Credit: Heather Wright, The Herald, Wednesday, April 5, 2017 ~~
When Theresa and Lorne Pumfrey bought their home on Bush Line, water was the last thing on their mind.
The small home on less than an acre had a well which had worked well for years. But last June, contractors set up about 900 meters from their home and started building a meteorological tower for the North Kent One Wind Farm. That’s when things started changing, according to Lorne.
First, he says, the water was cloudy. They had the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change run some tests and they said everything was within their guidelines.
Lorne says the water always had some cloudiness but it wasn’t until Feb. 24 that things went seriously wrong.
Pumfrey pulls out his phone and shows a video of his toilet flushing.
Theresa began shuttling their three young boys to friends and families for baths or to do laundry and spent a lot of her day getting water for the house while Lorne was on the job as a trucker.
Plumbers told the couple to let the water run until it was clean, but after four days, the water was still black.
Theresa asked the plumber what they should do. “He said ‘Well, you have a nice garage to put a poly tank in.’”
The Pumbfreys went out and bought about $4,000 worth of equipment including that big blue water tank and began hauling water to their home. They haven’t received their first bill yet, so they don’t know how much the water is costing, but Lorne says they’re using about 500 to 600 gallons a week.
The Pumfreys have solved their water problem temporarily on their own but they want to know who is going to help them find out what happened to their well.
Source: Heather Wright, The Herald, Wednesday, April 5, 2017
BY PAUL PEDROMARCH 2, 2017 5:21PM@PaulPedroNews source:http://blackburnnews.com/chatham/chatham-news/2017/03/02/tension-rises-jakubec-wesley/Chatham-Kent Councillor Jeff Wesley is threatening legal action if he doesn’t receive a public apology from Water Wells First Spokesperson Kevin Jakubec.
Wesley has retained a lawyer and wants Jakubec to retract “defamatory comments” that have been made towards the councilor.
The comments stem from a “shame award” that was presented to Wesley in the form of a Pinocchio statue, by the group Water Wells First. Jakubec announced last week that the statue would be presented to Wesley, and made allegedly defamatory statements to the Wallaceburg Courier Press.
According to a letter sent by lawyer Michael Lerner, Jakubec has stated to the media that Wesley “mislead the public” and he “cannot be trusted.”
Jakubec was given written notice dated March 1, stating that if he does not retract his statements and publicly apologize, he will be facing a defamation lawsuit. The notice also requests that “any defamatory references or statements be removed from the Water Wells First website.”
In the past, the group Water Wells First has also accused the local municipality and the Ministry of the Environment of not addressing concerns about a decrease in water quality due to wind turbine vibrations.
Lerner, who is representing Wesley, says Jakubec’s comments about the CK councilor are humiliating.
“Hopefully he’ll realize and appreciate that his conduct is unacceptable and he’ll take immediate steps to rectify the situation,” he says.
The letter sent to Jakubec goes on to say, “The false and defamatory statements have caused and are continuing to cause serious harm to Mr. Wesley’s professional and personal reputation.”
“Over many years Councillor Wesley has deservedly earned the respect of the people Chatham-Kent,” says Lerner.
Jakubec tells BlackburnNews.com that he will not be apologizing or retracting any comments. He adds that it’s unfortunate Wesley chose to pursue legal action, and urges the councillor to reconsider.
“He’s [been] given an opportunity to take back those comments and issue an apology. So, the next step will be up to Mr. Jakubec,” Lerner says.
By aaron on January 24, 2017 source: http://sydenhamcurrent.ca/2017/01/24/letter-dover-resident-fuming-over-waterwind-turbine-issue/I hope that the response made in the news media is that of only from the Mayor and the municipality’s chief legal officer and not an official response from all of the Municipal Council.
I trust that the council members would all agree that if they had to do it again they would have placed conditions on the hosting of windfarms and not to do it the same as before.
In the press, it stated that the decision was made to rely totally on the ‘Golder Report’ and no other available information. Have they ever considered that the report could be in error and the esteemed people that they named did not use proper information in their report.
What if accepting the wind developer’s Golder report the Mayor and Mr. Norton put all of Chatham township’s property at risk from an environmental stigma? A stigma that the aquifer below would be contaminated with vibrations and is no longer capable of providing safe clean water. You think your property won’t drop like a stone in value? Think again.
