Dear Loyalist ouncil, Mayor ill Lowry, Deputy Mayor Ric ... · wind industry installed over 6,700 turbines. To install that number of turbines, the U.S. industry required 20,100 blades

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e1

Delivered by email: October 14, 2015

Dear Loyalist Council, Mayor Bill Lowry, Deputy Mayor Ric Bresee, Ron Gordon, Jim Hegadorn, Duncan Ashely, Ed Daniliunas, Penny Porter and Paul Snider;

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

C.c. Interested persons

Thank you for the opportunity to address you with some concerns regarding the industrial wind (WINDLECTRIC and ALGONQUIN POWER AND UTILITIES CORP, hereafter referred to as WINDLECTRIC) proposal, and the Loyalist Township Council Approval in Principal for the Community Benefit Agreement, for 26 industrial wind turbines,

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e2

nearly tip to toe on the profoundly culturally, historic, and ecologically important, Amherst Island.

We are taking the liberty of contacting all of council, and thank you, Mr. Snider, for any additional dissemination as you see fit.

The North American Platform (NAPAW) represents over 370 groups that are opposed to industrial wind in North America. We liaise with EPAW, The European Platform, with more than 850 member groups. We also represent the Great Lakes Wind Truth organization, Canada, (you have already heard from the US branch of this organization, via Founding Principal, Ms Suzanne Albright), which along with TWA (Toronto Wind Action) have stopped three offshore projects now, both sides of the border. We additionally represent the Canadian branch of the Save the Eagles International, and the Toronto Wind Action group which successfully shut down a proposal for over 400 massive turbines in Lake Ontario from the Leslie Spit to Ajax, and achieved the Ontario offshore moratorium. We mention these activities and successes, because you may relate positively to the numbers of persons involved in this comment period and general protest of this project for Amherst Island, and that we all consider it no

In one year alone!

“In 2012 alone, the U.S.

wind industry installed

over 6,700 turbines. To

install that number of

turbines, the U.S.

industry required 20,100

blades and the same

number of tower

sections, approximately

3.2 million bolts, 36,000

miles of rebar, and 1.7

million cubic yards of

concrete (enough for

more than 7,630 miles of

4 foot-wide sidewalk).

There are over 8,000

components in each

turbine assembly.”

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e3

trivial matter to put before you, our deepest concerns on behalf of all of these organizations and individual members.

We all cannot conceive of irrevocably damaging the historically acknowledged important flyways, the health of residents, to create an Eco junk yard out of Amherst Island. This is not, as some would have you believe, a little cottage industry adventure. It is massive, intrusive, muscular in every way, and a major industrial activity, full of carbon fibre blades, non-recyclable, highly toxic rare earth elements in the magnets, tons and tons of cement, some 8,000 parts and components, completely the children of the fossil fuel industry. It is now known that a single turbine with all its parts, may travel some 9,000 miles before reaching its standing place; Also, using fossil fuels.

In this submission: We encourage you to swiftly consider a nullification, reversal of your “proposed approval in Principal, of the Community Benefit Agreement. It has not been signed and ratified, and may well be put aside considering all the new information that we now have with respect to industrial wind, especially the flood of information within the last two years. (The nature of the serious implications of this Draft Proposal, and the proposed project’s effects on possible future business and health for the Township, may position your council for a second or even third review, again with meaningful public consultation. The Province has stacked the deck, and without Council approval may yet rubber stamp projects, but many councils are coming to understand the power of symbolic measures, moratoria votes and so forth. And given that as the developer here,

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e4

WINDLECTRIC, noted, “Things change,” it would be advisable for all of us not to bank on the current government’s suppression of Democracy continuing much longer.)

We are fully aware that APAI membership and leadership, will have put before you the enormous obstacles to the project due to conditions not yet met by the developer(s), and detailed by the MOE; as well as the very obvious road allowance considerations, which alone are so complexly formidable as to warrant cancellation of the project; as well as the obvious impacts that are sure to follow with water quality, fire protection, and human health deterioration; as well as of course, the impacts to wildlife, birds and at risk or endangered species such as the Whip-O-Will, Blanding’s Turtle to name a few. Obviously, AI is home to at least 32 endangered or at risk species, and one of Canada’s TOP TEN endangered places, for a variety of reasons. Hardly the place for a turbine factory. With the knowledge that AI is on the Atlantic Migratory Flyway, an IBA (Important Bird Area of GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE), and a wintering habitat for migrating owls and hawks, and likely surpassing Wolfe Island for biodiversity significance, one can only shake one’s head to imagine who was drinking what at the water cooler.

