Ontario Wind Resistance - Mr. Dan Mathieson Pickering...

Request for disclosure to conduct a public audit of the MPAC study on the impacts of wind turbines February 18, 2013

Any errors or omissions are unintended

1 of 13

February 18, 2013 Mr. Dan Mathieson Chair Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) 1340 Pickering Parkway Suite 101 Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 [email protected] Copy The Right Honourable Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada [email protected] The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health [email protected] Kathleen Wynne Premier of Ontario [email protected] [email protected] Ms Cheryl Gallant, MP [email protected] Mr. John Yakabuski, MPP [email protected] Open letter: Request for disclosure to conduct a public audit of the MPAC study on the impacts of wind turbines Dear Mr. Mathieson, I have addressed this open letter to you as you are listed as the chair of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). It is my understanding MPAC is conducting a study of the real estate value impacts of industrial wind turbine (IWT) facilities in Ontario. 1 I am writing to you in order to:

request full disclosure of MPAC IWT study data and methodology; and provide knowledge which can help inform MPAC about the impacts of IWTs.



2 of 13

Contents

Notice to reader..................................................................................................................................... 2 References Cited ................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3 Request for full disclosure and audit..................................................................................................... 4 IWTs can harm humans if placed too close to residents....................................................................... 4 Health effects expected in Ontario, Canada.......................................................................................... 5 Evidence IWTs can have negative impacts on real estate values ......................................................... 7 Closing .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Notice to reader The contents of this letter should not be used to infer any bias for or against wind energy. This letter is not to be associated with and/or used to characterize any individual and/or organization. Brett Horner has not received any financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this letter.

References Cited This letter provides references to support statements contained within. References provided include:

Peer reviewed references; Non peer reviewed references including grey literature; Statements and references authored by Health Canada and/or Health Canada representatives; References prepared for the Canadian Wind Energy Association and/or the American Wind

Energy Association;

References authored by consultants for, or members of, the wind energy industry; References authored by the Danish Energy Agency; Government and other documents obtained through the Province of Ontario Freedom of

Information (FOI) requests; and Other references



3 of 13

Introduction I am a published peer reviewed author on the subject of IWTs and health effects. I have audited references produced by various government agencies which consider the health impacts of IWTs. These audits reveal that some references produced by government agencies contain errors of omission and/or commission and cannot be relied upon to make informed decisions. 2 One of the government references audited is the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario “The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines” released on May 20, 2010. I am advising MPAC a 2011 Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) considered evidence and testimony under oath and found that IWTs can harm humans if they are placed too close to residents. The ERT decision also found that ““serious harm to human health” includes … indirect impacts (e.g., a person being exposed to noise and then exhibiting stress and developing other related symptoms). This approach is consistent with both the WHO definition of health and Canadian jurisprudence on the topic.” 3 I am advising MPAC that property owners who agree to participate in IWT projects are typically compensated for hosting the turbines and for any adverse effects caused by the IWT. Excerpts from sample Canadian hosting agreements indicate individuals who benefit financially from wind energy projects typically agree to noise, visual and/or other adverse effects in exchange for financial consideration:

“… in consideration of the Rent paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. … the parties hereto covenant and agree … Lessor grants and transfers to Lessee a non-exclusive License for audio, visual, view, light, flicker, noise, shadow, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical and radio interference, and any other effects attributable to the Wind Power Facilities or activity located on the Leased Lands or on adjacent properties (“Effect License”).” 4

“The Rent, in respect of the Specified Locations…represent compensation in full

for…nuisance, noise, signal interference,…, casting of shadows and other inconveniences or damage…incurred by Lessor from the acts or omissions of Lessee.” 5

Financial compensation paid to participating property owners represents an annuity which is typically paid over the duration of the hosting agreement. This financial compensation can be substantial and can impact the present and future value of the leased property. Conversely financial compensation is not typically provided to non participating property owners in proximity to IWTs. Non participating property owners in proximity to IWTs are not typically compensated for the burdens of nuisance, noise, signal interference, casting of shadows and other inconveniences or damage resulting from the IWT project.