What if accepting the Wind developer’s Golder report the Mayor and Mr Norton allowed pile driven turbine foundations that increased the heavy metal concentrations in the source water – the water in the aquifer below Chatham township? What price do you put on your families health?
Do you think if a Mayor that really cares about his Municipality’s property values; about his community’s health and well-being would have so easily accepted a developer’s report without having an outside engineering firm provide him and his council with a neutral third party review. Where’s the oversight?
Not this Mayor. Not Mayor Hope. He didn’t ask for a review. If he’s handed a report from the wind developer it’s as good as gospel to him.
If this matter only affected himself then it is his choice to go with a developer’s report. Skip the due diligence required of the office.
But when he is in the Mayor’s seat, the decision he and that of his lawyer Mr. Norton affect all of us.
Think Mayor Hope before you act. Think Mr. Norton, not of protecting the Corporation of Chatham-Kent first but the people to who you serve and are ultimately accountable to.
Why did the Mayor and Mr. Norton look only at the ‘Golder Report’ from the Wind developer side and not at the qualified experts and the sworn affidavits and studies that Mr. Jakubec, the appellant in the North Kent Environmental Review Tribunal, brought forward.
Common sense would have had our Mayor and Chief Legal Consil look at Mr. Jakubec’s work with these experts to try to understand why reports of well damage in Dover township as far back as 2012 were going on.
Mr. Jakubec assembled a prestigious team of world class experts. It was only because the MOECC Tribunal Branch refused a time extension to let Mr. Jakubec bring in well test results from Dover into the Trubunal’s final hearing did Mr. Jakubec make the best of Tribunal process and took what gains he could get from the mediation.
Ask Mr. Jakubec if he stopped investigating Dover. Ask Mr. Jakubec if the Tribunal process is fair and that everything is neatly wrapped up now as Mayor Hope and Mr. Norton would want you to believe.
Ask Mr. Jakubec if the Tribunal was the end of the matter. He’ll tell you he’s only beginning.
Did the Mayor and Mr. Norton miss completely Dr. Buckingham’s report that North Kent 1 will cause ground vibrations?
Why did they not talk about that?
Was it too pricey for Mayor Hope and Mr. Norton to have both Mr Jakubec’s experts and studies and North Kent Wind experts and studies reviewed?
How much money was spent by us to have Mr. Norton join the North Kent 1 Tribunal as a party?
Didn’t Council direct Mr. Norton to join the Tribunal to gain access to both parties disclosure documents?
Wasn’t that the point in joining the Tribunal?
It couldn’t have been so nefarious to join as a party just to take the side of the wind developer in a project that the municipality has a financial stake in?
Funnier things have happened under this Mayor and council.
Our Chatham-Kent Council has no problem committing support to the Capitol Theatre for over $500,000 per year, approximately the same for the Bradley Convention Centre and maintenance cost to our 28 miles of railway that goes nowhere and yet cannot find or commit funds to study the cause for the change in performance of several water wells in the vicinity of the last set of turbines erected in the former Dover Township.
How can the mayor say, “Of course, no amount of money would justify a negative impact on our citizen’s water”, when you have done nothing to counteract the harm done to those wells.
It is not the wells that are bad, it is the SOURCE water that these wells draw into our homes.
The aquifer, our source water, is the same to us as Lake Erie is to the water system of the Municipality. Can the wind companies go and put turbines near your water intake, stir up the water and drive steel piles down to the rock? Would you let them pollute your source water?
Several Dover wells have been affected. That is obvious now because of the turbidity and the black particulates in the water. My water still looks clear, but is affected by a dramatic increase in heavy metals.
I had done a water test of my well in 2012 and compared those results to the test that I had done in late November of 2016.
My water changed dramatically.
Keep in mind that nothing has changed around here in that time frame, except the construction and operation of the wind turbines. No explosions, no bombings and no earthquakes. What, through the process of elimination, do you believe caused these changes in our source water?
Could it possibly be the 1,540 holes driven through the Kettle Point Black Shale bedrock when the steel piles were driven down to support the wind turbines?
I believe that to be the cause. I also believe that the vibration of these operating turbines is going down to our aquifer and is keeping particles, some large and some of sub-micron in size stirred up in the water.
I hope that the Ombudsman does come and does a proper investigation of the circumstances here in our municipality.
I hope that the Ombudsman holds those responsible who contaminated the Dover wells and that the Ombudsman has the power needed to punish those who were derelict in their duty at the Municipal and Provincial levels.