Allow us to add to this list of concerns, the very disturbing addition of your council’s possible support of a wind project that; a) is likely to not come to maturity at all; b) a project that is heinous in its idea that it could completely ruin AI history, culture, rare stone wall history, water

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e5

supplies, community health, and history of acting as a perimeter landscape and habitat for migration and wildlife; c) a project that will negatively impact your other wards, economically and again with impacts on community members to interact and conduct business as usual; and; d) we deeply regret to say, a large impact on the trust that the people have in elected officials if your approval for the proposal continues. (There will undoubtedly be impacts on health in Bath, Odessa, or Amherstview, and further. Reports of ill effects in France are noted on occasion at 10 miles, and in AU, 32 km.)

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL WIND AUSTRALIA 2014-15

The facts are accruing regarding industrial wind: these facts are well known and have been recently documented at the Special Senate Select Hearings in Australia, regarding the health impacts, social and economic impacts, as well as those on wildlife and agriculture, with a series of recommendations going forward, that has put a chill in the industry worldwide. These Hearings did not bode well for the industry. The recommendations of these Senate Hearings are provided in a PDF file in the email.

Please also see the testimony of Senator Madigan, who chaired this Senate Select Committee. (Quote: “In my view, Mr. President, clean energy can be a dirty business. The unimaginable injustice of what I

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e6

have seen - decent rural people done over by big business in the name of saving the planet - is what inspires me to keep asking one question. Why is the wind industry exempt from appropriate regulatory practices that apply to any other industries?

The facts are:

1. Industrial wind does not work. Worldwide, in 2014, less than half of one percent of the world’s power, point two of one percent, was produced by a massive array of between 240,000 to 250,000 industrial land grabbing wind turbines. That is Net Zero.

2. The industry is maintained by massive guaranteed subsidies, and WINDLECTRIC will be at the table feasting on the spoils of Amherst Island, and sadly adding to the economic hardship already abundantly clear in Ontario since the inception of the Green Energy and Economy Act (2009). Ontario has LOST 300,000 manufacturing jobs in about 8 years, and much if not most of that loss is attributive to wind and solar subsidies. Please note that we dumped last year over ONE BILLION dollars’ worth of excess power to New York State and Michigan, etc.

3. There is ZERO gain to cleaning the air, reducing carbon footprints, and reducing emissions via wind energy. The actual facts are that with the massive back up power always required for this fickle friend, wind, emissions actually are increasing. Net

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e7

zero power, and dirtier environment. That is NOT what the promotional materials say: is it?

4. Spain has lost 2.2 jobs net due to renewables per so called green job, the UK has lost 4 per so called green job, and Italy has similarly lost 5.4 jobs. And in Spain, those “GREEN” jobs are estimated to have cost EACH about $800,000 US. Spain warns the rest of the world: be careful not to follow our lead. Please see this cautionary note about Germany’s “date” with renewables’ history: sad indeed. Experts there call the experiment, “dismal and disquieting.”

5. Countries around the globe are currently re-evaluating their energy policies, debilitating commitments to subsidies, the impacts upon community health, and the complete lack of accountability of this industry. This is an industry that routinely supplies no fire suppression arms or equipment at the height of the nacelles: no containment for spilled oil and lubricants; no accident preparedness for residents for flying debris; no mitigation for cleanup of tons and tons of cement plugs; does its own monitoring of bird and bat mortality; reports to no one, or reports voluntarily, and prepares for and expects, according to rather older industry documents, law suits.

