AIM is at it again!


If you took these complaints seriously, these turbines would be shut down. Plain and simple. All of the documentation you say you have read and are supposedly forwarding to the MOE, I have listed in the hopes that the MPP’s I have copied, will read and understand how you and the wind industry misconstrues and mislead the residents, gov’t officials and public in general, with said documents. This continual mantra of “no adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly connected to wind turbine noise”.(Pederson & Waye) completely ignores the fact that within this same study, a recommendation that further investigation is needed because there is no scientific evidence that wind turbines do not cause adverse health effects. Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence which shows absence. In the case of IWT’s it is not about how much low frequency sound is emitted; it is about whether, what is emitted can cause adverse health effects. Without a full epidemiological study, neither the MOE nor the wind industry can conclude that ILFN is insignificant. Instead of taking this seriously, you David Timm and your cohorts allow residents to cowtail to the developer and without ressources or any kind of advocacy from their own gov’t representatives,. they must continue to live and try to prove that they are indeed suffering while you continue to claim you are within MOE guidelines. As for the MOE, they must cowtail to the industry parameters they adopted, and AIM is allowed to continue operating these turbines. There is not even a proper dispute protocol to follow and just recently at the Wolfe island gathering, where residents within this project were not included in the opening ceremony, Minister Gerretsen “said his government will introduce legislation to help people living near turbines with their complaints and concerns. There will be an appeal mechanism to prove serious health issues are involved. It’s coming,” When Minister Gerretsen? How many people or formal complaints do you need before this is in place. How long will the people of Norfolk, Amaranth, Melancthon, Chatham/Kent will need to suffer before IWT’s be shut down to stop this suffering? Gerretsen likened wind turbines to the introduction of hydroelectric power and transmission lines a century ago. This kind of statement completely discounts the suffering the Norfolk Victims of Wind are experiencing right now. When did people suffer from having hydro electrical power and transmission. Seems to me the advent of electricity allowed the improvement of life allowing people to prosper. How are industrial wind turbines doing this?? Is it through the 1.1% improvement in our C02 emissions wind will provide, or the 3% increase in our electrical needs after introducing over 5000MW of wind energy? All this at 3 times the cost of conventional electricity. What the Ontario government has done by silencing all objections to the siting of wind turbines is deeply immoral and dangerous to both people and the environment. Look at what neighboring governments have done instead. “Yes to wind development, but not … at any price” Q & A with Nathalie Normandeau, Quebec Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources And Wildlife Marian Scott The Montreal Gazette I can tell you, for our government, there is no question of imposing a project on a community that doesn’t want it. For us, the principle of social acceptability is a sacred principle. There is no question of ramming projects down people’s throats if they do not have wide acceptance in the community. Read More…

AIM’s response

To be clear, AIM is not discounting any complaints nor offering insults to the complainants within our project areas. In fact we take these issues very seriously. That is why we are in discussions with the MOE regarding the issues and next steps; why we are meeting with the resident to get a better understanding of the nature of the complaints; and why we are reviewing our operational data to cross-reference timing of the complaints with the timing of operations. We have a regulatory requirement under our Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act to act and investigate all complaints. The MOE is providing direction on these matters as they are the experts and the regulatory authority on these matters. Thank you for sending the reports through again. I am aware of all of them. As I believe the MOE is through the most recent review of noise issues related to wind turbine as part of the year-long review of their noise guidelines in 2008 and during the development of the GEA/REA process throughout much of 2009. I will send these through to contacts at the MOE to ensure that they are aware of them. Regarding our knowledge of complaints at the Erie Shores wind farm. While we do not own the project anymore we are still in contact with the operators, landowners, and municipalities associated with the project. Our SOP projects are adjacent to Erie Shores and we are in constant contact with MacQuarrie and others to share information, ideas and discussions. So when we discussed complaints at Erie Shores with you at our last meeting in July 2008 we were quite confident in the information that we provided to you. sincerely,