I suggest to all Ontario families who have wind turbines around them to get their well water analyzed whether it looks clear or not.
Find out if the groundwater is safe; if your home is on top of the Kettle Point Black Shale bedrock and near a wind turbine you particularly want to get your well water tested.
Heavy metals contamination is a possibility. Kettle Point Black Shale is one of the most heavy metal laden shales in Canada.
A point Mayor Hope and Mr. Norton don’t appear to have a clue about.
So let me educate you Mayor Hope and Mr. Norton… our entire C-K Municipality sits on top of Kettle Point Black Shale.
As for testing your well water. It may be like mine, looks clear but has several harmful heavy metals.
If wind turbines are planned for your area, make sure you have a comprehensive analysis done of your well water so when the change comes to your water you will have a proper base line, something that was not done in Dover.
What does the Canadian Wind Energy Association say about this? Back in June 2016 when Water Wells First raised the alarm the wind wndustry said they didn’t know anything about Dover well problems.
On the Canadian Wind Energy Association website they say they promote clean water.
Then I have three points to make:
1. Have the two wind companies in Dover released the gag contracts of all of the people in Dover with damaged wells; gag contracts imposed for water filtration equipment is shameful; let them speak about their problems.
2. To Mayor Hope and Council: show us the ‘full legal agreements’ you have signed with every wind developer in the county; lets see how a transparent and accountable a government to the people you are; lets see if you imposed any restrictions on the windfarms to safeguard our county’s natural resources. Put documents, Mr. Norton, not your opinions in the press.
3. To Mayor Hope and Council: Give our poor chief medical officer Dr. Colby some of the municipality’s reserves, free up some of your multi-million dollar reserve and do some of your own scientific exploration so you can make a positive decision rather then say, “the water is likely safe to drink”.
We demand it.
Until now the Mayor, C-K Council, C-K Public Health and MOECC have done nothing.
It is time for someone to get off their butt and find a solution to the source water contamination before we have a drinking water related fatality.
Peter J. Hensel
New information in the form of a study report recently released by the Irish Department of the Environment on order of the Commissioner for Environmental Information shows that by the Government's own figures, a setback of at least 1209 metres from a 175m / 3.5MW wind turbine is required to underpin a 40dB absolute limit. This is a startling departure from the current regulations which require just 500m.Table 3.2 of the report shows that an estimated setback distance of 1209m (i.e. 1.2 km) would be the absolute minimum distance necessary to meet the 40dB absolute noise limit proposed in the draft revision of the Wind Guidelines. Many argue that this 40dB limit is still not enough to ensure there is no distress caused to people in their homes, which means we should really be looking at 1.5 km; which is triple the current 500 metres!The AIE has completely exposed the severely flawed planning policies being pursued by the current Government, and confirms what we all knew already – the current Guidelines offer absolutely no protection to rural residents. The Government’s current action of sticking their heads in the sand whilst countless families are driven from their homes cannot be allowed to continue.
source and full report: EPAW http://epaw.org/echoes.php?lang=en&article=n598
Position of the National Institute of Public Health - Poland
The Institute recommends 2 km as the minimum distance of wind farms from buildings." Due to a large number of factors of endangerment to human health.
- Taking into account modulation, low frequencies and infrasound levels.
- The electromagnetic radiation level.
- The probability of sleep disruptions and noise propagation at night.
- The occurrence of potential psychological effects.
- The shadow flicker effect.
- And many other effects.
Have you seen this shocking video where a disabled grandmother confronts the Prime Minister about her hydro bill?
(https://www.facebook.com/TaxpayerDOTcom/posts/10154962614068910) You do not need a Facebook account to view this video.
At a townhall in Peterborough, mother of four and grandmother of three, Kathy Katula, asked Justin Trudeau how he justifies asking her to pay a carbon tax when she only has $65 left every two weeks. Even though Kathy works 15 hours a day, she can’t make ends meet because of her high hydro bills, and can’t afford a carbon tax on top of it all.
The Prime Minister’s response?
“Hydro rates are a provincial responsibility.”
He’s partially right. The Ontario government’s Green Energy Act drove up prices, as did cancelled gas plants and other bad decisions. And the Ontario government’s cap-and-trade carbon tax just kicked in on January 1 and it will drive electricity, gasoline and home heating bills higher.