6. Community Vibrancy Funds, or Community Benefit Agreements, are offered by developers to assuage fears, and curry favor with councils, usually in direct opposition to public sentiment. Some international councils, including in Ontario, have failed to understand the significance of distancing and absenting, and declaring, when council prepares meetings and votes, having

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e8

obvious conflict of interest issues with family ownership of turbines. See here, France. (Google translate: excerpt: “"According to our estimates, over 30% of wind farms - about 5,500 machines (in) France - are currently installed on land belonging to the elect, (which) is to say the case of potential interference (is huge)," suggests Jean-Louis Butré, president of the Federation Environment and Sustainability, Senior French network of anti-wind associations.”)

7. Instances of performing pro wind development activities such as preparing acceptable road allowance agreements, which are often embedded within CVFs (Community Vibrancy Funds Agreements or CBAs), are often questioned as possible conflict of interest issues. These instances beg the question if councils are actually cooperating with companies who are falsely advertising their “goods,” and who provide very shallow or non-existent “assurances.” Quote from the Draft: “The Township and the Proponent shall work cooperatively throughout the Term, including meeting at least once each year, to develop and review plans for ensuring that the Proponent is appropriately recognized by the Township and its residents for the financial contribution made by the Proponent to the Community Benefit Fund for the betterment of the community.” Again, there is NO public good in industrial wind. And the Draft document actually entices the Township to be tied “cooperatively” to the Proponent, and to recognize the Proponent, and its financial contributions. This is a concerning feature of this Draft document, as the Township’s first responsibility is obviously to protect people’s health and safety,

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e9

and economic wellbeing, which indeed in other projects, has been compromised, with some people who cannot live in homes or on toxic properties appealing TO the Township, for guidance, and intervention. This Draft Document may prove extremely problematic as the Township’s allegiance to Public Trust may appear to be compromised. It is our view that possible conflict of interest issues may again arise as Loyalist Council, in this draft document, has acknowledged that with WINDLECTRIC, it may or will utilize within the Community Vibrancy Funds not to exceed $20,000 per year, projects for “branding” and promotion of the project and that this relationship may possibly reduce appropriate interventions with respect to protection of the residents at Amherst Island, with regard to fires, accidents, water quality impacts (see Scotland’s notes on water degradation below), or any other unforeseen disaster. (Mechanical failures of gear boxes begin around five years in. Health issues emerge fairly quickly, as do bird and bat mortality.) And this becomes problematic especially as this industry does not serve the public good, does not even produce meaningful electricity. Contributing in any manner to this industry, is contributing to the economic wall of hardship that is now Ontario’s embarrassing legacy.

8. This useless, wasteful, non performing subsidy laden activity, wind development, is reaping scorn, and public outrage is mounting. For Ontario at this time, with current knowledge of the impacts, and complete knowledge of no net societal gains,

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e10

advancing new projects of industrial wind, appears frankly, outmoded, and sinister. We urge your council to reconsider its place in history, its place as providing clear leadership, to all its Wards, to all its residents. Whatever we have been told and acted on in the past, no longer holds. We now act on different information.

9. Your council has the ultimate power to make statements of faith and clarity, in full face of ill-conceived policies by the Ontario government favoring a certain kind of development, and un-democratic processes now in place. A similar act of faith, or symbolic action in Council, was enacted in a motion by the Scarborough Council (Toronto) calling for a moratorium with respect to the massive array of turbines scheduled for the string from Leslie Street to the town of Ajax. This was also carried out by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for the same project proposal, although its moratorium vote did have a few powers to actually halt development in the Lake (Ontario) under its jurisdiction for the environment of the Lake up to the international border. We point to a very recent rejection of a two turbine project in the UK: this community council very recently said NO, in clear and eloquent manner. (Stretham residents rejoice as Red Hill Farm wind turbine application is FINALLY refused thanks to unanimous council decision)

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e11

A few of the reasons given for the refusal: very relevant to AI:

“Planning officers said the Red Hill wind farms would be “of an

overbearing nature” resulting in a loss of light in neighbouring properties.”

“They added that it should be refused “to protect the significant character and design of the neighbourhood.”

“If accepted, the turbines would have been almost double the height of Ely Cathedral.”

“Councillor Anna Bailey said the turbines would increase noise pollution, erode agricultural enterprise and have a negative effect on social mobility.”

“She added: “Contrary to policy, environmental and amenity impacts cannot be minimised.”

