Showing posts with label Wind Turbines and Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wind Turbines and Health. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
Anti-Turbine Families Can Suck It Up
There's no way you are going to initiate a legal action without having been told what the costs might be if you lose. And if your case is a constitutional challenge based on a "novel reading of the law", you have almost certainly been told in addition that the chances of success are not large. These people are just trying to get out of paying the money they owe. I have no sympathy for them. Nor, I suspect, will the judge.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Strange Goings On In Ontario Anti-Wind Movement
A number of Ontario ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal) decisions were released just before Xmas; they can be found here. The results should no longer be surprising; forces opposing the development of wind farms in the province challenged several projects on grounds that they were dangerous to human health, and lost. However, one appeal--Gillespie v. Director, Ministry of the Environment-- contained a few elements novel enough to deserve some commentary.
The appellants in this case were John Gillespie and The Municipality of Bluewater, Mr. Gillespie being a town Councillor up there. One peculiarity was that, while Mr. Gillespie argued the "security of his person" was endangered due to the fact he lives "in proximity" to the proposed facility, he apparently did not supply the ERT with so much as a mailing address. From the decision:
[147] It is the Director’s position that the analysis of s. 7 involves two steps: first, the claimant must demonstrate that the legislation or state action deprives him or her of life, liberty or security of the person; and second, if the first step is met, the claimant must demonstrate that the deprivation is not in accordance with a principle of fundamental justice. The Director submits that the Appellant Gillespie fails on both steps.
[148] With respect to the first step, the Director argues that the Appellant Gillespie adduced no evidence about himself, where he lives or how his rights have been infringed.
And later on, when the Tribunal is discussing the reasoning behind its findings:
[170] The Tribunal now turns to the Director’s argument that the Appellant Gillespie, as the Charter claimant, adduced absolutely no evidence of how his rights have been infringed. In support of this position, the Director emphasizes that there is no evidence regarding who Mr. Gillespie is, where he lives, or even if he lives in the vicinity of the Project. The Director submits that for this reason alone, his Charter claim must fail.
It appears that Mr. Gillespie saw himself as a proxy, a kind of every-man representing the allegedly violated rights of other Bluewater residents, so these facts about his personal situation didn't matter However, according to the relevant law you aren't allowed to represent others; the evidence presented must be about you and your situation. So this aspect of Mr, Gillespie's appeal (a constitutional challenge under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) failed as a result.
More interesting were the circumstances around the testimony of Dr. Hazel Lynn, She co-authored Systematic Review 2013: Association Between Wind Turbines and Human Distress, a lit survey of papers dealing with the health effects of wind-turbines. It survived peer review to appear in the journal Cureos. This paper IMHO was not particularly useful, and its conclusions re the significance of annoyance (dubbed human distress in the text) as an impactor on human health were overstated. Nevertheless, this document, plus several other reports Dr. Lynn helped prepare, were the entire body of evidence relied upon by the appellants to make their case against the Grand Bend facility.
Therefore it is extremely worth noting Dr. Lynn did not want to be at this hearing, to the point where she suggested (through hired counsel) that she had no expertise in the relevant matters:
[18] The Approval Holder adopted the submissions of the Director. Dr. Lynn’s counsel submitted that Dr. Lynn herself does not believe she has the expertise to give opinion evidence in this proceeding and, as a result, her evidence would be of no benefit to the Tribunal, and, therefore, is unnecessary.
...Bearing in mind that Dr. Lynn was opposed to giving evidence and retained counsel to represent her in opposing the summons, the Tribunal finds that counsel for the Appellants made reasonable efforts to obtain a witness statement from Dr. Lynn and to provide the parties with as much information regarding her proposed testimony as he could reasonably be expected to obtain prior to the commencement of the hearing.
And it is interesting in light of this that the testimony Dr. Lynn provided was distinctly unhelpful to the Appellants. In fact she seems to have walked-back or at least de-emphasized the most important claims in her previous research. For example, the substitution of the concept of "human distress" for the concept of "annoyance" has drawn considerable criticism. Dr. Simon Chapman, an associate dean at the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, has argued that:
The authors chose to use the term “distress” instead of “annoyance". The American Medical Dictionary defines distress as 1. Mental or physical suffering or anguish or 2. Severe strain resulting from exhaustion or trauma. Annoyance on the other hand is defined as 1. The act of annoying or the state of being annoyed or 2. A cause of irritation or vexation; a nuisance. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000) and is generally identified as a highly subjective state in medical literature. It is clear that the authors chose a stronger term than was used by the majority of studies. Most literature refers to annoyance, while the referenced alternative of “Wind Turbine Syndrome” was coined in a vanity press published case study with extraordinary weaknesses of selection bias, methodology and analysis (17). Similarly, “extreme annoyance” is rarely used in the literature. Annoyance is by far the most commonly used term in the material referenced, so it is unclear why “distress” was chosen.