But the Trudeau government has told the provinces they have to implement cap-and-trade or carbon taxes within 12 months or they will impose one for them. And they plan on hiking it four more times by 2022. This will only make electricity, gas and home heating more expensive.
Politicians just don’t get it. And Ontarians like Kathy are paying the price.
Help us spread the message that politicians need to leave our energy bills alone. You can help by: Source: Canadian Taxpayers Federation
PRESS RELEASE 3rd January 2017 High Court order for families forced from homes due to noisy wind turbines.
The High Court has issued its order regarding the seven families from Cork who were impacted by noise pollution from a nearby wind farm. A number of the families had to abandon their homes because of the severity of the noise and some lived up to a full 1km from the wind farm.
The defendant, Enercon Wind Farm Services Ireland Ltd., has admitted liability and the case is listed for ten days in the High Court commencing 25th April 2017 to deal with damages and costs.
The outcome of the April court case could be a watershed for existing and planned wind farms as well as for investor confidence in, and government plans for the future of on-shore wind in Ireland. Many families, similarly affected by noisy wind turbines are anxiously awaiting the outcome and it is expected that more cases will now follow.
There has been a failure of successive governments to regulate the wind industry . Minister Denis Naughten is the latest minister to delay the introduction of regulation. This despite his promise to regulate the distance turbines can be placed from homes within 3 to 6 months of his taking office. Instead, yet another lengthy period of consultation is planned, despite previous consultations on the matter attracting over 7,000 submissions. A spokesperson from Wind Aware Ireland has stated “This further delay has indicated how far this government are prepared to allow the continuation of a free-for-all in the construction of wind farms, to the detriment of rural communities who are bitterly opposing their construction.”
Ireland’s embarked on an all-wind strategy in 2007 under Minister Eamon Ryan in conjunction with Brendan Halligan (chairman of SEAI), who was also a director and shareholder in Mainstream Renewables, one of Ireland’s biggest wind farm developers.
No cost benefit analysis (CBA) or strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was ever carried out on the plan. Both of these legally required analyses were sidestepped.
To date, these analyses have not been carried out and Ireland proceeds with this expensive experiment. Ireland’s 1400 wind turbines have reduced our CO2 emissions by a paltry 3-4%.
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,
I am writing you to let you know that on September 22nd we received a response from Minister Jane Philpott to our open letter dated June 15. The response is attached.
Prime Minister, your appointed Health Minister discarded our concern to give voice to the families being impacted by wind turbines.
She suggested we would hear from departmental officials regarding the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study, which we have received. It is not helpful.
Let me be clear. The families that are being impacted right now as I write this have been waiting years to have voice with our government. Some have passed on from this earth without resolution or acknowledgement of the harm that has been imposed on them without consent. Your renewable energy policy continues to aggressively promote wind energy while completely ignoring those who are being directly harmed by it.
Many of us have communicated with your governmental departments on the aforementioned health study and the RED Act. If things were settled with those two exercises I can guarantee, we would not be writing to you in plea for an appointment. In fact, the RED Act has been violated and the health study is widely known to be flawed, undoubtedly in effort to support continued implementation. We’re not buying it Prime Minister and we have had enough.
Please, try to understand the frustration at being harmed, literally having to lose our health and our homes by wind turbines that are operating around us.
Where is the compassion of the Canadian Government for our families? Why are rural people so callously discriminated against as if we do not count when it comes to protection from industrial facilities?
Your Minister “commended” me on advocating for rural communities. How insulting it is to be artificially commended at the same time that our concerns are blown off. I am not an advocate any more than the 250 people who signed on to the open letter and to the thousands others who have been lodging formal complaints, attending government and community meetings, researching and writing letters to authorities for over 10 years demonstrating the harm to them. Is this a responsible answer when there are suffering families who have lost all hope waiting to hear something meaningful from our government? What of those advocates who are ill right now and who have lost all faith in you and your ministers? Any optimism at your promise to care about all Canadians has been shattered.
I lost my home Prime Minister. My husband and our pets suffered the health impacts from the wind turbine operations to the point we could no longer live there. That was our home. Not coming from entitlement - our families, our homes and our communities are very important to us. Yet these wind turbine projects have had rural families under attack for at least a decade. I recently heard a comment about how undignified protesters can become when government officials present themselves in their communities. Where is the dignity in imposing repeated, unending harm without consent that is never addressed by any official of any level of government? How would you feel and what would you do if your young children were feeling the way these children in rural Ontario feel every day and night?
