The Media continues to be shills for the Wind Industry

This morning Aug. 24/09  John Divinski radio host for FM 98 www.98thebeach.ca had an interview with Robert Hornung, president of CanWEA.  He refused to have a counterpart debate by a representative of Wind Concerns Ontario.  Said the poor guy would not have received fair warning.   As John Divinski  himself put it, where there is smoke, there is  usually fire, and a hotbed of discontent probably means that  something is not quite right.  (Which is quite a lead in by one who 
sees himself obliged to be neutral.)  He left in the end requesting another show with Mr. Hornung because there was obvioulsy at lot of interest based on the number of calls.  I was very disappointed with Mr. Divinski’s lack of questions regarding the content of Mr. Hornung’s statements.  I sent this to the station.
To John Divinski
 
I missed the first part of your interview with Robert Hornung therefore apologize if some of my info. is not correctly related.
 
I caught the tale end of Robert’s statement indicating that their review (CanWEA) of the health issue in peer reviewed data does not substantiate that there are health problems coming from living near wind turbines,  have you ever thought that is because there is scant research indicating such.  Note:  an absence  of evidence is NOT the equivalent of evidence that shows absence
 
Perhaps we should be asking , what independent medical expertise does CanWEA possess to determine there are no potential public safety and health issues????  You are not dealing with someone with medical background  when Robert Hornung is speaking.  He is essentially  overstepping his professional bounds to suggest his conclusions are correct in his summation about people’s health.  
 
 
CanWEA likes also  to discount Nina Pierpont as non peer-reviewed data because she is simply not published (as of yet) in a medical journal.  If you visit her website you will see many of her peers (recognized medical authorities such as Owen Black)  have  endorsed of her work into Wind turbine syndrome   www.windturbinesyndrome.org.
 
If CanWEA referred to the  Dutch “Wind Farm Perception survey” Robert would have stated the following:  “In our study (Eja Pedersen and Persson Waye ) no adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly connected to wind turbine noise”.
 
What CanWEA forgets to relate to the public,  are several  points often overlooked when relaying the results of this survey:
  1. Annoyance represented a series of symptoms such as depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation, or exhaustion. Annoyance is an adverse heath effect according to the Berglund WHO Guideline for Community Noise.

  2. This survey reviewed a dose response using strictly the dBA scale.

  3. Only 26% of the nearby turbines were 1.5 MW or above, and 66% of them were smaller than 1 MW — whereas the turbines being built now are typically 2-2.5 MW. The future of wind turbines technology suggests even larger units up to 8 MW.  

  4. Only 9% of the respondents lived with an estimated noise level from the turbines of more than 45 dB outside of their homes, which is the maximum level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure that the inside level is 30 dB as required for sleeping.

  5. 15% of the people being highly annoyed by the noise occurred at 38 dBA(this level is below the MOE levels proposed in the new GEA)  for wind turbines, 57 dBA for aircraft, 63 dBA for road traffic, and 70 dBA for railways. This indicates that lower higher dBA readings for aircraft, road traffic and railways are needed to be equivalent in annoyance to wind turbine noise. 

  6. At 41 dBA, 35% of people were highly annoyed.

  7. 16% of respondents with sound levels outside of their homes over 35 dBA, reported that their sleep was disturbed by wind turbine noise.

  8. Pedersen found that some people had moved out of their homes, rebuilt their homes in an attempt to exclude turbine noise, or begun legal proceedings because of problems associated with turbine exposure.

  9. Pedersen and Persson Waye also found informants who were sensitive to both noise and blade motion, felt violated or invaded by turbine noise, and found their houses to be places where they could no longer find restoration.

As for suggesting that the anti-wind faction is small  vocal but well organized is completely off base.  These numerous people are a simple grass root coallition www.windconcernsontario.org funding out of their own pockets a campaign to inform the  public about industrial wind development and using our democratic right to question the value of what Big Wind will bring to their areas.   From my research,  it’s not much and quite  scary when one finds out how Canadian Hydro Developers have just recently bought out several homes (spending 1.75 million) in the Melancthon wind project area.   

Please note also the clever way Robert suggest that IESO supports wind.  IESO only relies on 10% of electricity coming from wind for the simple reason that relying on more risks the stability of the  grid because of wind’s intermittent nature.   Since IESO is  mandated by the Ministry of Energy’s to include renewables,  they have to consider wind in the mixture.  In order for them to include more,  they in turn have advised Minister Smitherman that Ontario’s  50 year old transmission system  will need upgrading.    This is a little different than an active support for wind energy by asking for upgraded transmission lines. 

As for Robert suggesting that wind has been procured competively on the energy market,  this is completely false.  Renewables are mandated by the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure to be a part of the energy profile in this province, which are in turn subsidized by you and me to the tune of 14cents/kWH (for wind)  80 cents for solar for the next 20 years. 

What energy source  deserves that especially when it can only deliver at best 25% of its nameplate capacity.    How about asking what is the true cost of wind compared to all of the other electricity sources?  How about asking how much GHG emissions will be saved by wind energy? and compare that to say Natural Gas replacing all coal generating plants.  Why can’t we link the public funding to this amount?  We need non-biased adjudication of the wind industry’s technical claims.  This certainly didn’t happen on your show today.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s