Enforce Radiation Devices Act for wind turbines: MP Larry Miller

 Larry Miller challenges Health Canada to ensure the Radiation Emitting Devices Act is being followed by the wind energy industry

August 13, 2015, Owen Sound, ON –

Larry Miller, Conservative candidate and incumbent Member of Parliament for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, is taking Health Canada to task to ensure that the provisions of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA) is being adhered to by the wind energy industry.

The REDA states the following;

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.

“I would like to know how many REDA complaints turbine manufacturers have received from Canadians who feel they are being impacted by the wind energy industry and how many of these complaints have been reported to Health Canada. Canadians have a right to know this information and they have a right to know that wind turbine manufacturers have taken their complaints seriously,” said Miller.

Miller has forwarded a letter to Health Canada requesting that they proactively ensure that health complaints due to exposure to wind turbines sent to turbine manufacturers are being brought to the attention of the Minister of Health under the requirements of the REDA. He is very disappointed with the lack of due diligence on the part of Health Canada to make certain that turbine manufacturers are following the legislation and that they are doing the investigative work and reporting required under the legislation. It is very clear that it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to do so under the Act.

More information on the REDA can be found at the Justice Canada website below;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-1

-30-

 

 

Comments

Jjoe
Reply

Well, isn’t it interesting. After all this time and just in time for the election Larry finds time to issue a self serving piece of bumpf. If what he says I s true why was Larry not on it years ago? And isn’t it interesting that Larry takes a swipe at Health Canada. The federal Minister of Health is, for the moment, Rona Ambrose a fellow federal Conservative. So is Larry saying Rona is not doing her job? All Larry is doing is trolling for votes.

NIABY
Reply

This is a good observation — why was Larry not on it years ago? These are important questions to ask as the international wind energy racket explodes.

Jjoe
Reply

This is very similar to what fellow Conservative Ben Lobb has stated. Do you think that the election has spurred the two of them to look like they are actually doing something?

Richard Mann
Reply

I wonder if MPs are “breaking ranks” to speak about this. Maybe Harper is too distracted with Duffy? It does not matter why, now there is a political will to question Health Canada.

Sommer
Reply

I agree Richard, the significant detail is that an MP is ‘breaking ranks’.
Take a look at what the Waubra Foundation in Australia issued 4 years ago.
It’s high time someone in Ontario took this seriously. Victims are being exposed to infrasound on a daily basis and elected and paid leaders are refusing to take action.

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/about/explicit-cautionary-notice/

Jjoe
Reply

I don’t see this as breaking ranks. It is all part of the federal Conservatives anti Ontario government election campaign.

Jjoe
Reply

A federal Conservative MP can not break ranks with the provincial Liberals.

Sommer
Reply

It’s time for Liberals to ‘break ranks’ and for whistleblowers to come forth. Surely by now there are Liberal MP’s experiencing moral dilemma over this insane energy portfolio.

Tom
Reply

Actually this action by Mr Miller results from meetings he held with with a committee which I was part of from The Multi Municipal Wind Turbine group in Grey Bruce earlier this year. Mr Miller and Ben Lobb both work hard on our behalf regardless of elections.
Instead of making snide remarks you would be better organizing your municipalities to stand together like we have in Grey/Bruce and work with your MPs and MPPs on your behalf – then you might get somewhere

Sommer
Reply

Tom, it’s important to recognize that people who have been dealing with this issue and facing the reality of turbines and their infrastructure in close proximity and all of the adverse effects of this situation on a daily basis are utterly disillusioned. The sincere attempts that have been made to communicate their ‘on the ground reality’ have been met with wilful blindness, neglect and/ or canned response regarding turbines and substations being in compliance with MOECC policy.
These people need our compassion and support.
I appreciate your willingness to try to affect positive change in this situation through politicians in this current situation with Lobb and Miller.

Richard Mann
Reply

@Tom. Thanks for you and everyone else for your efforts. I will be taking this information to all the candidates in my riding. Everyone else should too…

Jjoe
Reply

My remarks are not snide. Both men are in the middle of an election. They both come out with a reference to a law that has been on the books since, it looks like, 1985. I am unfamiliar with Mr Lobb. Mr Miller does have a history of making opportunistic statements. It seems like a clear case of electioneering.

Jjoe
Reply

Liberal MPs have no say in the matter just the same as Conservative MPs. They are the federal level while Indusrial Wind Farms are a provincial matter. Miller and Lobb are hitting the issue to gain votes but have no power to influence the wind power policy.

NIABY
Reply

Jjoe, like some Conservative Members of Parliament, are misrepresenting the federal government’s responsibilities about health & safety, including radiation-emitting devices.

The statement that wind energy projects “are a provincial matter” is misleading, and has been parroted (foolishly) by municipal and federal government fiduciaries for many years now. What is there to be gained by spreading this misinformation, other than to perpetrate confusion and try and get victims to give up, go away and die.

Sommer
Reply

A response I received directly from Justin Trudeau recently, regarding infrasound radiation, repeated the false and misleading statement that this is a provincial government matter. I was absolutely astonished!
I’ve written again to him last week and haven’t even received the usual canned message from his office saying my email was received.

Jjoe
Reply

Sommer, what replies did you receive from Harper and Mulcair?