“Bill Hunt, district and county councillor for Stretham, further outlined a number of reasons why he opposed the plans.”

“The turbines will be over 1.5 times the height of Ely Cathedral, a threat to the safety of aircrafts using Mitchell Farm airstrip and a distraction to drivers on the A10.

“The noise will have a damaging effect on the health of nearby residents and the site will affect social mobility.”

“Planning Officer Julie Barrow listed cultural heritage, visual amenity and opposition from the local community for rejecting the application.”

“The report suggested the turbines and their size would appear as “discordant and distracting elements” on the skyline when viewed from Ely Cathedral and a number of the town’s other heritage assets.”

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e12

“In relation to aviation, it states that “operators of Mitchells Farm Airfield have raised concerns in relation to the impact of air turbulence on the stagey of light aircraft.”

“Additionally, referring to traffic and transportation, it is said “the construction phases are likely to have a significant impact on local roads” and “this has not been fully investigated by the applicant.”

“Regarding the effect on the landscape and visual amenity “the introduction of two wind turbines of the size and scale proposed, together with the associated infrastructure, would have an urbanising effect and would significantly change the character of the area.”

Among objectors were: (direct quotes)

•Haddenham Parish Council who had “serious concerns” about the impaired view of the cathedral, noise and impact on wildlife (Our emphasis). •Soham Town Council concerned about “visual impact”.

As you can see, the objections mirror almost precisely (historic, cultural, noise, roads, wildlife, scale, traffic, etc.), many of the concerns that APAI and others, including international organizations such as birding and conservation groups, have already outlined. If you can imprint the elegantly clear concerns of this council of Stretham, UK, on the certain effects for Amherst Island, you will be able to calculate how without any doubt, you should and must reject this turbine installation (and any financial incentives to council and the Township). A wind turbine installation at Amherst Island will be the gift that keeps on “taking”.

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e13

Unsustainable Fictions

The kind of “incentives” being offered by WINDLECTRIC to Loyalist County are meagre and insulting, considering the fortune that will be achieved by the developer. It is not by any means a mutual relationship, where business benefits will come to each party. It is rather a small perk to assist its own profit motives in the long term “take” of Amherst Island’s wildlife, land, culture, history, water, safe environment, and future. It will be a reckoning of hundreds of years. (We are not sure if decommissioning structures and fees are under discussion to be attached to any Loyalist council agreements. We do not see any decommissioning clauses in this Draft. We only see references to “road agreements.”) Each operational turbine will or can produce approximately between $800,000 and $1 million per year in profits. Your Township will receive portions on a sliding scale related to aggregate nameplate, translated as megawatts. Quote from the Draft:

“For the purposes of the calculations in Section 4(a) above, the aggregate nameplate capacity shall be reduced by the nameplate capacity of any turbine which is not operational because of a malfunction with that turbine for any period of more than sixty (60) to a maximum of one hundred and eighty (180) consecutive days (excluding outages for which the Proponent is reimbursed for lost revenues pursuant to any warranty or insurance policy), on a pro rata basis. As an example only, if one (1) turbine with a nameplate capacity of 2.5 MW is not operational for 200 days in the Base Year (and there is no compensation under any warranty or insurance policy) the Community Benefit Contribution shall be decreased by $7000 x 2.5 x 180/365 = $8630.14.”

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e14

The proponent protects his non performing turbines, and lost revenues. And what protections does this developer offer to your Township? We also note that while the developer protects his ability to downsize the CVF or CFA, according to political changes or performance, we do not see any similar willingness to compensate the Township for loss of property values, drop in tourism dollars, loss in amenity, or accelerated health concerns that will need to be mitigated. Mr. Dave Hemingway (a landowner in Huron County), over several years appealed his tax assessment to MPAC, and it was ascertained that property values were being downgraded in Ontario by 25%. The Ontario courts recently ruled that property values are significantly reduced for properties within sight lines of turbines: sometimes to the tune of 22-55%, with some being simply unsalable. Needless to say along with the drop in property values, comes drops in agricultural production and livestock losses.