Similarly, at the ERT hearing itself, Dr. Kenneth Mundt argued for the wind farm project that:
...one of the most serious errors made by the authors was to manipulate the results of the
studies by combining a variety of self-reported symptoms into a new category that they
term “distress”, which, he asserts, is not a scientifically meaningful term, and obscures
the findings in some of the studies.
And in her (compelled) testimony before the ERT, Dr. Lynn basically admits this point:
[77] Dr. Lynn stated that she prefers to use the term “distress”, because a lay
person’s understanding of the term “annoyance” may be perceived as understating the
seriousness of people’s complaints. She indicated that she considered annoyance, in
relation to wind turbine noise, to be whether a person could hear and notice the noise.
She acknowledges that “distress” is a human term, not a research term.
And so on throughout. I would suggest that Ms. Lynn tried in her testimony to discourage any further use of her as a witness in tribunal hearings/court cases. And so Ontario's anti-wind forces continue to lose sources of expertise. Ms. Lynn's case is the first one where these losses have been "self inflicted", as it were, and not at the hands of an unsympathetic tribunal.
*
The appellants in this case were John Gillespie and The Municipality of Bluewater, Mr. Gillespie being a town Councillor up there. One peculiarity was that, while Mr. Gillespie argued the "security of his person" was endangered due to the fact he lives "in proximity" to the proposed facility, he apparently did not supply the ERT with so much as a mailing address. From the decision:
[147] It is the Director’s position that the analysis of s. 7 involves two steps: first, the claimant must demonstrate that the legislation or state action deprives him or her of life, liberty or security of the person; and second, if the first step is met, the claimant must demonstrate that the deprivation is not in accordance with a principle of fundamental justice. The Director submits that the Appellant Gillespie fails on both steps.
[148] With respect to the first step, the Director argues that the Appellant Gillespie adduced no evidence about himself, where he lives or how his rights have been infringed.
And later on, when the Tribunal is discussing the reasoning behind its findings:
[170] The Tribunal now turns to the Director’s argument that the Appellant Gillespie, as the Charter claimant, adduced absolutely no evidence of how his rights have been infringed. In support of this position, the Director emphasizes that there is no evidence regarding who Mr. Gillespie is, where he lives, or even if he lives in the vicinity of the Project. The Director submits that for this reason alone, his Charter claim must fail.
*
More interesting were the circumstances around the testimony of Dr. Hazel Lynn, She co-authored Systematic Review 2013: Association Between Wind Turbines and Human Distress, a lit survey of papers dealing with the health effects of wind-turbines. It survived peer review to appear in the journal Cureos. This paper IMHO was not particularly useful, and its conclusions re the significance of annoyance (dubbed human distress in the text) as an impactor on human health were overstated. Nevertheless, this document, plus several other reports Dr. Lynn helped prepare, were the entire body of evidence relied upon by the appellants to make their case against the Grand Bend facility.
Therefore it is extremely worth noting Dr. Lynn did not want to be at this hearing, to the point where she suggested (through hired counsel) that she had no expertise in the relevant matters:
[18] The Approval Holder adopted the submissions of the Director. Dr. Lynn’s counsel submitted that Dr. Lynn herself does not believe she has the expertise to give opinion evidence in this proceeding and, as a result, her evidence would be of no benefit to the Tribunal, and, therefore, is unnecessary.
At several points in the ERT decision, the same fact is raised again and again: Dr. Lynn did not appear voluntarily but as a result of a summons, which she fought:
And it is interesting in light of this that the testimony Dr. Lynn provided was distinctly unhelpful to the Appellants. In fact she seems to have walked-back or at least de-emphasized the most important claims in her previous research. For example, the substitution of the concept of "human distress" for the concept of "annoyance" has drawn considerable criticism. Dr. Simon Chapman, an associate dean at the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, has argued that:
The authors chose to use the term “distress” instead of “annoyance". The American Medical Dictionary defines distress as 1. Mental or physical suffering or anguish or 2. Severe strain resulting from exhaustion or trauma. Annoyance on the other hand is defined as 1. The act of annoying or the state of being annoyed or 2. A cause of irritation or vexation; a nuisance. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000) and is generally identified as a highly subjective state in medical literature. It is clear that the authors chose a stronger term than was used by the majority of studies. Most literature refers to annoyance, while the referenced alternative of “Wind Turbine Syndrome” was coined in a vanity press published case study with extraordinary weaknesses of selection bias, methodology and analysis (17). Similarly, “extreme annoyance” is rarely used in the literature. Annoyance is by far the most commonly used term in the material referenced, so it is unclear why “distress” was chosen.