Do you know how it feels to have extended family members and friends look at you as an oddity because our government continues to tell them there are no problems with noise and infrasound from wind turbines and it is just our bad attitude about them that is causing all of our grief? How degrading. Do you know how it feels to sit in your driveway at 11 o’clock at night having just finished loading the last bits of your belongings in your car because you had to leave the home you loved, and not for any reasonable life event but because you were bullied and harmed by the very ones who were supposed to protect you? The anger and the pain brought upon families by this government's irresponsibility is hard to reconcile.
Has this government not recently learned a strong lesson from years of neglect in our Indigenous communities? Yet here you are doing exactly the same thing to rural families. Denying and allowing continued harm is not an answer to this problem any more than it was for our native Canadians.
Prime Minister, you can rest assured there are a lot of families right now who are suffering from the indignities brought on by these wind turbine projects. My heart is with those families who have lost everything. They have lost the ability to control their health, some have lost their homes or have abandoned them, they’ve lost their livestock and pets, and their children because some parents won’t allow their children to live in their house anymore and have relocated them.
Your Health Minister's answer is unacceptable.
You need to act on this Prime Minister and it must be dealt with just as you deal with discrimination and harm to others. We have our own refugees who cannot live in their own homes in this country all due to a bad policy.
We are all asking once again for a meeting. I hope that your Minister (or you yourself) will reconsider the decision to download these serious concerns onto your departmental officials.
We are asking for collaboration, not defense and deferral, on this serious issue.
In this spirit I have attached a copy of your mandate to your Health Minister.
676425 Centre Road
Excerpts from your mandate: “Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen. I expect that our work will be informed by performance measurement, evidence, and feedback from Canadians.” “Canadians expect us, in our work, to reflect the values we all embrace: inclusion, honesty, hard work, fiscal prudence, and generosity of spirit. We will be a government that governs for all Canadians, and I expect you, in your work, to bring Canadians together.” “When Canadians are in good physical and mental health, they are able to work better, be more productive, and contribute more fully to our economy while living healthier, happier lives.” ” We have committed to an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do. When dealing with our Cabinet colleagues, Parliament, stakeholders, or the public, it is important that your behaviour and decisions meet Canadians’ well-founded expectations of our government. I want Canadians to look on their own government with pride and trust.”pdf 1
Reply from Minister of Health Philpottpdf 2
PM's mandate to Health Minister
Download pdf file
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.
The Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 firstname.lastname@example.org
The Hon. Dr. Jane Philpott Minister of Health, Canada House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaK1A 0A6 Hon.Jane.Philpott@Canada.ca
Mr. Paul Glover Associate Director of Health 350 Albert Street, Suite 1210 Ottawa Ontario, Canada K1R 1A4 email@example.com
June 15, 2016 Copy sent by mail
Dear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister Dr. Jane Philpott, Assoc. Deputy Minister Paul Glover;
Re: Open Letter - Industry compliance with Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA) and wind turbine investigation
The purpose of this letter is to formally request a meeting with the Minister of Health and staff to discuss compliance by the wind turbine industry with the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and wind turbine industry compliance obligations, and the need to conduct an investigation of complaints relating thereto.
We have included Associate Deputy Minister Glover in this letter because he met with Dr. Robert McMurtry, F.R.C.S.(C), F.A.C.S. and researchers Carmen Krogh, BSc Pharm and Beth Harrington, BMus in July 2009 where he was made aware of the suffering that was already taking place in rural Ontario as a result of wind turbine installations.
Your Government has committed to listen to the people of Canada with respect to climate change. Mr. Trudeau’s Open Letter to Canadians dated November 4, 2015 states: “Our country faces many real and immediate challenges – from a struggling middle class to the threat of climate change. If we are to overcome these obstacles, Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen. That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa.” 
We wish to take this opportunity to help you realize a safe approach to your climate change goals.
During the past eight years, the steady expansion of industrial wind technology as a source of clean energy for Canadians has resulted in adverse health events in affected communities in Canada. [2,3]
Many in Ontario and elsewhere have logged serious health complaints with proponents/operators of wind turbine projects, provincial and federal government ministries as well as wind turbine manufacturers. These serious health complaints are a result of the harmful acoustical waves and radio/electromagnetic energy emitted by industrial wind turbines which are located in proximity to homes. As previous ministers and current Minister Philpott have been informed, the adverse effects of wind turbines are not trivial.
