance blatantly ignores farmland preservation, one of the primary purposes of the official plan. The severance simply addresses the company’s request for land. The “Industrial” effects of this facility (noise, stray voltage, etc.) are conveniently left for “later study”. There is a basic issue of fairness here, because the serious consequences of the development are not discussed at all. Residents clearly stated these at the council meeting: Read the rest of this entry
The real liability of industrial wind turbines has never been proven. Using comparables, here is a simple analysis of the situation:
If we become injured or ill we all look for a reason. If we can find a cause, then the owner of the cause becomes responsible (liable). That seems to be simple reasoning in law. In those cases, case law exists and will prevail.
But here is where the problem starts with industrial wind turbines, because of the new fangled term “green” that has been given to them. We do not look at the real problem here, and I don’t mean whether those things are really green or not. This is not the point at this time. We are discussing what happens if someone gets injured or becomes ill due to wind turbines. Then the question becomes, who is liable?
Currently, it seems to be fashionable to call anyone who claims illness from industrial turbines “a lunatic or crazy”. That can and will not last. It used to be fine to use DDT or asbestos. It used to be safe and fine to smoke in the presence of non-smokers. The court will decide otherwise regarding the health effects of industrial wind.
The industrial turbines that are being built are for the most part built by companies who lease the land from the landowner. The landowner has a contract in place with the industrial wind turbine company to lease the land to these companies to build turbines. If I get injured or ill because of turbines, then I have the right to start legal proceedings. My question is, why would I sue the industrial wind turbine company? After all, the wind turbine is only a tenant. It could be that proceedings should start against the landowner. Let him deal with his tenants. The landowner is liable for property taxes. We know that the wind company will compensate the landowner for property taxes, but the landowner has to make sure that they get paid. Therefore, it could be reasoned out that any legal proceedings should start with the landowner. Read the rest of this entry
Ian Hanna explains his legal challenge against the Ontario Government to a large group in Clinton, Ontario. This lawsuit challenges the fact that the Ontario government did not follow the precautionary principal when implementing the Green Energy Act’s wind turbine setbacks to rural homes. If successful it will stop current planned projects and force proper medical studies which we are confident will lead to set-backs of a minimum of 1.5 – 2KM. This will kill many projects plus perhaps force rectification/compensation for built projects.
Dr. Robert McMurtry MD FRCSC FACS speaks to a large gathering in Clinton, Ontario about the health issues that are arising in Ontario homes that are close to wind turbine developments. He stresses that a full independent epidemiological study is needed before these developments are installed, but unfortunately the Ontario government is trying not to listen, and people continue to become ill. The only recourse left is to take the provincial government to court: Support the Ian Hanna Lawsuit.
Tracy Lamont from St. Columban, Ontario speaks to a crowd in the town of Clinton on September 16th, 2010. Tracy’s family is trying to sell their home because they know that their young son cannot tolerate the noise from the wind turbines that are proposed to be 550m from their home
September 3, 2010 7:49am
LUCAN — Dave Barr gazes up at the silver column standing in his driveway.
“I’m sure I’m going to tick a few of my neighbours off,” says the Lucan contractor. “But that’s OK.”
Frankly, Barr is hoping to tick off more than just a few neighbours.
Because when he’s finished, that pillar will stand nearly 11 metres tall — about the height of an average telephone pole. It’ll feature three 2.4-metre long propellers, a blinking red light and a big sign bearing one simple word: No.
In a ballsy bid to protest the province’s proposal to erect wind turbines in Lake Huron near his cottage, and convince other residents that such a wind farm will be an ugly eyesore, Barr is building his own replica of a wind turbine.
Using three cardboard tubes (normally used to mould concrete columns), laminated plywood (for the base and propellers) and reams of duct tape (to coat the columns in silver), Barr is building a mock turbine that he plans to erect on his Point Clark property Saturday.
Barr figures his fake turbine will give local residents an idea of what to expect if the provincial government goes ahead with its proposal to erect the turbines, which typically stand 150 metres high, in Lake Huron between Goderich and Kincardine. Ontario’s Environment Ministry has proposed a five-kilometre buffer between the turbines and shore.
“If people come onto my property and look past the (fake) turbine and out at the lake, it’ll show them what they’re going to see (if actual turbines are erected),” says Barr. Read the rest of this entry