Sommer

I’ve written many letters about these turbines to government leaders of all parties and have never received a response beyond a canned, “We have received your ….”

Jjoe
Reply

The federal government has been almost invisible on this topic. Industrial wind farms fall under provincial control. Municipalities have only the power given to them by the provinces. When the provincial Liberals got tired of municipalites fighting them over Industrial Wind Farms the province removed the zoning power municipalities had. The feds do have some power in this area but it is limited in nature. By and large the feds have chosen to remain silent. The election has changed that a bit. Some MPs are now more active in the area to troll for votes. If the Feds do indeed have a lot of power, as you believe, they have chosen not to use it.

NIABY
Reply

Without the federal government’s Wind Power Production Incentive that was managed by NRCan and other federal agencies, some of the earlier projects, including AIM PowerGen/Mike Crawley’s Erie Shores Wind Farm in Norfolk & Elgin Counties in Ontario, may not have been built. So the federal government’s involvement is anything but invisible.

In fact, in 2005, Natural Resources Canada was questioning Mr. Crawley about how they had determined that the 250-metre minimum separations between homes and wind turbines being proposed was adequate to protect health and safety. Based on the correspondence that has survived, NRCan was hardly convinced this was adequate to protect against operational noise emissions, and questioned whether the proponent had considered the cumulative effect of multiple turbines on a residence.

Ultimately, the proponent stated that “the setbacks were provided by the local municipalities.” Then the municipality changed the land-use zoning from agricultural/residential to include industrial electricity generation, and issued building permits for the foundations, long before the Green Energy Act of 2009 even existed. So the municipal governments are on the hook, too.

Unfortunately, the false and misleading statement that the problems are only a “provincial government matter” has been repeated and repeated and repeated, so that many people have become brainwashed by it.

Jjoe may be correct that the feds have “chosen” not to invoke their authorities. Coupled with misrepresentation, one may want to analyze the situation through the lens of criminal “intent”.

Jjoe
Reply

Our constitution does leave many grey areas as far as the division of powers is concerned. The main level of government in this issue is the provincial. The feds have some interest in the area but it is inconsequential/insignificant compared to the province. Miller and Lobb are trolling for votes. The municipal level has only the interest in this area that the province allows them which, at this point, is basically none.

Barbara
Reply

Electricity production and transmission in general is a provincial matter but electricity crossing the U.S. border is a federal matter for both countries.

Barbara
Reply

Its legal to trade electricity across the U.S./Canada border if a permit has been granted.

National security issues are considered in cross-border electricity transmission.

Jjoe
Reply

You are correct about the electricity crossing the border. However, that is not related to the generation of electricity.

NIABY
Reply

Would think there are international legal obligations for the federal government when Canada exports a product that was produced unjustly.

Jjoe
Reply

Interesting point. I guess the Canadian government does not agree with you. It looks like the U.S. Government disagrees with you as well. After all, they allow the importation of it. NAFTA would make it harder for the U.S. to stop importation even if they wanted to. Especially when they produce wind generated electricity as well.

NIABY

The federal government has been disagreeing with me for many years now. At the same time, the international wind energy racket has ballooned.

NIABY
Reply

Municipal governments including the local Boards of Health and health units are also responsible for the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Ontario Public Health Standards, powers which they possessed before the Green Energy Act of 2009, and which have NOT been removed.

Beware — all readers: it is false and misleading to attempt to minimize the responsibilities that the federal and municipal governments have for wind turbine issues. You should wonder why somebody would spread false information like that.

Jjoe
Reply

There is very little that municipal or the federal governments can do with regard to wind power. Municipal governments have had their powers curtailed in this area. If there are any meaningful powers left at this level the province can remove them on a whim. The Feds have limited powers as well in this area. They have been on the sidelines and remain there. You wishing otherwise will not make it so. Two federal politicians have found religion during an election campaign, nothing more. Do I wish the Feds had more input? Maybe, but probably would not make much difference. I do wish that municipal governments had more input. Yes, there would be a lot less industrial farms. The lack of meaningful federal or municipal action highlights their lack of real powers.

NIABY
Reply

I have already noted the distinction of industrial wind energy projects that were developed under the regulatory regimes prior to the Green Energy & Economy Act, 2009. Several of these projects are still causing harm.

The responsibilities of the municipal and federal governments for these earlier projects have been described above: the federal government approved and subsidizes the projects through the Wind Power Production Incentive; municipalities made decisions that resulted in the creation of health hazards and caused harm; municipal bodies are still responsible for the Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act and Ontario Public Health Standards, which are clear about their responsibilities pertaining to health hazards and risks; and the federal Radiation Emitting Devices Act applies too.

Here is an excerpt from a letter dated December 10, 2013 from the Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau at Health Canada (the federal government):

“Health Canada is committed to protecting the health of Canadians. The Department has expertise in administering the Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA). You are correct that, under the REDA, sound is a form of radiation.”

Again, in this writer’s opinion, the lack of action on the part of federal and municipal governments is less a demonstration of “their lack of real powers” than it is of intentional neglect, perhaps even wanton or reckless disregard for lives and safety, on the part of federal and municipal government fiduciaries.