HEALTH CANADA’S WIND TURBINE NOISE AND HEALTH STUDY DESIGN
Health Canada’s wind turbine noise and health [WTNH] study Design 2012 states: “The study will be conducted on a sample of 2000 dwellings randomly selected from those located near 8 to 12 WT installations in Canada.”  [Emphasis added]
Some parents and commentators have advised Health Canada about their concerns for their children. Yet Health Canada excluded children under 18 in its WTNH study.  This exclusion has resulted in an unassessed cluster of a vulnerable young population.
As a result of the random selection process, we also note that 93 homes where elderly members of the community lived, were coded “out of scope” because the study subject was over 79 years of age. Despite the fact that it is recognized Canada has an aging population, this vulnerable population cluster was also not assessed. 
In addition, it appears that Health Canada’s WTNH study did not establish pre-turbine baseline objective measurements to be compared with the measurements taken during the study. Indicators such as cortisol, blood pressure and highly disruptive sleep patterns (HDS) before and after exposure to wind turbines are crucial to assessing true health outcomes. The study design could have included objective measurements in zones where wind turbines were operating, removing the individual(s) from wind turbine exposure for a period of time (30 days or more), followed by a reassessment of the complainant upon return.
We question why Health Canada - when it had the opportunity - did not conduct individual investigations of the actual complaints rather than a stated randomized epidemiological study of a broad population while excluding children under 18 and the elderly over 79. Investigations of specific complaints are far more revealing than randomized selection. The Government of Canada had been made aware of the health issues. During the study design phase those raising health issues were not given the opportunity to be represented on the design committee in order to share collective knowledge and expertise about living with IWTs on a daily basis. During the comments phase, requests to be included in the research were dismissed by Health Canada on the basis that these individuals could be considered biased.
HEALTH CANADA’S WTNH STUDY
The study was a stated cross-sectional randomized epidemiological study under the former government and it concluded revealed that high annoyance as a result of wind turbine emissions was “statistically significant”. 
High community annoyance leads to a myriad of health outcomes including stress related symptoms such as chronic sleep disturbance, elevated blood pressure, cardiac events and depression. This is expressed in the WHO Lares study which studied the effects of noise on children:
One of the main conclusions of this work is that for noise induced sleep disturbances, traffic noise annoyance and neighbourhood noise annoyance, the identified health effects are independent of socioeconomic status and housing conditions. The elevated relative risks are expressed in the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system and the musculoskeletal system, as well as through depression.  [Emphasis added]
Lares also states:
Annoyance is defined as a feeling of discomfort which is related to adverse influencing of an individual or a group by any substances or circumstances. Annoyance express itself e. g. by malaise, fear, threat, trouble, uncertainty restricted liberty experience, excitability or defencelessness. With chronically strong annoyance a causal chain may exist between the three steps health - annoyance – disease.
The World Health Organizations comments on children and their vulnerability to noise:
VULNERABLE GROUPS OF CHILDREN The fetus and babies Preterm, low birth weight and small for gestational age babies Children with dyslexia and hyperactivity Children on ototoxic medication 
Children, noise and health Impairment of early childhood development and education caused by noise may have lifelong effects on academic achievement and health. Studies and statistics on the effects of chronic exposure to aircraft noise on children have found:
Consistent evidence that noise exposure harms cognitive performance; consistent association with impaired well-being and motivation to a slightly more limited extent; moderate evidence of effects on blood pressure and catecholamine hormone secretion 
RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES ACT
In 2014 Health Canada’s WTNH study Principle Investigator Dr. David Michaud testified under oath during an Ontario Environmental Tribunal Review appeal of a renewable energy approval of a wind project. During testimony he stated that Health Canada’s Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau is the authority under which Health Canada’s WTNH study was conducted. Dr. Michaud also confirmed industrial wind turbines fall under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. 
Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau (CCRPB)
The Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau is responsible for the administration of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which addresses radiation safety issues for X-ray and nonionizing radiation devices. The Act covers devices used in consumer and industrial applications, as well as medical devices. CCRPB assesses, monitors and assists in the reduction of the health and safety risks associated with radiation exposure from devices, undertakes research into the biological effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, develops guidelines, standards and safety codes, provides radiation safety inspections of federally-regulated facilities containing radiation-emitting devices, and provides advice on potential health impacts of sources of environmental noise. The Bureau also provides radiation protection and safety advice to other federal departments, such as Industry Canada, Transport Canada, Solicitor General, the Labour Programme of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, etc., in support of their mandated activities. 
