How did a dangerous wind farm idea get so far?


The owners and pilots association couldn’t believe anyone would put turbines at an airport


The approval for proposed Fairview Wind power project has finally been revoked by the Environmental review Tribunal, on the basis of serious harm to human health and risk to aviation safety — the project was close to two airports.

Our question is, HOW did this power project get as far as it did? How could Transport Canada not block this? Why should taxpayers have had to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect safety and the environment from their own Ontario Ministry of the ENVIRONMENT and Climate Change?

In the original decision issued last fall, the Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the appellants’ aviation expert testimony, which included a rejection of any “mitigation” proposed by the wind power developer, wpd.

In specific the panel noted:

[156] For these reasons, Tribunal accepts that the margin for error posed by introducing the proposed wind turbines at their proposed locations would be inadequate to either prevent collision with a wind turbine, or prevent a crash due to wind turbine-induced turbulence.


[163] The Tribunal finds that Mr. Cormier has provided informed criticisms of the proposed mitigation measures that were not contradicted by the Director’s or Approval Holder’s experts, and, therefore, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Cormier’s evidence in this regard. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence that mitigation measures will be effective.

The reason for the delay in revocation of the approval was because a secondary issue was harm to the Little Brown Bat and the Tribunal felt it necessary —despite the clear risk to human health — to review and evaluate the mitigation procedures proposed. The Tribunal in its decision released this week, did find that the mitigation measures were acceptable but in any event, the risk to human health was sufficient to cancel the approval.

In the October decision, the Tribunal noted that documents from the power developer referred to Transport Canada in an apparent claim that that government agency was OK with proposals for new approaches for pilots to avoid the turbines. However, the Tribunal noted that the Transport Canada letter was “carefully worded” and did not, in effect, provide approval for the power developer’s notion of how to avoid plane crashes.

At “the end of the day” as lawyers say, we are left scratching our head as to how such a proposal could get so far when common sense would seem to dictate otherwise, and why our own government could be so blinded by its “green” ideology that it is more than willing to defend the proposal?


Agneta Sand

I honestly think that the industrial size wind turbines are a typical ‘make work’ program for Government People who does not understand the topic and who does not have anything else to do ! ! ! (But they are well paid!)


This is such a good question?…”how such a proposal could get so far when common sense would seem to dictate otherwise, and why our own government could be so blinded by its “green” ideology that it is more than willing to defend the proposal?”
Down in Ashfield Colborne Wawanosh, in Huron County, where turbines were sited so close to homes and in some cases surrounding homes and entire neighbourhoods, the question of exactly who made these ridiculous decisions has never been answered.
People who visit these homes are shocked to see such a callous lack of common sense. “Too close! Too many!” is a common comment. It’s easy to think that the decision makers were/are malicious and evil people.


MPN News, Sept.28, 2013

The ‘Debate Is Over’: World Reacts To IPCC Report

“A guide to world climate leader’s reactions to the IPCC’s latest report on the impact of humanity on the world’s climate.”

Reactions from included:
David Suzuki Foundation
Greenpeace International
Achim Steiner
Pembina Institute
And others.


Renewable energy such as wind and solar are part of the U.N. global sustainability agenda. Aided by federal and provincial/state policies.

Not just happening in Ontario/Canada but worldwide.

People should read U.N. publications.


Harvard Business Review/HBR, August 2017

‘The Future Economy Project’

Re: Sustainability and climate change.

Scroll down to: ‘Business Leaders Who Responded To Our Call’


Yes they are very rare….
until some complete moron decides that it is ok to allow 1000s of turbines to be sited around them…. seriously!!!! The more hours you fly around hazards like turbines the more likely you will have an incident…. holy shat people really!!!! Give it 10 years you WILL have some stats alright!!!

Stan Thayer

We, in Ontario, are being governed by pocket-liners. Individuals well educated in the art of deception and buck passing. Each month the news reports more jobs created but no one knows where they are. Government departments say anything they want to promote their proposals, true or not, with no consiquences.
Most departments are staffed by appointment not experience. The Liberal way.
The only industry growing in Ontario is the government.
How long can it last?
Stan Thayer


It can last for as long as the people of Ontario keeps on voting the liberals in.

Richard Mann

This is not a political problem, parties of all stripes, provincial and federal, have supported wind turbines. Wind turbines are causing health harm and need to be stopped.

Attached is the latest from Huron County Health Unit.

From: Erica Clark
Date: August 14, 2017 at 3:52:44 PM EDT

You can publish/circulate the following summary:

Status of the Huron County Health Unit wind turbine study

The wind turbine study is currently undergoing ethics review. Due to the sensitive nature of the information we intend to collect, ethics clearance is important to ensure the recruitment and data collection methods are ethical. We partnered with researchers from the University of Waterloo to do the study and submitted an application to the University of Waterloo Human Research and Ethics Committee. The application was submitted on March 2, 2017 and reviewed at the March 23, 2017 meeting. On April 5, 2017 we received a letter from the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee listing revisions and additional information required to receive ethics clearance. We sent a response back to the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee on May 18, 2017 detailing the changes we had made. The University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee met in June and sent us a second letter on June 27, 2017 outlining additional revisions and requests for clarification. We sent a second response back to the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee on August 9, 2017. We are now waiting for a response.

We understand that it is a long process to get ethics clearance but it is a critical step to ensure that the recruitment and data collection methods are ethical.

Erica Clark, PhD
Epidemiologist, APHEO Secretary
Huron County Health Unit
77722B London Rd., RR #5
Clinton, ON N0M 1L0
519.482.3416 ext. 2022
Toll-free 1.877.837.6143

Wind Concerns Ontario

How does this problem NOT have a political aspect to it when you present the government with ALL manner of objections–human health, the natural environment, wildlife, economics — to show that it doesn’t make sense, and you have TWO Auditors General saying it doesn’t make sense, and yet they persist?


The worldwide shift to the new green economy has winners and losers and for example stranded assets such as rural Ontario property.

Rural Ontarians are among the losers.

Leave a comment


email* (not published)