“Jjoe’s” would wishing otherwise is bizarre, in this writer’s opinion. Although s/he is not alone. Member of Parliament (and Cabinet Minister) Diane Finley, representing Haldimand & Norfolk, has consistently misrepresented the federal government’s responsibilities about IWE projects, and failed to even mention the REDA.

One should always be on the look-out for those who are running interference for the international wind energy racket. This is an issue of national security, and the RCMP and other justice authorities should take note of “Jjoe”, its statements and its motives.

Jjoe
Reply

The RCMP should “take note” of me? That is an insane statement on your part. I guess it is your attempt to silence me. Your faith in federal politicians doing something after years of inaction is the truly bizarre belief. As noted just below the Radiation Devices Act regulations do not mention wind turbines. The only sound mentioned is Ultra Sound therapy devices. Are you shilling for Conservatives running in this election? ‘They’ve done little in the past but that is all about to change.’

NIABY

It’s quite the opposite; I’m not trying to silence you at all. Keep spewing your belief and advocacy that the federal government is not responsible for these problems and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.

Jjoe
Reply

As for “running interference for the international wind energy racket” you got the wrong guy. Please provide one statement I’ve made supporting them. I am just not ready to buy the federal Conservative conversion on the road to wind power as you appear to be. You have confused my disbelief of the feds with support for wind power. A huge mistake on your part.

NIABY

I don’t see “a federal Conservative conversion” happening, but rather a few individuals standing up for what’s right despite the nasty Conservative party politics that are likely to ensue.

Rather than viewing the present scenario through the lens of Blue vs. Red, perhaps you can look at the facts. When the Radiation Emitting Devices Act became law, how many industrial wind turbines were in Canada or contemplated? The intent of the REDA was to cover “radiation emitting devices”, which IWTs are, or was it not?

Your attempt to minimize or deny the federal and municipal government responsibilities for these issues is like running interference for the racket, because we all know that so long as the only government claiming authority to act is the (insane) Ontario provincial government, then these projects will proceed unimpeded.

And since your actions (illustrated in this conversation) benefit an international racket, and in my opinion are not based in fact, this is why justice authorities should pay attention to you.

Why would you feel “silenced” (your word) when someone notes that justice authorities should pay attention to you and your behaviours?

Jjoe
Reply

Take a look at the regulations that have been issued for the Radiation Devices Act. “3. (1) The radiation emitting devices described in Schedule I are prescribed as classes of radiation emitting devices for the purposes of the Act.”. There is no mention/regulation covering wind turbines. In fact, the only sound emitting category covered by the regulations is “13. Ultrasound therapy devices, being devices designed to generate and emit ultrasonic power at acoustic frequencies above 20 kHz for use in physical therapy.”

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1370/page-1.html#docCont

Jjoe
Reply

I can find no reference to wind, turbine, farm, industrial, or industrial wind farms in the act itself. Alert the authorities.

Wind Concerns Ontario
Reply

The Health Canada study on wind turbine noise was conducted under the authority of the REDA, so clearly has relevance. David Michaud testified to this and confirmed it during his testimony at an appeal.

Jjoe
Reply

The REDA law and regulations are silent on wind turbines. Read the law and the regulations. It was clear they were written with no thought given to industrial wind turbines. Regulating ultra sound devices, as the law does do, has no impact on our problem. The study you mention was more political gamesmanship than a serious effort. Doing a study and actually doing something using a law are completely different. No meaning federal action so far. The cited law has no real bearing on industrial wind farms as it is written.

Jjoe
Reply

I have checked the announcement that was issued when this committee’s existence and purpose was made public. As far as I can see, the REDA was not mentioned at all. If it was the basis for this study it does seem odd that no mention was made of it. Something along the line of, ‘This study is being carried out under the authority of the REDA.’

Jjoe

The release of the findings of the was made there is only one reference to the REDA that I can find. “Through administration of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, Health Canada has acquired expertise in acoustics, which is provided upon request to other federal government departments responsible for carrying out environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. “. So no claim for authority was made here either.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2013/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php

Jjoe
Reply

NIABY what was the intention of your reference to the RCMP designed to do? Do you seriously believe that someone who disagrees with you is some kind of threat? The era we live in makes your reference seem like an intimidation attempt. The federal Conservatives have done almost nothing in this area. There is little they can do. That does not make me running interference for industrial wind farms. You have evaded my question. Provide one statement I have made supporting them. Seeing the Feds as minor players in this area does not equal running interference. Your actions make you seem to be cheerleading for some local Conservative candidates.

NIABY
Reply

The suggestion that justice authorities should pay attention to you was designed to be helpful. Sometimes investigators don’t know where to begin.

Our difference of opinions is about whether the federal (and municipal) governments have authority (and responsibility) to act to address the problems, if they should so choose.

Your statement that “there is little they can do” has not been proven, in fact it’s being dis-proven; it’s merely opinion that is not supported by the facts that I see, and which aids & abets a racket that is destroying so much.

You will not find me “cheerleading for some local Conservative candidates” because our Conservative candidate has been misrepresenting the federal government’s responsibilities for IWT problems. That you would suggest this demonstrates that you fail to understand the point of all the words above.