Though Health Canada’s WTNH study was called a randomized epidemiology study, Health Canada’s preliminary results state something different and clarified that results cannot be generalized beyond the sample locations studied. 
The Radiation Emitting Devices Act [REDA] is the federal law under which Health Canada’s approximately $2.2m research was conducted. The REDA specifically states that radiation is a form of acoustical waves.
The REDA states:
6. (1) Where a person who is the manufacturer or importer of a radiation emitting device becomes aware, after the device has left the person’s premises, of the fact that the device
(a) does not comply with the standards, if any, prescribed under paragraph 13(1)(b) and applicable thereto, or
(b) creates a risk to any person of genetic or personal injury, impairment of health or death from radiation by reason of the fact that it (i) does not perform according to the performance characteristics claimed for it, (ii) does not accomplish its claimed purpose, or (iii) emits radiation that is not necessary in order for it to accomplish its claimed purpose, the person shall forthwith notify the Minister. 
The REDA states the device [wind turbine] must comply with the standards prescribed and that the Minister is to be notified of non-compliance or defect and may investigate. However according to Access to Information and Privacy [ATIP] requests of at least 10 wind projects, not one importer/proponent/operator or manufacturer has reported complaints to the Minister from the population as required by the REDA.
Some reporting health complaints have been notified by the Minister of Health, Canada that there are presently no standards for wind turbines. This seems highly irregular considering the rising number of wind projects in the past 8 years and the ever increasing number of complaints.
The Standards Council of Canada SCC the CAN/CSA-IEC 61400-11:13 Wind turbines — Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques (IEC 61400-11:2012, IDT) claims:
Through the collaborative efforts of Canadian standardization network members, standardization is helping to advance the social and economic well-being of Canada and to safeguard the health and safety of Canadians. The network’s efforts are overseen by SCC. The principal objectives of SCC are to foster and promote voluntary standardization as a means of advancing the national economy, supporting sustainable development, benefiting the health, safety and welfare of workers and the public, assisting and protecting the consumer, facilitating domestic and international trade, and furthering international cooperation in relation to standardization. [Emphasis added]
Exposure to wind energy installations has been imposed without consent on many rural residents including those who have signed this letter. Chronic exposure without remedy to the emissions from wind turbines has caused a deleterious loss of well-being and damage to health and safety.
When it comes to industrial wind turbines, federal and provincial authorities have a poor track record in protecting our physical and mental health, social well-being and safety.
We therefore want investigations of each of our situations through patient-oriented research such as is provided by Health Canada under the SPOR Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research.
Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) is about ensuring that the right patient receives the right intervention at the right time.
Patient-oriented research refers to a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focusses on patient-identified priorities and improves patient outcomes. This research,
conducted by multidisciplinary teams in partnership with relevant stakeholders, aims to apply the knowledge generated to improve healthcare systems and practices. 
Last December Dr. Philpott dedicated $12.5 million to the Chronic Pain Network.
Patient-oriented research refers to investigation that engages patients as partners, puts a focus on patient-identified priorities and improves patient outcomes. This research, conducted by multidisciplinary teams in partnership with relevant participants, aims to apply the knowledge produced to improve healthcare systems and practices. 
On March 31 2016, $12.5 million was granted to McMaster for research on patient oriented research. It reiterated the role of patient oriented investigative research that focuses on individual patients.
Patient-oriented research refers to investigation that engages patients as partners, puts a focus on patient-identified priorities and improves patient outcomes. This research, conducted by multidisciplinary teams in partnership with relevant participants, aims to apply the knowledge produced to improve healthcare systems and practices. 
On May 2, 2016 Dr. Philpott granted $2 million to University of Toronto to investigate environmental factors’ impacts on health. Again, the focus is on investigation.
Four researchers at the University of Toronto and its affiliated research centres are receiving $2million each to investigate how environmental factors can impact health. The funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research was announced today by federal health minister, the Honourable Jane Philpott. 
These grants support the benefit of investigating how environmental factors impact patient outcomes which wind turbine-affected communities did not receive through Health Canada’s WTNH study.
