Wynne gov’t tough on nature says Save The Eagles International

ToughonNature

September 24, 2015

This Open Letter was sent to the Ontario government by Mark Duchamp, president of Save The Eagles International, and was published in today’s Financial Post.

On of our members, the Association to Protect Amherst Island, has advised us of the approval of a wind project that will cause a 25-year running massacre of protected wildlife.

Amherst Island, as you know, is an internationally important migration stopover fro Monarch butterflies and many threatened bird and bat species. It is also a famous wintering area for 11 species of owls, all of which are protected by law, and all of which are particularly in danger where wind turbines happen to be erected.

Words fail us to express our dismay at this abominable decision, which relies on an environmental impact study (EIS) authored by a consultant hired by the promoter. Experience shows that such studies are so biased as to be worthless. The Wolfe Island wind farm proves the point: its EIS (written by the same consultant Stantec Inc., did not predict the turbines would be killing so many birds and bats, including eagles, ospreys, and dozens of other protected species. They will keep doing it for another 20 years, in numbers at least ten times higher than the official figures, taking a high toll on the protected wildlife of Ontario, Quebec, the United States and Mexico, a toll which is all the more unsustainable when considered cumulatively with other wind farms.

Dead eagle: a crime
Dead eagle: a crime

Amherst and Wolfe Islands are only separated by 8 km of water. In the highly developed industrial and commercial development along the shores of Lake Ontario, they stand as largely preserved natural habitats. They are essential to the survival of increasingly endangered migrating species, which need staging posts along their way.

Wind turbines produce intermittent energy, which independent engineers denounce as useless for a modern economy, and immensely costly to boot. This makes the crime of destroying rare wildlife, ruining natural areas as well as the life of wind farm neighbours, a particularly odious one.

What is most remarkable about the approval of the Amherst Island wind scam, is the cynicism it reflects. The Ontario government obviously doesn’t mind about the slaughter of protected eagles, ospreys and other species that is occurring year after year on Wolfe Island: it is willing to repeat the same mistake on Amherst.

Let the record show that we have condemned the political decision to convert Amherst Island into a population sink for owls, ospreys, eagles and other rare birds, rapidly declining populations of bats, and Monarch butterflies.

 

Wind turbines reduce property values: Forbes. And they’re not so “green” either

Property value loss from industrial wind turbines? Absolutely yes, say those in the business of real estate, not "green" energy
Property value loss from industrial wind turbines? Absolutely yes, say those in the business of real estate, not “green” energy

Forbes.com September 23, 2015

A key point of contention against wind (and solar) farms is that they require much larger amounts of land to generate the same amount of electricity, an important downgrade of their “greenness” that goes conveniently ignored. Wind power is naturally intermittent, and plants typically operate at about 25% of full capacity, compared to coal and natural gas plants operating at 90%.

Thus, it can take 4-5 wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity as a single fossil fuel plant.

The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that generating 20% of electricity (which is likely the highest we could go, see here) with land-based wind installations would demand at least 20,000 square miles, or the size of Maryland and Vermont combined. By comparison, all U.S. nuclear power plants, which produce around 20% of power, occupy only 110 square miles.

One headline is indicative: “Wind farm ‘needs 700 times more land’ than fracking site to produce same energy.” 

The main reason industrial wind farms take up so much land is that each turbine can be spaced a half mile or more apart. And bigger, taller, and more spaced apart turbines are better because they can generate more electricity. Standing 650 tall (200 meters), these giant wind turbines dwarf nearby buildings. Along with the complexity of siting, this explains why getting wind farms built is much harder in real life than in the Sierra Club’s mind.

The pervasive “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome indicates that even the most ardent renewable energy supporters in public often don’t want wind farms near their own homes in private (see the wind hypocrisy of this famous family here). Additionally, the wind build-out will require massive amounts of new high-voltage transmission lines because our best wind locations, many of which have already been taken (“the sweet spots get chosen first”), are far from cities.

Perhaps most importantly, wind farms flicker, make noise, cause health problems, and can be “visual intrusions,” so their impact on property values, especially as wind power grows, is increasingly concerning.

The Obama administration is heavily pushing wind power, and the Clean Power Plan could require a more than tripling of wind capacity to 220,000 megawatts by 2030 and a near quadrupling by 2040. The stakes are very high: U.S. housing is already struggling, but remains a whopping $27.5 trillion market.

