Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Wig-Standard, November 12, 2014
KINGSTON, Ont. – One of the key experts backing opposition to a wind energy development on Amherst Island said a recent Health Canada study is more politics than science.
John Harrison, a Queen’s University professor emeritus in physics and a member of the Association to Protect Amherst Island, located near Kingston, Ont., said the report contradicts itself and was not peer reviewed.
In a report released last week, Health Canada said there is no link between noise from wind turbines and adverse health effects.
Health Canada scientists looked at communities that host wind farms. Two dozen government, academic and industry experts contributed to the study.
Researchers examined 1,200 participants living within 2 km of wind turbines in Ontario and P.E.I.
Scientists found that while some residents living near wind turbines noted some indicators of stress — sleep disruption, headaches — there was nothing to indicate those stressors were the result of the wind turbines.
Harrison pointed out that the report later states that annoyance caused by the noise from wind turbines is linked to sleep problems, illness, stress and quality of life.
“I can’t help, as a scientist, to link those together and say annoyance increases with the noise, health effects increase with the annoyance, so health effects must increase with the noise.”
Harrison also criticized the report, which is a summary of conclusions reached by a larger study, for not including the scientific data the study collected.
Harrison said he originally supported Health Canada’s research plan, called the release “premature.”
And the lack of scientific data makes it impossible to have it reviewed by other scientists, he said.
“This is political. This is political because the provinces want to build turbines. This is political because the provinces want the wind energy companies to build them and use their own money.”
Harrison also took exception to statements in the report that he says are either not supported or attributed to any scientific research or too general to mean anything.
“Something as fuzzy as parts of this summary would never make it through the peer review for a reputable journal,” he said.
Read the full story here.
4 Comments
Greg Latiak
Reading the comments on this article in the Whig today did remind me of the elephant in the room of farm usage. Much is made of the right of the farmer and any other landowner to do with as they will with their land. By extension so to with wind turbines. However, rural activities whose impact extends far beyond the boundaries of the farm are generally regulated in some manner to reduce the impact to others. Wind turbines are much like gigantic open manure lagoons in that their emissions will be noticed for miles around. I suspect that if the impact of industrial wind was confined to the properties on which they are hosted there would be much less opposition. Just saying that the farmer can do what they want when the impact goes far beyond the boundaries of the farm does not make it so.
Joe
“This is political. This is political because the provinces want to build turbines. This is political because the provinces want the wind energy companies to build them and use their own money.”
The study was flawed and ended up making very little sense. However, political it was not. The feds have shown no interest in helping our provincial government either politically nor in policy. The study is flawed but the flaws have nothing to do with politics.
Wind Concerns Ontario
Having trouble with that: Canada doesn’t want to be seen as an oil nation only, so is it aiding the “renewables” to help with its global image re: climate change? That is political.
Joe
The author of the original article says, as I read it, the results of the report are political. The report did not condemn wind power. I pointed out that, if my interpretation of what was written is correct, it is not political. The Feds trying to help our provincial government out? Not going to happen in politics, policy, or in any other area.