Ultimately we need to get past the misunderstandings about the federal government’s responsibilities for these problems and their duty to take actions to address them. And how someone could have the mistaken belief that the federal government lacks authority here. The health study that Health Canada officially announced in 2012 proves there is federal jurisdiction.

This advice from Adolph Hitler might help to explain your misconceptions:
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

Jjoe believes “the federal government is not responsible to resolve industrial wind turbine problems.”

Jjoe
Reply

Your reference to the RCMP was designed to intimidate me. You can twist and turn all you like. You are suggesting that they investigate me because I dare not to share your opinion. There is little that the Feds can do because, so far, there is little that has been done. Doing a study does not somehow assert authority. The municipalities have only the power the province gives. If they came up with an effective way to challenge wind farms the province would remove that power. They’ve done it before and would do it again. The solving of the industrial wind farm mess lies mostly with the province.

Barbara
Reply

Don’t be concerned Jjoe, you would be about the last place an RCMP investigation into this mess would begin anyway. Unless they were looking for information you have managed to dig up on this mess.

Your points and information are well taken.

Jjoe
Reply

Thank you Barbara. Kind words are always appreciated.

NIABY
Reply

Anyone who spreads misinformation during a crisis where health and safety is at stake, is a threat, in my opinion.

I have been examining industrial wind energy projects “in my backyard” for over a decade. I have gotten calls from people around the world, telling me they have attempted suicide, or that they’re “praying for death” because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, caused by industrial wind energy projects. I have lots of patience for these people.

Jjoe’s statement that “there is little that the Feds can do because, so far, there is little that has been done” is a logical fallacy. I think one should look at the federal government’s lack of action as BREACH of their duty of care, not proof that there is nothing they can do. Who thinks there is not likely to be criminal negligence charges out of all this eventually? I suspect even David Michaud is wondering.

And contrary to Jjoe’s accusation, appealing to the RCMP is not an intimidation tactic. Nor did I suggest they should “investigate” Jjoe, only that they should “take note”.

Around the world, Wind Concerns Ontario is regarded as somewhat of an authority about industrial wind energy issues. And people like Jjoe are free to litter these pages with whatever the good moderators at WCO will permit. Certainly by doing so, they are seeking attention. What kind of world are we living in where victims like Jjoe view the RCMP as an “intimidation” force instead of a justice agency here to help and protect us.

One of the bigger issues here, as I see it, is some peoples’ mistaken belief about their “rights” to put forward their “opinions,” as if what should be done or what is the law is a matter of “opinion”. Is there ANY lawyer or director at the government claiming that the REDA does not apply or that the federal government is not responsible to resolve these issues? Jjoe appears convinced beyond a doubt about this, and yet with all that I’ve seen, (including consulting with RCMP,) I see a different reality; it’s like black versus white. In some situations, two different and opposing positions cannot both be correct.

Recently I was impressed by a County lawyer in Michigan, who advised the town that what was needed was decision-making based on “reason” and not “opinion”.

Jjoe
Reply

Your RCMP explanation is twisted in knots. To take note of means investigate. What other reason would the RCMP have for taking note of me, or anyone else. They have no reason to take note of me. I have not threatened anyone or anything. I merely disagree with you. Hardly note worthy.

Jjoe
Reply

NIABY stated, “And contrary to Jjoe’s accusation, appealing to the RCMP is not an intimidation tactic. Nor did I suggest they should “investigate” Jjoe, only that they should “take note”.”

Yet earlier, in this very thread, NIABY stated, “The suggestion that justice authorities should pay attention to you was designed to be helpful. Sometimes investigators don’t know where to begin.” So NIABY you were helpfully letting the justice investigators know where to begin their investigation.

NIABY
Reply

Thanks, Jjoe. I have to commend you on your good grammar. And you certainly are dedicated to the things you believe in.

Your posts here are noteworthy, in my opinion, because you are evidence of the effectiveness of the “big lie” that “the federal government is not responsible to address these problems.”

There are many reasons why the federal government should take action, like human rights, the constitution, the Criminal Code of Canada, health & safety, REDA, and because some of these projects were approved and subsidized by the federal government, under CONTRACT with the federal government that the projects would NOT put residents “at risk of significant environmental impact.” This has been proven to be false since residents ARE being exposed to risks and significant impacts, and so it’s imperative for professionals to admit the problems and clean-up the mess and so honour the contracts.

Furthermore, since the Government of Ontario has proven it is intent on behaving insanely, or irrationally, or however you want to describe their destructive behaviours, the federal government must act! Ontario was once a Canadian power-house and is now a “have-not” province. This affects the entire nation.

Anyway, I’d like to hand it over to betty who will make a good recommendation about how to apply your limited resources effectively…

Jjoe
Reply

Yes, the big lie is working here. There is no federal law that you have pointed to that covers wind turbines in a meaningful way. If the Feds want the REDA to cover wind turbines they will have to change the law. And yet you insist the Feds can act. Without changing or enacting a new law there is no real federal presence on this issue. As for my grammar skills, I’ll be sure to mention that to the RCMP when they come calling. 🙂

NIABY

I notice Jjoe neglected to consider and/or comment about the fact that the federal government approved contracts for some projects, having the expectation that residents would “not be at risk of significant environmental impact”. One would wonder if it’s Jjoe’s position that the federal government doesn’t have authority to act regarding these contracts that were based on false information!

betty
Reply

When Health Canada announced the wind turbine noise and health randomized epidemiological study to the media in July 2012- http://cnw.ca/il8b it states:
“Health Canada has expertise in measuring noise and assessing the health impacts of noise because of its role in administering the Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA). As defined under REDA, noise is a form of radiation.”
That’s pretty self-explanatory isn’t it.