Other possible losses or reductions in “benefits” to the Township may arise from: Manufacturing liabilities, contract liabilities, construction liens and liabilities, failed duties of sellers, purchasers, and suppliers. As asked in Germany, “Who will be liable for production losses if the turbines fail to provide the warranted capacity? What servicing and maintenance activities are guaranteed by the manufacturers, and what replacement parts are included in the costs?” Additionally, although you have in your hands a DRAFT project facilitation, you must ask deeper questions: Where are the commitments to eventually repair the wind turbines and their components? Will Amherst Island become

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e15

a ghostly relic in 20 years, of broken and stained blades disconnected from the grid, but still a killing field? How will the inevitable spills of lubricants and oils be mitigated, contained? Will the local fire authority have special equipment at its disposal? (And, in essence, is the developer paying you to “cooperate?”)

Where in this document are references to quality control, evaluations, mitigation of additional costs, for repairs and defects? How will that impact the Township and its burden to promote economic health for its residents? Where will the public be protected from external influences, foundation weaknesses, and ground water, aquifer, and well degradation, nacelle or gear box or blade failures? What guarantees does the Township have on these very important issues?

We are also concerned that putting the road agreements cart before the horse, facilitating the so far non-existent project, is enigmatic. There is, to date, no project, yes, an approval, but with many conditions, a lengthy legal road of challenge, and public opposition; additionally, there is no connection permit to the mainland, and a long list of “conditions” set out by MOE. The entire exercise of this DRAFT is premature.

Another large obstacle to completion of all of the requirements for this project, is an international perspective that has already been referenced by the ABC (American Bird Conservancy); ABC has indicated it will meet the challenge of defeating this project with legal

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e16

intervention to protect shared raptors and to enforce mutually binding International Bird Migration Treaties, and other agencies legally reference Great Lakes Water Protection Agreements.

Additionally, Toronto Wind Action and Great Lakes Wind Truth groups acknowledge that Amherst Island is part of the Lake Ontario watershed, and part of the Offshore Moratorium, as well as part and parcel of the restrictions and safeguards within the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements and other habitat protections under the “Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health.”

This is a project that very likely will never make it past the accruing list of prohibitions, and strong public opposition. We respectfully anticipate your decision to respect this opposition and cancel any extremely premature and unsuitable Community Benefit Agreement (or CVF) for Loyalist Township.

CVFs are fees for project facilitation. (Road Allowances at Amherst Island are likely to be a major hurdle for this developer. What assurances does the Township have that the historic and non-recoverable dry stone walls will NOT BE TOUCHED? These cannot be recreated. Please see this link for a slide show of a turbine installation in UTAH.)

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e17

Turbine blades are often now longer than 145 feet each, weigh 2000 pounds, and are constructed of special fibre glass that cannot be recycled.

A construction pad for blades and parts is usually 200 feet wide and 200 feet long to allow room for delivery.

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e18

With industrial wind projects, we will never see examples of Ebenezer visiting the Ghost of Christmas Past. In any of its life phases, there is nothing at all “generous” about this industry. It sees your cooperation as something to be obtained on the way to profits. To facilitate profits. Again, with Amherst Island, it is interesting to note the compensation for the CEO of this project, Mr. Ian Robertson of Oakville, Ontario: it appears that Mr. Robertson in 2014, was compensated $1,716,090. The Community Benefits Agreement compensation, to Mr. Robertson, is likely chump change.

Please immediately issue an order or motion to nullify any acceptance, or possible future acceptance of benefits, materials or events promotions in favor of the developer, and continue to work with the public of Loyalist to ensure fire safety, public safety from possible falling parts, ice throw, health protection including independent noise, vibration, shadow flicker and ILFN measurements, loss of property values, protection from and mitigation of the effects of ILFN (Infra and Low Frequency Noise), and wildlife protection, including mandatory independent third party monitoring, none of which are mentioned within this Draft.