Reduced property values from wind farms is in stark contrast to the “shale gas revolution,” which has created“thousands of new millionaires” of property owners.

 Wind Turbines Dwarf Surrounding Structures

Screen Shot 2015-09-22 at 2.39.18 PM

Sources: http://sweetclipart.com/wind-turbine-line-art-1190; http://chenglor55.deviantart.com/art/Football-Field-with-NFL-Hash-Marks-423698654; http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-new-two-story-house-garden-image17887469

It surely seems logical enough, anything that would cause a potential buyer to value a property less lowers its value. A piece of property, after all, is just what someone is willing to pay for it. Markets are about supply and demand, and all things being equal, why would somebody choose to buy a home with an industrial wind farm nearby? And simply put, it seems impossible to believe that wind turbines would actually add to a property’s value.

But, there’s a heavily funded public relations machine to make Americans think that wind power doesn’t impact property values, and it’s every bit as influential as the “Big Oil” the anti-fossil fuel movement purports to be so against.

Renewable energy and the “environment” are big businesses (see the Volkswagen emissions scandal for proof) and they include not just energy producing companies but also various agencies, interest groups, and even university researchers. Their grant money and careers are at stake.

Read more here

Ostrander Point hearings postponed

ToughonNature

In a surprise and almost last minute move, the Environmental Review Tribunal announced this afternoon that the hearings scheduled for tomorrow and the rest of the week on the appeal of the Ostrander Point wind power project, have been postponed until the end of October.

The hearings were adjourned abruptly following testimony from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry at-risk species expert Joe Crowley, that he had recommended a permit NOT be granted for the power project due to danger to the Blanding turtle, and other wildlife.

This statement comes from the appellant, the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists:

PECFN’s lawyer Eric Gillespie said that it is a big step forward in learning what the MNR experts thought about the development of this site.  He has been able to read some of Joe Crowley’s documents which show the degree to which the habitat of several Species at Risk was discussed.  There are many more documents to read.  He has also requested disclosure from Gilead Power.

“PECFN is disappointed at yet another adjournment”, said Myrna Wood, President, “in our ongoing fight to protect the PEC South Shore. However, we feel that we are beginning to get to the bottom of why and how this important natural site was threatened with destruction. We welcome full disclosure no matter how long it takes.

For more information or to help with legal fees, please visit www.saveostranderpoint.org

 

Ostrander Point appeal resumes tomorrow

ToughonNature

The appeal of the Ostrander Point wind power project approval resumes tomorrow in Demorestville at 10 a.m. The hearings halted abruptly several weeks ago, when at-risk species expert Joe Crowley testified that it was his opinion a permit not be granted for the project due to the danger to the Blandings turtle.

When the Environmental Review Tribunal resumes tomorrow, it will be expecting a response to its direction to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to produce documentation on the permit process and Mr Crowley’s recommendation. The Ministry has already telegraphed to the media that its process is “nuanced” and approvals are not based on the opinion of just one staff member.

The appeal will be heard September 23-25 in Demorestville at the community hall. The appellant is the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists who are in need of funding to cover legal costs for this multi-year fight. For more information go to www.saveostranderpoint.org

For more information on efforts to protect the entire area of Prince Edward County, go to Point2Point Foundation here.

 

Report: corporate interests rule at the Environmental Protection Agency

Big Green rules at the EPA in the U.S.; in Ontario, endangered species sacrificed to wind power development
Big Green rules at the EPA in the U.S.; in Ontario, endangered species sacrificed to wind power development

This report is fascinating; it confirms that ideology and profit–not science–may be driving energy  and environment policy. In Ontario, we have the resumption of the Ostrander Point appeal tomorrow where a wildlife expert’s recommendation to NOT build a wind power plant because of the danger to wildlife was over-ruled by the government actively pursuing an environmental ideology.

Forbes.com September 18, 2015

The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute is a D.C.-based advocacy group dedicated to “free market environmentalism through strategic litigation.”

Recently, E&E has been examining environmental policy by searching public records and filing FOIA requests with state and federal agencies, and then tenaciously litigating over the resulting efforts at obfuscation. The strategy requires patience, given government’s endless capacity for stalling and mendacity, but it is producing results, and E&E has issued a series of reports (listed at the end of this post).