Jjoe
Reply

Thanks, I did not find that refence. It explains why Health Canad is doing the study. They have expertise in measuring noise and noise is radiation. However, it does not claim jurisdiction over industrial wind farms. That is the point I have been making. Here’s what I mean. The regulations in the REDA are silent on wind turbines. So, if you complain there is no regulatory standard to measure the possible wind turbine against. Saying the turbine is noisy isn’t good enough.

Barbara
Reply

Right, the facts have to be sorted out about any issues involving IWTs.

Betty has referenced the Health Canada Study so where can this go from here? Or compare the two documents and what can this lead too?

So many have put so much work into these IWT issues!

Betty
Reply

We can use the federal election to press all candidates on what they would do knowing that wind companies who receive multi million dollar contracts to build wind projects in our communities are not complying with this federal law. We can show up at rallies pancake breakfasts fall fairs and demand an answer. Let our local reporters know the wind turbine controversy has not gone away. The PCs are in a bad place while the NDP are moving ahead. Ontario is ground zero for Harper and we are waiting for federal candidates to tell us what THEY will do about the REDA.

Jjoe
Reply

Betty, there is one problem with your idea. There is no federal law, it seems,that the wind farms are breaking. The REDA nor its regulations covers wind turbines. The turbines are not mentioned nor are standards for turbines listed in the regulations at this time. They can’t break a law if the law does not cover them.

Betty
Reply

The principal investigator for the Health Canada wind turbine noise and health study stated under oath that the study was conducted under the authority of the REDA. There is no reason to say that if wind turbine acoustical radiation fell under some other authority. It is time for you to WRITE your own MP, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health and ask them the question yourself and then share their answers with WCO. Until then, those living under wind turbines should be pushing all the buttons we can and force the politicians to tell us what they think.

Jjoe
Reply

Could you provide URLfor this please? It strange that he would say that but it is not mentioned in the written material I have found about the committee. Please point out where in the REDA law or regulations industrial wind turbines are mentioned. They are not as far as I can see. The point being the law/regulations does not/can not regulate what is not in the law. As for contacting people I wrote my former MPP several times about wind turbines. I phoned his office once or twice about it as well. He was pro wind and I had a small part in him becoming an ex MPP. I have written and phoned wind companies, attended meetings, contacted businesses who use ‘green wind power’ trying to get them to see the error of their way. I phoned the Premier’s office regarding the crazy sale of Hydro One. I even met the Premier once at a public meeting. Nice lady but a crazy plan, wind power. I shook her hand and then briefly told her to her face why I thought wind power was crazy. She briefly told me why she thought I was wrong. The encounter was very polite and it was a great moment.

Jjoe
Reply

Thank you Betty. However, the study being undertaken under the REDA does not mean the act or its regulations apply to wind turbines. Neither the act nor the regulations mention wind turbines. Until regulations are enacted there is nothing that can be done. You can’t apply a law to something that the law does not cover.

Barbara
Reply

Illinois Leaks, Feb.14, 2015

‘Got Wind Turbines and County Mutual Insurance:You may have a problem …’

County Mutual Insurance: Noise is now excluded from coverage.

See the included PDF for the insurance policy terms/conditions

Illinois Coverage Restrictions

“Pollution” now includes noise, radiation, etc.

http://www.edgarcountywatchdogs.com/index.php?s=wind+turbine+noise+and+insurance

A new direction here with “noise”?

Jjoe
Reply

Barbara the real problem here is if this impacts people who do not have wind turbines on their property. If their neighbours nearby turbine(s) impact their insurance then that is disgusting. The neighbours get the turbine cash and they are stuck with the insurance problem.

Barbara
Reply

This would impact the IWT host land owners.

You can’t be liable for something that is not on your property. But non-hosts also lose coverage. Can’t be seen to discriminate.

Insurance companies evaluate potential risks and will drop coverage when the risks of paying damages arises.

Insurance companies try to stay ahead of any liabilities. So they cancel coverage ahead of time.

Tracy
Reply

I am so [] sick and tired of the twisting and manipulation of words to cover the asses of those who are at fault.
The son of a bitches will be held accountable in a real court and serve their sentences accordingly.
I am [] at people like you Joe who seem to get off on stupid argument while people like myself are very ill and/or died because of exposure to infrasound from IWT’s.
Perhaps a good old fashioned kick in the ass is what is needed to stop this criminal activity by big wind and/or politicians.
Btw, I cannot think of adequate compensation for the illness, devastation, and tragedy the wind industry has brought to me. I will tell you, I will not suck it up and die.
Go blow it out your ear Joe; what is done is done. Think what you want, call it what you want; basically..people like you can go [] yourselves. Actually, they already have…

Jjoe
Reply

Tracy, I have one question for you. What federal law now on the books gives the Feds real control in this area? The answer seems to be none. That is not twisting or evading or lying or any word you choose to use. The REDA does not cover wind turbines at the moment. They are not mentioned in the act or the regulations. The act/regulations could be changed in the future. But, as of now, the REDA is of little comfort to either you or me. You are angry obviously. However, I did not write nor am I in a position to change the law. For a crime to have been committed a law must exist for the criminal to break.