Response to AIM

Dear David

You are correct that you were not aware of any complaints regarding the Erie Shore project which was in commission at the time we met to discuss my concerns regarding Industrial Wind turbines. I believe however that this is mostly based on the fact that AIM was no longer the owner of this project. It should be noted also that in my efforts to inquire with local residents/ victims within this area, these people were not aware of the process (what little exists with the company and MOE) available to them regarding complaints. On top of that, the municipal council surrounding Port Burwell did not provide for a dispute protocol for it’s residents mostly based on a huge assumption that IWT’s do not cause adverse health effects and the constant reassurances by the wind industry that noise is non existing for residents living within other projects all across Europe and North America. Granted you may have not been able to relate these more recent complaints to me, at the time of our meeting in Feb. 2008, however as a person who is facing a future AIM wind project, nothing was related to me as to how AIM will handle such complaints. In fact when I originally wrote to AIM about what can a resident do to get a noise complaint addressed a letter dated to me Feb. 22/2008 by Ms. Elizabeth Fennelle indicated the following: AIM is not guaranteeing that there will be no noise at houses, as turbines do emit a certain level of noise…. If a noise complaint is received the developer will have to test the noise levels at the particular turbine. If a turbine is found to be non-compliant the turbine will be put into reduced operations until the problem can be rectified. If the problem cannot be rectified the turbine will have to operate in reduced operations as dictated by MOE. No wind farms in Ontario have failed the follow noise testing to date. It was calculated that noise levels at all receptors in and around the Harrow Wind Farm are within the permissible levels set by the MoE. If, once the wind farm is constructed, noise at houses are demonstrated to be above permissible levels, a complaint can be formulated and directed to the Ministry of the Environment. Nowhere is outlined how a complaint is formulated and brought forth to the MOE. As for indicating your noise assessment is within MOE guidelines, this does not address the several complaints I have recently come across in your project areas including Mr. and Mrs S . By simply stating that your project is within MOE guideline are you therefore suggesting that these people complaints are not valid or untrue? In my attempts to inform myself on noise assessments done by Industrial wind developers I have become aware that 1) wind developers do not assess for infrasound, and low frequency noise (ILFN) (i.e dBC) Infrasound is generally at wave lengths below levels perceptible by the human ear, but there are several studies that show that these are still perceived and are being linked to conditions such as VAD (VibroAcoustic Disease). (N. A. A. Castelo Branco Center for Human Performance, Alverca, Portugal and, M. Alves-Pereira New University of Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal) Vibroacoustic Disease and Wind Turbine Syndrome (Nina Pierpont ) 2) the present MOE noise guidelines for wind development does not consider the effects of ILFN despite the WHO Guideline on Community Noise (Berglund’s review 2000)indicating that: “Where noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided. When the noise is composed of a large proportion of low-frequency sounds a still lower guideline value is recommended, because low frequency noise (e.g. from ventilation systems) can disturb rest and sleep even at low sound pressure levels. Guidelines for Community Noise, edited by Birgitta Berglund, Thomas Lindwall, Dietrich H. Schewela WHO 1999. This document also confirms that ILFN are emitted from many artificial sources such as Wind Turbines. 3) the wind industry discounts these complaints as simple annoyance by referencing a study in Denmark (Pederson and Waye) which indicates other than annoyance no adverse health effects could be directly connected to wind turbine noise. The industry forgets to related how these documents also reveal: · Annoyance represents 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. · This survey reviewed a dose response using strictly the dBA scale. · 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. · 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. · 15% of the people being highly annoyed by the noise occurred at 38 dBA for wind turbines, 57 dBA for aircraft, 63 dBA for road traffic, and 70 dBA for railways. · at 41 dBA, 35% of people were highly annoyed. · 16% of respondents with sound levels outside of their homes over 35 dBA, reported that their sleep was disturbed by wind turbine noise. · 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. · 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. 4) Information from DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a government department in the UK which commissioned the University of Salford to develop criteria and methodology for the assessment of low frequency noise complaints) indicates (within the following document frequency) that “An additional factor is that ‘sensitization’ to low frequency sound often occurs over time, leaving the sufferer more aware of the sound and unable to shut it out or get used to it. Instead, the sound may grow in importance until it can become all-consuming. It is not fully understood why, but this effect tends to happen more with low frequency sounds than other sounds. Therefore, a brief visit to a property affected by low frequency noise does not always give an adequate impression of what it is like to live with the sound, making evaluation even more difficult. 5) There is also evidence showing that noise levels vary with different weather conditions which appear to be “influencing large modern wind turbines more than older ones”. (Wind Farm Perception—A Study on Acoustic and Visual Impact of Wind Turbines on Residents in the Netherlands. Eja Pedersen, Jelte Bouma, Roel Bakker, and Frits van den Berg). 6) The Ontario Government noise guidelines prior to October 2008, allowed families including infants, children and seniors to be bombarded with 53 dBA of industrial noise pollution. Subsequent to October 2008 when the guidelines were adjusted to include points of reception within 1.5 km, the Ontario Government reduced the maximum limit to 51dBA. Under the new proposed Renewable Energy approval process, this is now further reduced to the limit of 40dBA. Despite this indication that the MOE Noise guidelines are clearly flawed, the industry continually relate that noise concerns have been adequately considered. 7) the MOE noise assessments done by Env. Officers from Hamilton region for Mr. Seeliger were conducted for approx. 20 mins on 3 occasions. Full noise studies which determine the actual noise output of a wind project include a minimum of a week of noise monitoring with readings taken @ 10 min. intervals, inside the house as well as outside. Did AIM conduct such a monitoring, if so would it be possible to get a copy so that I may get an independent review of the data? In stating that the project was not operational this last week leads one to believe that Mr. Seeliger is “making-up” the problems he and his wife are experiencing with noise. It is also not clear if Mr. Seeliger’s complaint was lodge during this time. In closing David, I can see that noise complaints are not being handled very well by either the wind industry or MOE and your eluding that Mr. and Mrs Seeliger could not be suffering simply because AIM’s wind project is within MOE guidelines is at best insulting. I hope the MPP’s copied in this correspondence will take action on this type of negligence and discounting of real suffering people within these projects are experiencing