The tale told is appalling. The demarcation between the EPA and the major environmental groups is blurred to the point of non-existence. The revolving door spins like a top, and the meetings, memoranda, and plotting are continuous, with NGO staff acting as de facto agency staff, and vice versa.

Read more

Kincardine funds noise study for Armow wind farm

Bayshore Broadcasting, September 19, 2015

Kincardine Turbine Sound Study

by John Divinski
Kincardine to get a “before and after” report on infrasound created by wind turbines.
There is audio for this story. 

MP3 - click to open

 click to open MP3 version
or click the play button to listen now.

(Kincardine)– Kincardine council has approved spending over $60,000 to get a “before and after” report when it comes to noise and infrasound issues created by wind turbines.

CAO Murray Clarke tells Bayshore Broadcasting News Swallow Acoustics Consultants of Mississauga will undertake a study of infrasound levels while also studying current wind turbine installations in Kincardine.

Clarke says the consultants will determine benchmark background levels of audible sound and then set benchmarks for the upcoming Armow project, being developed by Samsung and Pattern Energy.

He says once the Armow project is up and running in 2016, and if council approves, they’ll revisit the area to see what difference, if any, is detected in audible and infrasound levels.

Clarke says the consultants will get to work on the study almost immediately with a final report in councillors’ hands expected by the end of October.

Pattern and Samsung Energy plan to have 90-plus turbines in the Armow area with most in operation by 2016.

Clarke says if benchmark sound levels can be established then they could be compared to the acoustic profile when the Armow turbines are operating.

Falmouth wind turbine ordered shut down

Falmouth's zoning board of appeals on Thursday issued a cease-and-desist order to temporarily shut down the Wind 1 turbine. Cape Cod Times file

Finally, relief, after six years of legal action says resident

Cape Cod Times, September 17, 2015

By Sean F. Driscoll
Updated Sep 18, 2015 at 3:07 PM

FALMOUTH — In a stunning move, the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals voted Thursday night to temporarily shut down one of the town’s twin wind turbines after six years of legal battles by neighbors.
The board voted 4-1 to overturn the zoning enforcement officer’s denial of a cease-and-desist order on Wind 1, which the Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled in June had been erected without proper zoning approval. The court stopped short of ordering the turbine shut down, however, leaving that matter a question for local authorities to tackle.
Neil Andersen, one of the turbine neighbors who filed the cease-and-desist request, said late Thursday that he was “feeling pretty good” about the decision.
“It’s about time we got some relief,” he said. “The correct, legal thing to do was to shut them off.”
Andersen’s enthusiasm for the win was tempered, however. It was unclear Thursday when, or if, the town would shut off the turbine. The ZBA’s decision can be appealed in court; the Board of Selectmen has already done so twice over prior ZBA rulings that the turbines were a nuisance to neighbors and that the town needed to take whatever actions were necessary to remedy the situation.
The turbines are already operating on a reduced schedule under a November 2013 order from Barnstable Superior Court Judge Christopher Muse.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
To see the presentation to the Zoning Board on behalf of the affected residents, visit Wind Wise Massachusetts here

Turtles trump turbines: fighting a legal test for wind farms “impossible to meet”

ToughonNature

Canadian Lawyer, September 2015

A few kilometres west of the eastern Ontario village of Consecon in Prince Edward County, on a narrow but busy stretch of road known as the Loyalist Parkway, there is a yellow road sign. It warns of turtles crossing the main automobile route to the popular Sandbanks Provincial Park — the Blanding’s turtle, to be precise.
The medium-sized turtle, with bright yellow throat and chin and domed shell, is classified as a threatened species in Ontario. It also has another distinction. So far, it is the only species, including humans, to derail at least temporarily a proposed wind energy project in the province. 

There have been nearly 30 hearings before the Environmental Review Tribunal, seeking to stop so-called wind farms, since the enactment of the Green Energy Act in Ontario in 2009. Each time, local residents, usually in rural areas, have been unsuccessful in meeting the legal test to revoke or change the terms of a permit issued by the province for a wind energy project.

The one exception is the Ostrander Point plan to construct nine wind turbines in an area on the south shore of the county. The Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year overturned a Divisional Court decision that would have approved the project. The appeal court sent the matter back to the tribunal for a second hearing because of concerns about threats to the safety of the Blanding’s turtle.