Similarly, at the ERT hearing itself, Dr. Kenneth Mundt argued for the wind farm project that:
...one of the most serious errors made by the authors was to manipulate the results of the
studies by combining a variety of self-reported symptoms into a new category that they
term “distress”, which, he asserts, is not a scientifically meaningful term, and obscures
the findings in some of the studies.
And in her (compelled) testimony before the ERT, Dr. Lynn basically admits this point:
[77] Dr. Lynn stated that she prefers to use the term “distress”, because a lay
person’s understanding of the term “annoyance” may be perceived as understating the
seriousness of people’s complaints. She indicated that she considered annoyance, in
relation to wind turbine noise, to be whether a person could hear and notice the noise.
She acknowledges that “distress” is a human term, not a research term.
And so on throughout. I would suggest that Ms. Lynn tried in her testimony to discourage any further use of her as a witness in tribunal hearings/court cases. And so Ontario's anti-wind forces continue to lose sources of expertise. Ms. Lynn's case is the first one where these losses have been "self inflicted", as it were, and not at the hands of an unsympathetic tribunal.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Wind Farms In Court: Ontario Leads The Pack
Condensed from Mike Barnard's report:
Interestingly, Canada is by far the most litigious, and Ontario had almost 30% of the cases by itself. Belief in health impacts varies substantially by geography; where anti-wind groups are strongly pushing the idea, people get afraid and try to prevent wind farms based on their health fears. They fail.
This is just in regards to cases involving alleged harm to health. Harm to property values has been another area of complaint. So far cases that have pressed that concern have also, generally speaking, failed.
Interestingly, Canada is by far the most litigious, and Ontario had almost 30% of the cases by itself. Belief in health impacts varies substantially by geography; where anti-wind groups are strongly pushing the idea, people get afraid and try to prevent wind farms based on their health fears. They fail.
This is just in regards to cases involving alleged harm to health. Harm to property values has been another area of complaint. So far cases that have pressed that concern have also, generally speaking, failed.
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
Wind Turbines And Groundwater Contamination In Ontario
Last week this warning appeared on Reddit Ontario, and later got picked up at Ontario Wind Resistance:
I've reproduced it below, but its long and a bit technical and if you don't want to read it all then: 1) there has been no contamination yet but there IS a pretty small but not zero chance that flooding, for example, could wash contaminated water down the sides of the utility poles used on the sites mentioned and get into the bedrock aquifer, and; 2) it should all be fixed by next month.
For the longer version, over to Mr. Tomlinson:
As for the posted “warning” you are referencing from reddit.com I can confirm that:
Relatively short answer:
MOECC has a concern relative to the construction methods for the utility poles on this particular project, and has had the proponent for the project, (Dufferin Wind Power), (DWP), modify the construction methods for a substantial number of the poles in the project to prevent surface water from potentially using the caissons, (in this case a 1 m diameter steel casing), that the poles are mounted in, (in the ground), from becoming a conduit into the relatively shallow limestone bedrock that contains the potable water aquifer for the area. In fairness to everyone involved I have a hard time calling the instillation of the various poles as incorrect as neither DWP, or DWP’s consultants or this Ministry, (MOEE), or the Ontario Energy Board, (OEB) who actually gave the approval for the utility pole line picked up that it could become a potential pathway for surface water entering a bedrock aquifer. This type of potential pathway is just not something that is on anybody’s radar until you actually see the instillation and understand the engineering of the system. Having said all that this could be considered as just splitting hairs as MOECC feels that remedial work is necessary.
In short is there a possibility that if the right circumstances come together at the same time that there could be a contamination pathway present? Yes, in some of the locations. Based on that MOECC has asked that remedial work be completed on what has become a substantial number of the poles in the project to prevent them from becoming a potential conduit. Is there, in the opinion of the Guelph District Office of the MOECC, an immediate potential for the contamination of all local wells in the area? No, however based on an abundance of caution it appears prudent to take action to prevent the utility poles in question from becoming a potential source of contamination for a limited number of nearby wells. The proponent, (DWP), was approached to take remedial action, proposed a plan which after some modification is currently being implemented with a target date for completion of 15 September, 2014.