NIABY
Reply

One of the projects at stake here was AIM PowerGen/Mike Crawley’s “Erie Shores Wind Farm”. This project was subsidized by Natural Resources Canada’s Wind Power Production Incentive. As part of this contract, the proponent had to represent that the project would NOT put residents “at risk of significant environmental impact.” This has been proven false, and yet you think the federal government does not have authority –nor responsibility– to act in this instance?

What an interesting case study this conversation has become.. Thank you “Jjoe” for volunteering yourself as a research subject. Your take on reality is remarkable!

NIABY
Reply

“What could compel Jjoe to so adamantly push an agenda that depends on denying certain facts?”

“How do Jjoe’s actions support an international wind energy racket?”

“Is Jjoe a mercenary? Or a Conservative party operative? Or an agent of the PMO? Or one of the many lawyers who have perpetrated this terrorism in communities? Or does Jjoe have a contract with USW?”

“Is Jjoe writing these posts from work? Or from a government office?”

Yes, it is necessary to sort out the facts.

Jjoe

NIABY. Yet more diversion. I am an not an agent, mercenary, stock holder, owner, or have any connection to any of thos entities that you mention. While you sort facts I noticed that you have not responded to my post regarding your suggestion I should be investigated I quoted you. You have ignored it.

NIABY

I don’t know what you’re talking about Joe. I have explained why I think you and your behaviours are noteworthy for justice authorities.

In your zeal to deny that the federal government has authority & responsibility to address these problems, you refuse to acknowledge that the federal government has contractual responsibilities pertaining to the health risks caused by these projects, and also cannot explain why if the Health Canada study was undertaken by authority of the REDA, your opinion that REDA does not apply???

Facts inconvenient to your narrative?

NIABY

Again, Jjoe fails to provide a reason for why he believes that even though the Principal Investigator, David Michaud, claims the Health Canada health study was undertaken by authority of the REDA, Jjoe’s opinion that the REDA doesn’t apply. Very remarkable, in my opinion.

Also, Jjoe has taken a shining to the idea that police should “investigate” him/her/them. There’s a difference between RCMP investigators “taking note” of someone and the RCMP “investigating” that person.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines investigation as “The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research””

Kind of like the absurdity of claiming that a “health study” is the same an “investigation”.

NIABY

Whoops! The comment above (at 2:09pm) should have been beneath the comment below. I “replied” at the wrong place! All these tiers can be so confusing…

Jjoe

Yes, NIABY the thread has become convoluted. Wind turbines are not mentioned in the REDA. Undertaking a study and having the power to regulate are two different things. Now, you don’t believe that. However, that is my opinion. I have stated here many times. So there is no mystery. We just clearly disagree.

Your words, “The suggestion that justice authorities should pay attention to you was designed to be helpful. Sometimes investigators don’t know where to begin.” Clearly suggesting an investigation.

Jjoe
Reply

NIABY. For a person or entity to be covered by the law there must first be a law that covers it. The REDA does not mention nor does it claim to cover industrial wind turbines. The bottom line.

Jjoe

NIABY. You did not just state that I was noteworthy. You stated. “The suggestion that justice authorities should pay attention to you was designed to be helpful. Sometimes investigators don’t know where to begin.” So NIABY you were helpfully letting the justice investigators know where to begin their investigation. As for contractual obligations, the Feds had standards for projects that wanted subsidies. If you wanted the subsidy you had to meet the Feds rules. Much like the bridge up the road that was fixed using a federal subsidy. If the bridge project met the federal guidelines it could get the subsidy. The Feds have no claim on the bridge. They did help to rebuild it. REDA does not, in my opinion, apply. No mention to wind turbines in the act/regulations. I have suggested a way for like minded people to try and start a private prosecution. I don’t think it will fly but it is an avenue open to you.

Jjoe

“The suggestion that justice authorities should pay attention to you was designed to be helpful. Sometimes investigators don’t know where to begin.” Your words.

“Sometimes investigators don’t know where to begin.” So, what do investigators need help with starting?

NIABY

For someone who’s not a lawyer, and who, it seems, has not bothered to examine the contracts and conditions of these federal government subsidies, you’re very confident you understand what’s going on and that ‘there’s nothing to see here’. Worse than useless, in my opinion.

Anyway, here’s a helpful info-graphic that shows the federal government has been an active perpetrator of the wind energy industry:
http://cfree.nationbuilder.com/industry_government_academia_and_canada_s_wind_technology_road_map

To pretend the problems are entirely the provincial government’s is beyond absurd…in my opinion.

Jjoe

NIABY. I am not a lawyer are you? As far as I can find the federal government is out of the subsidy game with building wind turbines. As I stated earlier there were conditions set by the Feds. If you wanted their money you had to fulfill their conditions. When the Feds helped pay to repair the bridge up the road they set conditions on the money. If the municipality wanted the money they had to meet those conditions. So it is a common occurrence. String free subsidy money is very rare.