4 of 13

Request for full disclosure and audit I request that MPAC confirm to me if the MPAC IWT study intends to distinguish between the real estate values of participating property (i.e. properties which attract income as a result of IWT hosting agreements which compensate for effects such as nuisance, noise, signal interference, casting of shadows and other inconveniences or damage) and non participating property (i.e. properties which do not attract income as a result of IWT hosting agreements and are exposed to nuisance, noise, signal interference, casting of shadows and other inconveniences or damage from IWTs). If the MPAC IWT study intends to distinguish between participating and non participating properties please disclose exactly how this will be accomplished. Please disclose to me if MPAC has full knowledge of all contracts or agreements between IWT developers and participating property owners. I note that MPAC’s website states its “customers are all Ontario property taxpayers” 6 and its values include “Openness and transparency” and “Accountability” 7. As a professional accountant and one of MPAC’s customers I am prepared to conduct an audit of the MPAC IWT study once it is complete. Please confirm to me if MPAC is prepared to disclose to “all Ontario property taxpayers” 8 the raw data and methodology used for MPAC IWT study so that the study can be evaluated using standard audit procedures. MPAC’s cooperation in this audit would be consistent with MPAC’s stated values of openness, transparency and accountability.

IWTs can harm humans if placed too close to residents Some individuals, including Ontarians, who live in the environs of IWTs experience negative health effects. The reported effects include annoyance and/or sleep disturbance and/or stress related health impacts and/or reduced quality of life. 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 In some cases Ontario families have effectively abandoned their homes; been billeted by wind energy developers; negotiated financial agreements with wind energy developers. 21

The American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored a literature review to consider existing literature on wind turbine noise and health.

Colby et al. (2009) determined the symptoms experienced by individuals exposed to IWTs (i.e. sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep) “… are not new and have been published previously in the context of “annoyance”…” and are the “… well-known stress effects of exposure to noise …”. 22



5 of 13

Health Canada and others acknowledge noise induced annoyance is an adverse health effect. 23,24,25,26,27

Health effects expected in Ontario, Canada National Research Council (2007) reports “…to the extent that wind-energy projects create negative impacts on human health and well-being, the impacts are experienced mainly by people living near wind turbines who are affected by noise and shadow flicker.” 28 Rotating IWT blades interrupt the sunlight producing unavoidable flicker bright enough to pass through closed eyelids, and moving shadows cast by the blades on windows can affect illumination inside buildings. 29 This effect is commonly known as shadow flicker. The Danish Energy Agency classifies IWT shadow flicker experienced by neighbours as a “nuisance.” 30 Individuals exposed to IWT shadow flicker report negative effects to their health and well-being. 31 Ontario does not have regulations which prevent negative effects from IWT visual burdens. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines noise as “unwanted sound”. 32 WHO identifies the main health risks of noise to include: pain and hearing fatigue; hearing impairment including tinnitus; annoyance; interferences with social behaviour (aggressiveness, protest and helplessness); interference with speech communication; sleep disturbance and all its consequences on a long and short term basis; cardiovascular effects; hormonal responses (stress hormones) and their possible consequences on human metabolism and immune system; performance at work and school. 33 The following 2010 Health Canada document is “Published by authority of the Minister of Health.” 34 and states:

“Health Canada considers the following noise-induced endpoints as health effects: noise-induced hearing loss, sleep disturbance, interference with speech comprehension, complaints, and change in percent highly annoyed (%HA).” 35

Peer reviewed studies consistently document IWTs produce sound which is perceived by humans to be more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels. 36, 37 In February 2009 Stephen Bly, Chief, Acoustics Division Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau Health Canada formally provided advice to me stating:

“The Acoustics Division's current assessment of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise and health is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated to date is an increase in annoyance and complaints.” 38



6 of 13

In a June 30 2009 letter Honourable Rona Ambrose, states:

“Health Canada provides advice on the health effect of noise and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from proposed wind turbine projects, particularly for environmental assessments done under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To date, their examination of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase of self-reported general annoyance and complaints (i.e., headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo).” 39

Health Canada authors propose a 45dB(A) IWT sound limit and predict an increase in the percentage of Canadians highly annoyed from IWT noise. 40,41,42 The annoyance predictions by Health Canada authors were not based on dose response data for IWTs. Based on dose response data for wind turbines, with a highest allowed immission level of 45 dB(A) it can be expected that “… less than 14% of the exposed population to be highly annoyed indoors by wind turbines and less than 29% to be highly annoyed outdoors.” 43 The current Ontario IWT noise guidelines currently permit up to 51 dBA. 44 Internal Ontario Ministry of Environment correspondence, obtained through a Freedom of Information Request, states “It appears compliance with the minimum setbacks and the noise study approach currently being used to approve the siting of WTGs will result or likely result in adverse effects …”. 45

