“This is not over”: update from appellants in Charter challenge

Ontario's communities in court vs their own government, and industry
Ontario’s communities in court vs their own government, and industry–it’s evolving

It seems like the judicial landscape in the fight to protect homes and communities from the invasion of unwanted (and frankly, unnecessary) wind power projects is characterized by defeat after defeat.

This is not true.

In fact, the fight against utility-scale wind power developments is evolving. The community group Safe Wind Energy for All Residents (SWEAR) has produced an update for its supporters (of whom WCO is one) following the recent Drennan et al decision. Well worth a read.

Find the document here: Letter to SWEAR Supporters – February 24, 2015

Comments

Sommer
Reply

I would strongly urge everyone to take a look at this video regarding the fraud of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI&spfreload=10
Journalist, James Corbett concisely and clearly explains why the ‘science’ behind the IPCC’s alarmist reports is faulty. He interviews Professor Tim Ball as well. The Liberal government has been complicit in covering up the truth.
Having this awareness will deepen your resolve to support whatever it takes to force these companies to remove every last turbine. The Drennans et al deserve full support for their relentless courage.

Richard Mann
Reply

Here is a “time line” showing the history of Wind Turbine Noise research, going back as far as 1979. Each entry provides documentation:
cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0Ak2bgr7C0nhPdGR3S1lEekU3T3p4ZDhUNDdRV2Y2ZkE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=650

Please share.

1979 “First complaints received from a dozen families within a 3km radius of turbine”.
1981 “Wind turbine operation creates enormous sound pressure waves”
1982 “Closed windows and doors do not protect occupants from LFN”
1982 “NASA research on human impacts provided to wind industry”
1985 “Hypothesis for infrasound-induced motion sickness”
1987 “Wind industry told that dB(A) unsuitable to measure LFN emissions from wind turbines”

2004 “Wind industry knows noise models inadequate” (from Vestas)

2011 “Vestas knew that low frequency noise from larger turbines needed greater setbacks”
mannr@lenovo:~$ cat Comment-Timeline
To interested readers here is a “time line” showing the history of Wind Turbine Noise research, going back as far as 1979. Each entry provides documentation:
cdn DOT knightlab DOT com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0Ak2bgr7C0nhPdGR3S1lEekU3T3p4ZDhUNDdRV2Y2ZkE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=650

1979 “First complaints received from a dozen families within a 3km radius of turbine”.
1981 “Wind turbine operation creates enormous sound pressure waves”
1982 “Closed windows and doors do not protect occupants from LFN”
1982 “NASA research on human impacts provided to wind industry”
1985 “Hypothesis for infrasound-induced motion sickness”
1987 “Wind industry told that dB(A) unsuitable to measure LFN emissions from wind turbines”

2004 “Wind industry knows noise models inadequate” (from Vestas)

2011 “Vestas knew that low frequency noise from larger turbines needed greater setbacks”

Barbara
Reply

Thanks Richard !!!

Sommer
Reply

Yes, Richard this is much appreciated.
My comment was not intended to distract from the significance of the Charter Challenge…only to amplify the support, by encouraging everyone to understand the larger context in which this has all taken place.

Barbara
Reply

Try combining what you have found out with the “Cloak of Green”?

Sommer
Reply

Ist Item of the Nuremberg Code:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Richard Mann
Reply

Sommer: Excellent reference.

It is not ethical to test human subjects without their consent.
Nobody wants to face this issue.

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website