NIABY

One of the conditions was that the projects would NOT put residents “at risk of significant environmental impacts.” That condition was not met but the federal [Conservative] government acts as though it doesn’t care and as if contracts don’t need to be honored.

And, no, I am not a lawyer, but have done my research and work hard to know the limitations of my understanding. And I think this tragedy was caused by people spouting opinions about issues they’re not at all qualified to assess.

Jjoe

As I have pointed out, with an URL back up, the regulations in the REDA prescribe what devices are covered but the act. Wind turbines are not covered. The testimony you refer to explains why the study was done. Complains were received and a study done because radiation emissions (including sound) is covered by the act. He does not claim federal jurisdiction over wind turbines. The study was a look to see what is going on due to complaints. Turbines, tubas, and trombones all emit noise. None are prescribed devices under the act. Any one of these devices could, I suspect, be added to the list of the prescribed devices. The Feds do bear some responsibility for the turbines they helped to fund. I said it before. That is a long way from being able to control the sector. Anyone who disagrees with you is in need of investigation or is acting in bad faith, according to you.

The Act states
“13. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing classes of radiation emitting devices for the purposes of this Act;
(b) prescribing standards regulating the design, construction and functioning of any prescribed class of radiation emitting devices for the purpose of protecting persons against genetic or personal injury, impairment of health or death from radiation;”

The regulations state

“PRESCRIPTION OF CLASSES OF RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES AND STANDARDS THEREFOR

3. (1) The radiation emitting devices described in Schedule I are prescribed as classes of radiation emitting devices for the purposes of the Act.
(2) The standards set out in Schedule II for prescribed classes of radiation emitting devices are prescribed as standards regulating the design, construction or functioning of those prescribed classes of radiation emitting devices and the components thereof”

The sovereign nation of Canada has made a list of prescribed devices. Wind turbines are not a prescribed device.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-1/

.

Jjoe
Reply

NIABY. My opinion is as valuable and as informed as yours. “at risk of significant environmental impacts.” The Feds had that in the contract. Was the contract fulfilled? Well, the Feds must have believed so as they issued the cheques. It makes the Feds partly responsible for the problems that they helped to directly create. That does not give them control over the whole sector.

Jjoe

NIABY. I have pointed this out much earlier in this thread. Here it is again from the regulations for the REDA. “PRESCRIPTION OF CLASSES OF RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES AND STANDARDS THEREFOR

3. (1) The radiation emitting devices described in Schedule I are prescribed as classes of radiation emitting devices for the purposes of the Act.
(2) The standards set out in Schedule II for prescribed classes of radiation emitting devices are prescribed as standards regulating the design, construction or functioning of those prescribed classes of radiation emitting devices and the components thereof.”

This outlines which devices are prescribed (covered) by the act. Industrial wind turbines are not on the list of prescribed devices.

NIABY

The federal government is “partly responsible for the problems”, you say. But you argue- “that does not give them control over the whole sector”???

You know, Canada is still a sovereign nation.

Furthermore, to contend that the REDA does not cover wind turbines is awfully confusing since Health Canada’s David Michaud testified otherwise at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal on October 4, 2013. (He was under oath.) How do you attempt to explain that — in good faith?

Here’s the transcript of David Michaud’s testimony:

“Concerns have been raised regarding possible health risks to Canadian residents living in close proximity to wind turbine installations.” Are these the concerns that you have already expressed in your evidence that have come through phone calls and e-mails and things of that nature?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some type of legislative authority under which Health Canada has undertaken this authority?
A. Yes, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.
Q. Can you explain to us the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and how that relates to wind turbines?
A. The simplest way to explain it is that under that act acoustical energy is defined as non-ionizing radiation. Wind turbines emit acoustical radiation, therefore they are considered a device under that act.”

Jjoe
Reply

NIABY. The Feds had a green energy subsidy plan, ecoEnergy. No new applications have been accepted for a few years now. However, the Feds are still paying the subside to approved ‘green’ generation, including wind farms, till something like 2020. I have not mentioned it earlier because it does not seem germaine. In fact, it weakens your argument about the Feds seeing they actually encouraged the building of wind farms. This plan occurred under the direction of a Stephen Harper government. The Feds did have some input into the wind farms they susidized. After all, if you want their money you have to accept their input. Money with no strings attached is a mighty rare thing.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/ecoaction/14145

Barbara
Reply

Federal renewable energy policies began under a Liberal government and have continued on to the present.

If the issue of radiation was to go to court with IWTs NOT spelled out in the wording of the Act, then what would happen? Years of litigation?

Just sort out the issues and see where this stands as of now.

When there is information that an insurance company no longer offers coverage for “noise” and radiation on
from your property then take note. Other companies may follow suit.

Eliminate potential lawsuits before they happen.

Betty
Reply

Let’s put it this way, the REDA 1985 states:

Deception:
5. (1) No person shall label, package or advertise a radiation emitting device in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its design, construction, performance, intended use, character, value, composition, merit or safety.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only in relation to representations relating to the emission of radiation Labelling, etc.

(3) No person shall fail to comply with the regulations respecting the labelling, packaging or advertising of radiation emitting devices.

If this is true what are we waiting for?