In December 2011 the Ontario Ministry of Environment released a report prepared by then Canadian Wind Energy Association member, 46 HGC Engineering. The Ontario Ministry of Environment reports “… three experts in the field of noise, vibration and acoustics reviewed and validated the report” 47 HGC (2010) states in the conclusions:

“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.” 48

To summarize:

Health Canada and others acknowledge noise induced annoyance is an adverse health effect. 49,50,51,52,53

The American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored a literature review to consider existing literature on wind turbine noise and health which



7 of 13

determined the symptoms experienced by individuals exposed to IWTs “… are not new and have been published previously in the context of “annoyance”…” and are the “… well-known stress effects of exposure to noise …”. 54

Health Canada considers the following noise-induced endpoints as health effects: noise-induced hearing loss, sleep disturbance, interference with speech comprehension, complaints, and change in percent highly annoyed (%HA). 55

In 2009 Health Canada examined the scientific literature on wind turbine noise and determined the health effect “conclusively demonstrated” from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase of self-reported general annoyance and complaints (i.e., headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo). 56

Members of Health Canada’s acoustics division predict an increase in the percentage of Canadians highly annoyed by IWT noise. 57,58,59

Based on peer reviewed science the audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons. 60

Evidence IWTs can have negative impacts on real estate values IWTs noise and visual burdens can affect the living environment humans and can result in negative impacts on physical and mental well-being. If placed too close to humans IWTs can also result in negative social, community and economic impacts. Ms Frederika M. Rotter, legal counsel for the Ontario Ministry of Environment, stated at a 2011 Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal:

“We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values. That’s what makes them sick is that, you know, they’ll get less money for their properties, and that’s what’s causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that.” 61

A 2012 United Kingdom media report states:

“The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which decides council tax valuations, has accepted that having wind turbines built near homes can sharply decrease their value and has, as a result, moved some into a lower tax band.” 62

According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation the family home typically represents the one the largest financial and emotional investments for Canadian families. 63



8 of 13

Noise can have an impact on property values. 64 Many Ontarians do not consent to being exposed to unwanted sound and visual burdens of IWTs. Many Ontarians will not knowingly invest in property which is in proximity to IWTs. Not being able to hear or see IWTs has now become a marketable selling feature for Ontario real estate (see right). Source: The Kingston Whig-Standard, May

21, 2010, Page 7. 65

The Ontario Real Estate Association appears to recognize the need to disclose the possibility of IWTs being sited in proximity to property. In Ontario the seller of real estate must disclose any issue which may influence a purchaser’s decision to buy. The Ontario Real Estate Association Form 220 66 requires a residential Seller Property Information Statement disclosure of environmental issues including “toxic waste”, “soil contamination”, “land fills” and “wind turbines” planned for the immediate area:

Source: Ontario Real Estate Association, Seller Property Information Statement, Form 220 for use in the Province of Ontario,

Revised 2011

A June 22, 2012 letter signed by Pat Verge, Chair Government Relations Committee of the Ontario Real Estate Associations was addressed to Honourable James Bradley Minister of Environment and Honourable Christopher Bentley Minister of Energy. The letter (excerpted) stated:

Reduced sale prices for homes are being attributed in part to the obligation to disclose the adverse effects of the neighboring wind energy project. Loss of value of the family’s largest economic and emotional investment can compound the burdens experienced by residents coping with IWT installations in their community. One Ontario IWT case study calculated an average loss in market price of 38.81%. 67



9 of 13

The Ontario government has cited Denmark as a model to follow for IWTs. According to the Danish Energy Agency a typical wind turbine in 1985 was 45 m in total height. Today a modern wind turbine stands over 140 m in total height and produces more electrical and sound power than previous models. Demark has had wind turbines for decades; however by 2009 only 749 of the installed 5,078 IWTs were rated at 1 megawatt or greater. 68 IWTs rated at 1.5 megawatt or greater are typically sited in proximity to humans in Ontario. In 2008 Demark introduced schemes giving neighbours of new wind turbine projects “the right” to have loss of value on their property covered. 69, 70

If MPAC is interested I can provide more references to support the conclusion IWTs can have negative impacts on real estate values.