Slightly longer answer with more of the technical issues addressed:
1) Possible conduit:
In order to keep the utility poles standing with the anticipated loads they will be taking the various contractors constructing them in Melancthon Township and to a lesser extent in Amaranth Township have been forced to put down caissons into the relatively shallow limestone bedrock - the caissons are backfilled outside and inside with crushed rock with the pole is inside the caisson. Given that the caissons are in most cases in Melancthon Township bedded into the relatively shallow bedrock, and that a variable number of the sites are subject to the accumulation of surface water in and around the bases of the poles; and this is an agricultural area there is a small but nonetheless actual potential for surface water to travel to and possibly into the fractured limestone bedrock. That scenario is certainly concerning to MOECC.
2) Likelihood:
Once accepting that the potential is there for surface water to travel down the potential conduits, the issue is then will it cause a problem with, in this case, groundwater quality, (remembering that that primary source of potable water in that area is the aquifer contained in the relatively shallow limestone bedrock)? Once looking at the volumes of water involved, the amount of surface water that would be needed to travel down the caisson(s) would have to be extremely large to be able to adversely impact the quantities of water likely to be in the area in the aquifer. Having said all that, it is possible that it can happen, however looking at the construction details of the caissons, they are not particularly efficient pathways for large quantities of water.
3) What is being done:
After assessing the construction methodology of the utility pole bases and concluding that in a limited number of circumstances that the pole bases could cause a conduit for surface water down to or into the relatively shallow fractured limestone bedrock Dufferin Wind Power was approached by MOECC and asked to come up with a methodology and implementation plan to prevent the transmission of surface water down to and\or into the limestone bedrock formation in those potentially vulnerable locations. Dufferin Wind via it’s consultants Dillon Consulting proposed a plan whereby pole bases with a direct connection to or into the limestone bedrock, as well as those that have bases terminating within 2.5 m of the limestone bedrock will be sealed to prevent the transmission of surface water either through the caisson or along the outside of the caisson between it and the hole bored for it.
After discussions and modifications of the plan it has been accepted by MOECC and is now in the process of being implemented by Dufferin Wind and it’s contractors, (at this point none of the actual physical work has been started, however once the work commences it should be completed within a roughly 2 week period). The sealing program consists of the placement of a bentonite clay seal around the outside of the steel caisson to prevent surface water from traveling down the space between the outside of the hole and the caisson, as well as a bentonite clay seal being placed similarly inside the caisson to prevent surface water running down the inside of the caisson to the bedrock. Additionally the vulnerable pole locations will also have the local area around it sloped\landscaped such as to prevent the accumulation of surface water around the immediate area of the pole. All of the 216 poles in the project north of 89 Highway, (Melancthon Township), and 85 of the remaining 174 poles in the project south of 89 Highway, (Amaranth Township), (where the aquifer containing bedrock is deeper and protected by more overburden), will be sealed as described above. The sealing program is slated to be completed by 15 September, 2014.
MOECC’s intention is to, as resources allow, monitor the implementation of the sealing program such that any delays and problems needing MOECC’s attention are addressed as quickly as possible and the program meets it’s stated completion date. It is MOECC’s understanding that the County of Dufferin will have consulting engineers acting for it also observing the implementation of the sealing program.
Please feel free to reproduce and circulate my response.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Why Ontario Anti-Wind Forces Keep Losing Their ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal) Appeals
They want the Tribunal to take their word at face value:
“There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the project will cause serious physical or any other serious harm,” [the tribunal] ruled.
A number of witnesses who live close to existing wind farms testified that the turbines had damaged their health.
But the tribunal said that they did not provide professional medical opinions that would establish a “causal link” between their ailments and the turbines.
This is not the first time that appellants protesting nearby wind farms have made health claims while refusing to provide the medical documentation needed to back those claims. And it is only recently that they ERT has begun to consistently demand that they produce such records. In addition, as noted here, if appellants are testifying re reductions in property values due to nearby turbines, they will now be asked to turn over all relevant real estate records. I expect most of those appeals to fail as a result of this change in procedures.
“There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the project will cause serious physical or any other serious harm,” [the tribunal] ruled.
A number of witnesses who live close to existing wind farms testified that the turbines had damaged their health.
But the tribunal said that they did not provide professional medical opinions that would establish a “causal link” between their ailments and the turbines.
This is not the first time that appellants protesting nearby wind farms have made health claims while refusing to provide the medical documentation needed to back those claims. And it is only recently that they ERT has begun to consistently demand that they produce such records. In addition, as noted here, if appellants are testifying re reductions in property values due to nearby turbines, they will now be asked to turn over all relevant real estate records. I expect most of those appeals to fail as a result of this change in procedures.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Wind And Health: A New Study?