Jjoe
Reply

Betty good for you. It is interesting. The Feds would have to be able to reasonably suspect deception. Deception, I would suspect, requires knowingly making false statements. Now that is a tough row to hoe but possible.

Tracy
Reply

Because “IWT’s” are not mentioned, does not exempt them from the act.

A scenario: Committing murder is a crime. Does the law state the exact weapons or methods that may not be used to commit the murder?
If the person is a man of color-does this specific need be mentioned in the law?
I’ve been involuntarily exposed to radiation. It is unlawful for the government to do this to me. Because the radiation was emitted from and IWT development doesn’t count?! The crime has been committed. It has cost me HUGE, and I’m not talking only money here. Money is secondary to what was taken and permanently destroyed.
Angry you say?! Ha!
You are very persistent supporting the “big lie”. Makes me wonder what’s a stake for you?
In your world, win your argument of words. In my world, when you have nothing left to lose-it really doesn’t matter.
This mess will go down; and with it, mcGuinty, Crawley, and every scoundrel and liar associated with this scam.
Scum bags should be locked in a cage – no room to move, let’s make that a cage connected to and surrounded by industrial wind turbines; given minimal provisions to survive, and when they have had enough, let them regain their strength and do it all over again, and again.
Nasty you say?
I really don’t wish this on anyone.
Compares to living in my home, surrounded by industrial wind turbines and stray voltage-enough to create an electrical shock when touching a trampoline in my yard; being ignored by my government, given no help, and left to flounder, vomitting, bleeding, suffering from diarrhea. Bllod pressure spiked, I became lethargic. As well, I am humiliated beyond belief.
The infrasound continued to penetrate-pummeling my body, destroying tissue and bone. I am very weak.
This was my life of HELL living amongst Mike Crawley’s IWT development. Oh, and I forgot to mention-no sleep.
This is a small glimpse of the reality of my pitiful existence, thank you very much.
“Some of us have to give for the benefit of others”…so I was told hahaha.

Barbara
Reply

Agree with you Tracy but this is the kind of situation that lawyers get paid for.

A little off topic but may add something to the general knowledge of infrasound.

Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorlogical Society, Oct.25, 2010

‘Spectrum of infrasound originating from regions of severe weather”

Paper is about infrasound produced by severe weather like tornadoes.

Could explain why animals are reacting to infrasound prior to severe weather ahead of time when humans don’t. Hearing “range” is greater?

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1010.5127 and follow the link to the PDF paper itself.

Barbara
Reply

Could this be the reason for the old expression “I can feel a storm coming”?

Humans can feel the infrasound generated by severe weather which travels ahead of a storm.

Jjoe
Reply

Barbara thanks for this. I feel that the infrasound from wind turbines is potentially more dangerous than the sound they emit.

Barbara
Reply

I think this article has a link to the elephants and infrasound study. If not I can post it.

Elephants respond to infrasound which carries long distances. The infrasound comes from distant storms and it’s thought this is the way elephants find drinking water.

By and large, humans feel infrasound with maybe some individual exceptions.

Rather simple explanation but too bad?

Jjoe

Good point.

Barbara
Reply

ARS Technica, Dec.19, 2014

‘Birds clear out of breeding ground as severe weather approaches’

“, birds sensed the infrasound produced by the severe weather which can travel thousands of kilometers in advance of weather system.”

http://www.arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/birds-clear-out-of-breeding-ground-as-severe-weather-approaches

Article has the link to the published paper in Current Biology, Issue 1, p.98-102, 5 January 2015

“Tornadic Storm Behavior in Breeding Songbirds”

Barbara

Later when weather data was checked for this bird location it showed nothing unusual.

So the presence of infrasound is important to living creatures.

Barbara
Reply

Wouldn’t every IWT project have to be tested to determine does that particular project emit radiation?

Of course you are right, but realize this process will take plenty of time.

In the mean time, people who are suffering are called NIMBYs. and it’s just your imagination.

There are research papers available that explain how infrasound affects humans and animals.

Try getting this information out to the general public when the MSM only publishes the “party” line.

http://www.audicus.com/hearing-loss-and-infrasound

This is a business website but does have source links to information for people to follow.

Wind Concerns Ontario
Reply

OK, folks: that’s about enough personal remarks. Let’s keep to civil discourse, thank you.

Jjoe
Reply

There is a way to partially settle this discussion. First, I am not a lawyer. I seem to remember a newspaper article from a couple of years ago. Someone was able to launch a private criminal charge. There are abviously steps to go through. If WCO or a group of liked minded persons could raise money and hire a lawyer to pursue a deception or fraud charge. If my memory is correct it might spur the Feds to action or maybe not. It would be a way of finding out if such a charge is possible. Should a group of citizens have to do this? No, but it might set the ball rolling.

Barbara
Reply

It’s possible to gather information and present the information to law enforcement and then law enforcement would have to begin a separate investigation to determine if any criminal wrongdoing was present.

This is to protect innocent people from being falsely accused.

Barbara
Reply

This is used often.

For example, someone commits an offense against me then I can go to the authorities and make a complaint. Then the legal process begins to determine if my complaint is justified.

Good to have copy of this webpage as legal stuff is often difficult to find if you are not a lawyer.

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website