Closing Canada supports the definition of health established in the 1948 WHO constitution: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 71 The references cited in this open letter support the conclusion IWT noise and visual burdens can affect the living environment humans and can result in negative impact on physical and mental well-being. If placed too close to humans IWTs can also result in negative social, community and economic impacts including property values. Based on current knowledge it is expected at typical IWT setback distances and sound pressure levels in Ontario a non-trivial percentage of exposed individuals will be adversely affected. Informed Ontarians are aware of these and other references. MPAC’s “customers are all Ontario property taxpayers”. 72 As a MPAC customer and professional accountant I request that MPAC publicly disclose the raw data and methodology used for the MPAC IWT study. This disclosure would help facilitate a public audit of the MPAC IWT study using standard audit procedures.



10 of 13

I look forward to your response. If you should have any questions or require copies of the references cited in this letter please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Brett Horner BA CMA Killaloe, ON Canada [email protected] 613-754-2736



11 of 13

References 1 MPAC Waiting On Turbine Study http://www.theobserver.ca/2013/02/06/city-council-notebook 2 Horner B, Jeffery R, Krogh C. Literature reviews on wind turbines and health : Are they enough?. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2011;31:399-413. 3 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Decision Case Nos. 10-121 and 10-122. Retrieved from http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/decisions/index.htm 4 “Schedule “B”, Lease Agreement for Wind Power, Canada 5 Surface Lease for Wind Power Project, Canada 6 http://www.mpac.on.ca/about/corporate_overview/facts_about_mpac.asp 7 http://www.mpac.on.ca/about/vision_mission_values.asp 8 http://www.mpac.on.ca/about/corporate_overview/facts_about_mpac.asp 9 Pedersen E, Persson KW. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 116: 3460-70. 10 Harry A. Wind turbines, noise and health. 2007, February. Retrieved from http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windturbines-noise-and-health/ 11 Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well being in different living environments. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2007;64:480-86. 12 Phipps R, Amati M, McCoard S, Fisher R. Visual and noise effects reported by residents living close to Manawatu wind farms: Preliminary survey results. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/visual-and-noise-effects-reportedby-residents-living-close-to-manawatu-wind-farms-preliminarysurvey-results/ 13 Pedersen E, Bakker R, Bouma J, van den Berg F. Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2009; 126: 634-43. 14 Pierpont N. Wind turbine syndrome: A report on a natural experiment. Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books. 2009. 15 Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: Adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2011; 31: 334-45. 16 Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health. 2011;13:333-9. 17 Thorne B. The problems with noise numbers for wind farm noise assessment. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2011;31:262-90. 18 Rand R., Ambrose S, Krogh C. Wind turbine acoustic investigation: infrasound and low-frequency noise--a case study, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2012;32:128–41 19 Falmouth Health Department. Letter to Massachusetts Department of Public Health. June 11, 2012 20 Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health. 2012;14:60:237-43. 21 Krogh C. Industrial wind turbine development and loss of social justice? Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2011;31:321-33. 22 Colby WD, Dobie R, Leventhall G, Lipscomb DM, McCunney, R J, Seilo MT, Søndergaard B. Wind turbine sound and health effects: An expert panel review. Washington, DC: American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. 2009, December. Retrieved from http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf 23 Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., & McMurchy, D., “Noise Annoyance in Canada”, Noise Health, 7, 39-47, (2005) 24 Health Canada, Community Noise Annoyance, Its Your Health, (2005, September) Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/communityurbain-eng.php#he 25 Pedersen, E., & Persson Waye, K., “Wind Turbine Noise, Annoyance and Self-Reported Health and Well Being in Different Living Environments”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64, 480-486, (2007) doi:10.1136/oem.2006.031039 26 Suter, A. H., Noise and Its Effects, Washington, DC: Administrative Conference of the United States, (1991) Retrieved from http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm 27 New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Rural Wind Farms (2009, December) 28 National Research Council. Committee on environmental impacts of wind energy projects. Environmental impacts of wind-energy projects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2007.