We request a meeting with you, Minister Philpott and your staff to hear our concerns and adverse effect complaints first-hand. Continuing to support more wind projects in proximity to homes, will likely result in an increase of affected families, including children and the elderly.
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter. In the new spirit of “willingness to listen” we look forward to scheduling a meeting with you and representatives who have researched and expressed concern on this matter and with representation of those who have signed this letter.
Barbara Ashbee 676425 Centre Road Mulmur, ON L9V 0C8 firstname.lastname@example.org
On behalf of:
Beaudry, Patricia Bond
Howard, Anne Marie
Jelinski, Eric PEng
Krane, William P.
MacLeod, J. Stewart
Melady, June Anne
St. Armand, Doris
Van Den Bosch, Len
Van Ooteghem, Aaron
We also mourn the loss of those who reported adverse effects since 2008 but are no longer with us:
1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s open letter to Canadians (4 November 2015) http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/primeminister-justin-trudeaus-open-letter-canadians#sthash.CbEutQbQ.dpuf
2. Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen M.E. Krogh, and Brett Horner, Industrial wind turbines and adverse health effects Can J Rural Med 2014;19(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24398354
3. Robert Y McMurtry and Carmen ME Krogh, Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of wind turbines PMID: 25383200 [PubMed] PMCID: PMC4221978 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4221978/
4. Health Impacts and Exposure to Wind Turbine Noise: Research Design and Noise Exposure Assessment. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2012/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php
5. Health Canada Environmental and Workplace Health, Frequently Asked Questions November 6, 2014 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/faq-eng.php
6. Michaud D et al. Exposure to wind turbine noise: Perceptual responses and reported health effects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139 (3), March 2016
7. Health Canada: Summary of results http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summaryresume-eng.php
8. World Health Organization. LARES Final report Noise effects and morbidity By: Dr Hildegard Niemann / Dr Christian Maschke Interdisciplinary research network. Noise and Health 2004 http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/105144/WHO_Lares.pdf
9. World Health Organization, Children and Noise, Children’s Health and the Environment, WHO Training Package for the Health Sector www.who.int/ceh
10. World Health Organization, Noise Facts and Figures, Sited December 23, 2012, http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/facts-and-figures
11. ERT Case Nos. 13-084/13-085/13-086/13-087/13-088/13-089. Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal. Ryan Dixon v MOE. Transcript Dr. David Michaud, October 4, 2013 p. 17
12. Health Canada. Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate (ERHSD) Date Modified: 2007-03-28. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branch-dirgen/hecs-dgsesc/erhsd-dsser/index-eng.php
13. Health Canada: Summary of results http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbineeoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php
14. Radiation Emitting Devices Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. R-1) Act current to 2016-05-12 and last amended on 2004-10-13 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-1/
15. Government of Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health. Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (Jan 28, 2016) http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html
16. Government of Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health. Research Pain BC partners in launching national pain research network March 31, 2016 https://www.painbc.ca/news/pain-bc-partners-launching-national-painresearch-network
17. McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences. McMaster captures two national patient-oriented research networks worth $25M. Published: March 31, 2016 http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/main/news/news_2016/chronic_disease_research_announcement.html
18. Government of Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health. U of T news. U of T researchers to investigate environment’s health impact April 29, 2016. https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-investigateenvironment-health-impact
By P Gosselin on 9. May 2016
Environmental sanity prevails
Under the 10 H rule, wind parks can be installed only if they have a minimum distance that is ten times the turbine’s height away from residential homes. That means a 200-meter tall turbine needs to be at least 2 kilometers away from the nearest residential area before it can be approved.
Bavaria’s highest constitutional court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has just upheld the southern German state’s hotly contested 10 H wind turbine permitting rule which has been in effect since February 2014.
The Court ruled that the requirement is indeed constitutional. Full story here.The ruling represents a major landmark victory for wind energy opponents, who have been increasingly shocked by the rampant destruction of Germany’s countryside and natural landscape. They greeted the ruling with loud cheers.
Major setback for Big Wind
The Court’s decision marks a huge setback for the German wind industry, climate protection activists, and for the Germany’s once highly touted Energiewende as a whole.In total Germany already pays out about 25 billion euros annually in subsidies for green energy. Nevertheless CO2 emissions have not dropped in 7 years. In other words: well over 100 billion euros have bought nothing.