The case has also highlighted a statutory framework in Ontario that makes it difficult to stop a wind-energy project because of health and other concerns by local residents yet is arguably easier to block if certain species of wildlife are threatened.

Eric Gillespie, a Toronto lawyer who is representing the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists in the Ostrander hearing and has acted for many residents’ groups in other wind cases, says the circumstances are somewhat unique in Ontario.

Mix people with wind project, you get litigation

Wind developments in other provinces have generally been constructed in areas without any nearby communities. In Ontario, most of the projects so far have been along the “highway 401 corridor,” says Gillespie, near a number of small municipalities. “When you mix wind projects with people, you get litigation,” he explains.

Many of the court cases have involved residents’ groups in rural communities. They have argued about the potential health hazards as a result of the sounds from wind turbines and other issues, including decreased property values. As well, there are concerns about what will happen to the large structures when they must be decommissioned in the next 20 or 25 years.

The provincial Environment Protection Act states that once a renewable energy approval has been granted by the government, the ERT’s jurisdiction is limited to deciding if the project will cause “serious harm to human health” or “serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.” The onus is also on the party challenging the project to present the evidence that shows the harm will occur.

Gillespie says that, in terms of the requirements to gather the evidence, the renewable energy provisions are similar to other environment-related statutes. “What is different is that the Ontario government has created legal tests that are almost impossible to meet. The test requires you to show that there will be harm, unlike almost any other area of environmental harm,” he says.

For opponents of wind projects, the legal test is more difficult than that of pipelines, says Stephen Hazell, general counsel for Nature Canada, which was an intervener in the Ostrander case at the Court of Appeal.

Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act requires consideration of whether a pipeline project is desirable in the public interest. “It is a totally different standard,” says Hazell of the Ontario renewable energy test. “It is the toughest standard I have ever seen.”

It is not that Nature Canada is opposed to wind developments, says Hazell. It is the process in place if there are objections that is the problem. “We need more wind projects. But it depends on where they are located,” he says.

The opposition to the Ostrander Point project is because “it is right on an important wetland” and could impact wildlife beyond that of the Blanding’s turtle, says Hazell.

Albert Engel, a partner at Fogler Rubinoff LLP in Toronto, who has represented a number of developers in the renewable-energy sector, agrees it is a “high test” for opponents of the projects. “It is a test that the legislature has decided is appropriate,” says Engel. At the same time, he explains there is a rigorous process to receive approval from the province and there are other provisions, such as setbacks of 550 metres from any dwelling that is not part of a wind project.

There is also an automatic right of appeal to the ERT, which a resident can file once a wind project permit has been granted, Engel explains. As well, “costs have never been awarded” against an unsuccessful party before the tribunal, he adds. For opponents, the process is relatively inexpensive to take a case to the tribunal, suggests Engel.

Opposition to wind projects loudest in rural Ontario
Opposition to wind projects has been loudest in rural communities in Ontario and is potentially a political issue for the provincial Liberal government. It is also facing an ongoing $500-million legal action related to a moratorium it put in place in 2011 on offshore wind developments.

In terms of the framework in place for challenges to approval of onshore projects,  though, that is unlikely to be changed. “There are no plans to amend the EPA to expand the scope of issues that can be raised,” says Lindsay Davidson, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

Last fall, a study released by Health Canada concluded the noise from wind turbines could be an “annoyance” to nearby residents but stated there was not sufficient evidence to link it to other conditions such as stress, nausea, or fatigue. The health implications “are a matter of great debate,” says Gillespie, although he agrees these arguments have not been successful in tribunal cases. Still, he questions whether wind projects are a good economic choice. “There are transmission and storage issues. Green energy is probably the most heavily subsidized in the world,” says Gillespie.

The industry organization for the wind sector in Canada agrees that it probably could have done a better job in responding to the criticisms in recent years. “That has been a lesson learned for the industry,” says Brandy Giannetta, Ontario director of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

A new procurement process put in place by the province that requires community consultations when applying for an energy contract will help address concerns about public involvement, says Giannetta. The process should lead to contracts awarded later this year at prices about half of the ones already in place. The new process requires at least one community meeting when applying for an energy contract. It also includes the “Aboriginal Price Adder,” which can permit a developer to increase prices by about 10 per cent if there is a First Nations stake in the project.