From Garth Manning, Chairman of the County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE), Prince Edward County, Ontario, writing in the T.O. Sun:
Toronto human rights lawyer Julian Falconer argues that the GEA and the government’s approval of wind projects “implicates their right to security of the person” as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights, in view of potential health impacts.
These health impacts were noted on Oct. 17, 2013 when the Ontario government’s Research Chair for Renewable Energy Technologies and Health at the University of Waterloo reported a statistically significant correlation between proximity to industrial wind turbines and sleep deprivation, tinnitus and vertigo.
What he's talking about is this. Some of the short-comings are discussed here in The Chatham Daily News. I'll just summarize from that piece with a few notes of my own.
1) As you can see from the link title, Wind Turbine Noise, Sleep Quality, and Symptoms of
Inner Ear Problems is a poster, not a paper, and it was presented at a symposium by grad students (Each event will include brief presentations, Q&A, speed mentoring sessions, poster presentations by graduate students, and a cocktail to mingle with the experts and decision-makers. It may or may not ever make it into the literature.
2) But of course grad students are capable of fine work. Unfortunately, in this case they had very few responses to the survey which served as their study's basis:
...the overall response rate of under 10% is "very problematic and we recognize the opportunity for bias that would invalidate the findings."
In fact they mailed out 4,876 surveys, and were able to use 396 of the 412 questionnaires returned.
Surveys on the health effects of wind turbines are at best difficult to conduct. It's almost impossible to keep the purpose of the questionnaire secret, which is needed to ensure that answers are not preconditioned by what the subjects may have heard in the news or read on-line re such topics as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTN). Perhaps a healthy response rate might have eliminated this problem, but with under 400 replies the scientists at Waterloo are likely hearing from those particularly motivated to answer in a negative fashion. And it is indeed the case that readers of the anti-wind NIMBY site Ontario Wind Resistance knew about the survey well in advance of its distribution. They were even offering advice on how to field the questions contained in it. So the project might have been doomed to start with.
It's worth noting how stringent the Health Canada study of the same issue (not yet released) is trying to be. Their questionnaire work will be supplemented with extensive on-site testing. Participants have been asked to wear an actimeter and give hair samples to be tested for signs of chronic stress. No such precautions were in place with the research from Waterloo.
Toronto human rights lawyer Julian Falconer argues that the GEA and the government’s approval of wind projects “implicates their right to security of the person” as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights, in view of potential health impacts.
These health impacts were noted on Oct. 17, 2013 when the Ontario government’s Research Chair for Renewable Energy Technologies and Health at the University of Waterloo reported a statistically significant correlation between proximity to industrial wind turbines and sleep deprivation, tinnitus and vertigo.
What he's talking about is this. Some of the short-comings are discussed here in The Chatham Daily News. I'll just summarize from that piece with a few notes of my own.
1) As you can see from the link title, Wind Turbine Noise, Sleep Quality, and Symptoms of
Inner Ear Problems is a poster, not a paper, and it was presented at a symposium by grad students (Each event will include brief presentations, Q&A, speed mentoring sessions, poster presentations by graduate students, and a cocktail to mingle with the experts and decision-makers. It may or may not ever make it into the literature.
2) But of course grad students are capable of fine work. Unfortunately, in this case they had very few responses to the survey which served as their study's basis:
...the overall response rate of under 10% is "very problematic and we recognize the opportunity for bias that would invalidate the findings."
In fact they mailed out 4,876 surveys, and were able to use 396 of the 412 questionnaires returned.
Surveys on the health effects of wind turbines are at best difficult to conduct. It's almost impossible to keep the purpose of the questionnaire secret, which is needed to ensure that answers are not preconditioned by what the subjects may have heard in the news or read on-line re such topics as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTN). Perhaps a healthy response rate might have eliminated this problem, but with under 400 replies the scientists at Waterloo are likely hearing from those particularly motivated to answer in a negative fashion. And it is indeed the case that readers of the anti-wind NIMBY site Ontario Wind Resistance knew about the survey well in advance of its distribution. They were even offering advice on how to field the questions contained in it. So the project might have been doomed to start with.
It's worth noting how stringent the Health Canada study of the same issue (not yet released) is trying to be. Their questionnaire work will be supplemented with extensive on-site testing. Participants have been asked to wear an actimeter and give hair samples to be tested for signs of chronic stress. No such precautions were in place with the research from Waterloo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)