Signed Rural Grubby  

Thank you for your email. Just to clarify, the last time that Mike and I met with you at your house was July 10th, 2008. At that time the Clear Creek Wind Farm, the project subject to the complaints, was not yet operational (it did not reach commercial operation until November 2008). The first complaint from Mr. Seeliger was not received until March 2009. To that end, we have been in contact with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) regarding Mr. Seeliger’s earlier complaints and the Clear Creek wind farm’s operations were found to be in compliance with our Certificate of Approval. We have contacted the MOE regarding the most recent complaints to request direction. As referenced in my most recent correspondence with Mr. Seeliger, we are at a loss as to the nature of sound emissions that are being reported as the Clear Creek wind farm has not been operational for most of the past week due to low wind speeds. The wind speeds have been in the range of 1-2.5 m/s, the turbines require 4 m/s to begin generating. I hope this helps to clarify some of the issues. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. cheers. Dave —— Vice President, Strategic Affairs AIM PowerGen (o) 416.502.0993 ext. 234 (c) 647.519.8466 (e) (w)

My original message to AIM Powergen based on the new knowledge that people are now suffering in Norfolk county.   

Hello Mike Crawley, Despite expressing my concerns to you about noise issues, you sat across my dining room table and vowed that there have been no complaints with your Industrial wind projects. The attached message from Virginia and Bert S.  is obviously someone you forgot to relate. 

The following message imploring someone to help has gone out almost every day this week. Does anyone in this government have the power to shut these offensive and debilitating turbines down? Does anyone at AIM PowerGen care enough to look into and solve this problem TODAY? Do you need to keep torturing people in their own homes instead of putting honest answers on the table and taking action to solve this situation created by govt. and wind companies that so many are trying to cope with in rural Ontario? Message sent every day last week but one.  Until we have a response from the government with an indication that they are aware of the problem and are taking steps to remedy it, we will resend this message whenever the intrusive noise and pressure from the IWTs affects our well-being. Virginia and Bert S.


3 responses to “AIM is at it again!

  1. It was noted to me by a victim that yes, big change is difficult for some people to accept, and yes, one would hope that we have learned lessons from previous introductions of new technology, however, none of that changes the fact that people are suffering and wind turbines are the cause and wind companies continue to deny it, and our gov’t continues to turn a blind eye”. This was noted to me based on the possibility that there were problably growing pains when electricity was introduced and more than likely people suffered or were even killed by electricity because of lack of knowledge on how to set-up transmission systems etc. however we should note that when this knowledge was revealed, changes were made. Changes are not happening in this case.

  2. rural grubby it looks like the windies are upset with you the way they’ve been disagreeing with your comments. They sure don’t like people who stand up for their civil liberties and their right to an opinion that windfarms are harmful to residents

  3. I think you are right. bd. Haven’t had the time to respond to some of the messages but a recent message from the famous Gena calls me a lost souls who is soundly defeated through common sense because (she/he) acuses me of being against driving, cooking, climbing up a ladder based on statistics which Gena possesses to indicated that these activities are more dangerous than wind turbines. Contributors such as Gena forget the fact that risks such as driving are within our control and are easily mitigated. Turbines on the other hand, there is no choice for those living within the vacinity and there is enough information out there on low frequency noise to indicate there are real health problems.
    Thanks for your comments

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s