12 of 13

29 Harding G, Harding P, Wilkins A. Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: Characterizing the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them. Epilepsia. 2008 Jun;49(6):1095-8 30 Danish Energy Agency. Wind turbines in Denmark. 2009. 31 Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: Adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2011; 31: 334-45. 32 Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH. Guidelines for community noise. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 1999. 33 World Health Organization, WHO-Europe - Noise and health – Home web site. Cited March 15. 2009 34 Health Canada, Useful Information for Environmental Assessments, (2010), Published by authority of the Minister of Health. 35 Health Canada, Useful Information for Environmental Assessments, (2010), Published by authority of the Minister of Health. 36 Pedersen E, Persson KW. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 116: 3460-70. 37 Pedersen E, Bakker R, Bouma J, van den Berg F. Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2009; 126: 634-43. 38 Email from Stephen Bly, Chief, Acoustics Division, Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, February 2009 39 Correspondence from the Honourable Rona Ambrose, June 30, 2009 40 Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A justification for using a 45 dBA sound level criterion for wind turbine projects. N.D. 41 Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon France September 20 -21 2007 42 Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. J Low Freq Noise. 2008:27:253-65. 43 Janssen Sabine A., Vos Henk , Eisses, Arno, Pedersen Eja. A comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130 (6), December 2011 44 Ministry of the Environment. Noise guidelines for wind farms: Interpretation for applying MOE NPC publications to wind power generation facilities. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2008, October. Retrieved from http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/publications/4709e.pdf 45 Ontario Ministry of Environment, Internal Correspondence, Obtained through Freedom of Information request. 2011. 46 CanWEA member directory http://canwea.ca/about/membersdirectory_e.php?letter=H last accessed August 22, 2010 47 Ontario Ministry of Environment, Expert Report Confirms No Direct Health Effects From Wind Turbines, [cited December 19, 2011] Retrieved from http://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2011/12/expert-report-confirms-no-direct-health-effects-from-wind-turbines.html 48 Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited. (2010, December 10). Low frequency noise and infrasound associated with wind turbine generator systems: A literature review (Rfp No. Oss-078696). Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of the Environment. 49 Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., & McMurchy, D., “Noise Annoyance in Canada”, Noise Health, 7, 39-47, (2005) 50 Health Canada, Community Noise Annoyance, Its Your Health, (2005, September) Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/communityurbain-eng.php#he 51 Pedersen, E., & Persson Waye, K., “Wind Turbine Noise, Annoyance and Self-Reported Health and Well Being in Different Living Environments”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64, 480-486, (2007) doi:10.1136/oem.2006.031039 52 Suter, A. H., Noise and Its Effects, Washington, DC: Administrative Conference of the United States, (1991) Retrieved from http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm 53 New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Rural Wind Farms (2009, December) 54 Colby WD, Dobie R, Leventhall G, Lipscomb DM, McCunney, R J, Seilo MT, Søndergaard B. Wind turbine sound and health effects: An expert panel review. Washington, DC: American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. 2009, December. Retrieved from http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf 55 Health Canada, Useful Information for Environmental Assessments, (2010), Published by authority of the Minister of Health. 56 Correspondence from the Honourable Rona Ambrose, June 30, 2009



13 of 13

57 Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A justification for using a 45 dBA sound level criterion for wind turbine projects. N.D. 58 Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon France September 20 -21 2007 59 Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. J Low Freq Noise. 2008:27:253-65. 60 Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited. (2010, December 10). Low frequency noise and infrasound associated with wind turbine generator systems: A literature review (Rfp No. Oss-078696). Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of the Environment. 61 Environmental Review Tribunal. (2011, February 1). Erikson v. Director: Appeal of renewable energy approval (Case Nos.10-121 and 10-122, Kent Breeze and MacLeod Windmill Project [Kent Breeze Wind Farms], c/o Suncor Energy Services). Opening submissions, Counsel for the Ministry of Environment, Ontario, Canada. 62 Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, Council tax cut for homes near wind farms, The Sunday Times, 22 July 2012, www.thesundaytimes.co.uk 63 Canada mortgage and housing corporation. is home ownership right for you? Retrieved from http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/buho/hostst/hostst_001.cfm 27/ 64 Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH. Guidelines for community noise. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 1999. 65 The Kingston Whig-Standard, May 21, 2010, Page 7 66 Ontario Real Estate Association. Seller property information statement form 220 for use in the province of Ontario. Revised 2011. 67 Lansink Appraisals and Consulting. Case study diminution in value wind turbine analysis. 2012, October. 68 Danish Energy Agency. Wind turbines in Denmark. 2009. 69 Danish Energy Agency. Wind turbines in Denmark. 2009. 70 Danish Energy Agency, “Loss of value to real property due the erection of wind turbines”, http://www.ens.dk/en-US/supply/Renewable-energy/WindPower/Onshore-Wind-Power/Loss-of-value-to-real-property/Sider/Forside.aspx, Cited August 21, 2012 71 World Health Organization. Preamble to the constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100). 1948, April 7. 72 http://www.mpac.on.ca/about/corporate_overview/facts_about_mpac.asp

Ontario Wind Resistance - Mr. Dan Mathieson Pickering...

Documents

Transcript of Ontario Wind Resistance - Mr. Dan Mathieson Pickering...