The changes may potentially reduce the amount of litigation over wind projects, initiated by residents’ groups, says Engel. “The hope is that the process will result in the awarding of contracts in locations where the developments are welcomed,” he says.

However, these changes are unlikely to impact disputes over potential threats to wildlife, even when the developers have taken steps to try to mitigate the impact of a wind project.

In the Ostrander case, the company obtained an Endangered Species Act permit from the Ministry of Natural Resources. It permitted some harm to the turtles subject to certain conditions, which included setting aside a large area of land outside the project for a natural habitat. The permit also requires an “overall benefit” to the species so it is better off in the province than before the project started.

In the first tribunal hearing, the panel focused only on the impact to the turtle on the project site and the surrounding landscape in deciding there was serious and irreversible harm.

The legislative framework involving wind energy projects “does not sit well with the Endangered Species Act,” says Douglas Hamilton, who is representing Ostrander Point GP Inc. Obtaining a permit under the ESA “may potentially hurt you in front of the tribunal,” says Hamilton, a partner at McCarthy Tetrault LLP in Toronto.

In its ruling that sent the matter back to the tribunal, the Court of Appeal upheld the original decision that the project will cause serious and irreversible harm to the turtles. But it also permitted Ostrander to present fresh evidence at the new hearing and for the panel to address the issue of remedy. Hamilton says Ostrander is asking for the project to be approved, with conditions.

The tribunal’s ultimate decision could result in protections to the Blanding turtle far beyond that of a road sign on a heavily travelled route in one of Ontario’s popular vacation destinations.

Wynne government “ignoring its own laws” on environment, wildlife

ToughonNature

The Wellington Times, September 18, 2015

What to expect next

It’s hard to gauge what the fallout will be from the Environmental Review Tribunal, which was put on hold over a week ago while managers and technical support at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) dig through their paperwork to find any documents related to the proposed wind project at Ostrander Point.

As Prince Edward Hastings MPP Todd Smith points out, until larger players in provincial and national media understand what’s happening, that fallout could be minimal.

Speaking from Toronto, Smith said he will do his best to help them understand the implication of what happened in Demorestville two Fridays ago.

“I don’t think that the media here in the GTA… really understand what the government is doing by imposing these projects on unwilling hosts,” says Smith. “I’m hoping that I can really elevate that here so the media in Toronto starts to tell the story of these small communities outside the GTA and the impact it’s having on them. That’s going to be my focus going forward.”

The years-long, drawn out tug-of-war between Gilead Power Company and the residents of Prince Edward County came to a head when, at the second Tribunal, it came to light that an expert—a researcher for the Ministry of Natural Resources— had recommended against a permit to kill, harm and harass an endangered species.

His recommendation was not in the evidence supplied to the lawyers who argued that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to that species, the Blanding’s turtle.

It was an omission that called into question the entire renewable energy process. Ontarians rely the integrity and thoroughness of such reviews. Departments like the MNRF are expected to make unbiased decisions based on this expert advice, not politicized decisions to a political end.

“The government is ignoring its own laws,” says Smith. “They’re ignoring their own scientific experts under the premise that they’re doing something good for the environment when clearly all of the evidence is showing they’re probably doing more harm to the environment than any good that can be achieved by forcing these projects on unwilling host communities.”

County mayor Robert Quaiff, whose planned meeting with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was cancelled this week after the hiatus was called on the Tribunal, says although we don’t know the outcome, the new information gives hope.

Jolanta Kowalski, a media relations officer for the MNRF, argues that the decision-making process is more nuanced, and relies on a variety of experts to come up with an overall picture of what should be done.

Kowalski declined to discuss the specific decision in question, because the researcher is currently in cross-examination at the suspended Tribunal. She did explain the MNRF’s process in general terms, though.

“MNRF staff review and evaluate applications for permits made under the ESA [Endangered Species Act]. Evaluation and development of a permit can take months, and a team would be involved that could include biologists, ecologists, botanists, policy staff, planners, lands experts among others. The team approach works well and a variety of views are taken in to account,” Kowalski explains. “In the end, a recommendation is made based on the requirements of the ESA.”

Kowalski says the information is collated to determine the overall benefit, based on a clause in the act. They determine if, given imposed requirements, the project can achieve an overall benefit to the species, whether reasonable alternatives have been considered and whether steps have been taken minimize adverse effects.

It seems in this case, much of that evidence came from studies of a different species of turtle with different nesting patterns. In the end, the MNRF’s expert on the Blanding’s turtle conceded that in studying the application to grant a permit to kill, harm or harass that species, he told his superiors it should not be granted.

Smith is pursuing answers from the ministers involved, but is not confident they’ll be easy to come by from what he calls “a stubborn government that won’t change its course.”

“This week, we’ve had an agreement signed between Ontario and Quebec to bring green, renewable energy—hydroelectric power—from Quebec into Ontario.” says Smith.

“So If we have an agreement to get green, renewable— affordable—energy into Ontario, why are we continuing down this road of building these solar and wind energy projects at a much higher price with a bigger impact on the communities, in communities that don’t want them. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

Texas wind farm noise emissions and health problems

Wind farm and health issues

New Falcon Herald, Lindsey Harrison, September 2015

According to an Aug. 26 El Paso County press release, construction at the NextEra Energy Resources wind farm project in Calhan is nearing completion. “All 145 concrete foundations to support the wind turbine towers have now been completed … and 120 of the authorized 145 turbines are now fully erected, with only electrical work remaining to be completed.”

Although the press release states that the turbines will not be functional until the electrical work has been finished, it also states that the turbines could move in the wind, which is already causing health concerns for residents living within the wind farm’s footprint.      One resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said she knew right away that the turbines were moving because she began to feel nauseous, along with a headache.

“I have 100 turbines to the north of me, 25 to the west and 20 to the southwest,” she said. “When the wind was coming out of the north, I woke up feeling dizzy and nauseous.”

She also said her animals were acting strangely. “My donkeys and horses keep wanting to go back into their stalls,” she said. “They have not wanted to leave the barn all day.”

Robert Rand, a Boulder, Colorado, resident and an acoustic investigator and member of the Acoustical Society of America, said the reason for the headaches and nausea is directly related to the wind turbines. It has to do with infrasound and low frequency noise, he said.      According to an article written by acoustic engineer Richard James, published at http://wiseenergy.org Feb. 20, “Infrasound is acoustic energy, sound pressure, just like the low to high frequency sounds that we are accustomed to hearing. What makes infrasound different is that it is at the lowest end of the acoustical frequency spectrum even below the deep bass rumble of distant thunder or all but the largest pipe organ tones.      “As the frequency of an infrasonic tone moves to lower frequencies: 5Hz, 2Hz, 1Hz and lower, the sounds are more likely to be perceived as separate pressure pulsations … . Unlike mid and high frequency sound, infrasound is not blocked by common construction materials. As such, it is often more of a problem inside homes, which are otherwise quiet, than it is outside the home.”

Rand said the separate pressure pulsations are like the “whump, whump, whump,” people sometimes experience when they are riding in a car with the windows down. “I have been attempting to acoustically measure phenomena that could present a conflict to human physiology that could then provide a basis to do more research,” Rand said. “My work in acoustics has really been designing and planning. I don’t need more medical research because I know what they (wind turbines) do to people because it happened to me.”

According to an article accepted into The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Feb. 4, when the body experiences an external force on the inner ear, such as acoustic pressure pulses — but there is no visual input to associate with that pressure — a sensory conflict occurs. That conflict is felt as motion sickness, and it is felt to the same degree as seasickness.

The wind energy industry* has claimed for decades that this phenomenon does not exist, in part, because about one-third of the human population is essentially immune to the effects of motion sickness, which is what these pressure pulsations induce, Rand said. Similarly, about one-third of the population appears to be readily prone to motion sickness, he said. “The third that is not affected by this will never understand it and will not know what you are talking about,” Rand said.

Read more here

*EDITOR’s NOTE: Which is why, somehow, the Ontario government, instead of producing the noise regulations on infrasound/low frequency noise/vibration that they have promised since 2011, they have deleted all mention of this is the proposed amendments to the noise guidelines for wind turbines. Comments on these proposed amendments are due tomorrow. The new standard for turbines in Ontario is the 3-MW machine, which produces more infrasound.