Thanking you very sincerely, and wishing you the very best,

Sincerely,

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e19

Sherri Lange CEO NA-PAW (North American Platform Against Wind Power) Founding Director, Toronto Wind Action Executive Director, Canada, Great Lakes Wind Truth VP Canada, Save the Eagles International 416 567 5115 [email protected] www.na-paw.org www.wind-watch.org www.torontowindaction.com www.windturbinesonfire.org www.windturbinepropertyloss.org www.ontariowindaction.org www.windturbinewildlifehell.org www.epaw.org www.waubrafoundation.org.au www.ontario-wind-resistance.org www.stopthesethings.com http://en.friends-against-wind.org/victims

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e20

NOTES FROM SCOTLAND

(WE ALREADY HAVE WATER CONTAMINATION IN ONTARIO AT THIS TIME)

SCOTLAND’S WIND FARMS CAUSE WATER POLLUTION

“Anti-wind turbine campaigner Susan Crosthwaite is calling for an immediate and full independent investigation into the pollution of surface and groundwater of ALL Scottish windfarm developments sited on River Basin Districts. It has revealed that the construction of giant wind turbines has led to the industrialisation of water catchment areas damaging water quality and public health. She demands that relevant legislation be adhered to vigorously to ensure complete protection of Scotland’s reservoirs, lochs and private water supplies can be restored.

Commenting from her home in South Ayrshire Susan Crosthwaite said:

“Windfarm development in Scotland is clearly breaching The Environmental Liabilities Directive and the Water Frameworks Directive. Developers and government bodies have allowed these developments to proceed in the full knowledge that there are risks to surface and groundwater. Authorities such as SEPA, Scottish Water, Councils and the Scottish Government have failed in their legal duty to protect the water environment. Public authorities should ensure the proper implementation and enforcement of the scheme provided for by this Directive.

“People wonder how windfarms can possibly contaminate our water. Firstly, most are

constructed on areas of unspoilt moss, heather and deep peat, often with associated forestry.

Construction vehicles churn up the ground to make access roads and clear the forests

(approximately 3 million trees were cleared at Whitelee). Trees are pulled up, and the churned up

peat is washed into the river systems by heavy rain, releasing excessive carbon which the water

treatment works are not able to deal with.

“The construction teams then blast quarries and ‘borrow-pits’ to provide rock foundations for

access roads and turbine bases - six quarries with 85 articulated dump lorries ferried almost 6

million tons of excavated rock around the Whitelee site for roads and turbine foundations. These

excavations allow access to the numerous faults (fractures) and dykes (intrusions) which

crisscross Scotland and act as conduits for ground water. Chemical and diesel spills, therefore,

have an immediate channel to the aquifer. It is also a great irony that anti-fracking campaigners

make spurious claims about potential water pollution and then support the construction on

industrial wind turbines, which are demonstrably causing widespread pollution to our water

supplies in Scotland.” (From an email to NA-PAW)

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e21

Resources and additional information:

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2015/06/14/wind-companies-buying-support/

http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/north-frontenac-says-no-to-nextera-wind-power-project/

http://www.theobserver.ca/2014/06/04/county-of-lambton-successfully-argued-case-for-party-status-in-ert-hearing-county-solicitor-confirms

http://ontariowindaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/napaw-letter-final-to-addington-council.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/06/why-wind-power-doesnt-work-2/

http://toryaardvark.com/the-united-states-is-littered-with-more-than-14000-abandoned-wind-turbines/

South Point Hawaii, abandoned turbines: Please not for Amherst, too!

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e22

http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/stretham_residents_rejoice_as_red_hill_farm_wind_turbine_application_is_finally_refused_thanks_to_unanimous_council_decision_1_4268317

http://www.johnmadigan.com.au/speeches/2015/8/20/the-senate-wind-farm-inquiry-report

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/massive-wind-turbine-collapses-in-co-tyrone-one-local-said-it-sounded-like-bomb-exploding-30879574.html

http://en.friends-against-wind.org/health/three-decades-of-wind-industry-deception

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754679/The-scandal-UKs-death-trap-wind-turbines-A-turbine-built-115mph-winds-felled-50mph-gusts-Dozens-affected-cost-cutting-Why-residents-living-shadow-demanding-answers.html

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/06/10/nextera-gives-a-nexus-card-to-anti-wind-movement/#.Ubc7Wnz6vuw.twitter

http://www.theolia.com//wp-content/uploads/2011/05/document-de-reference-2009-en-final-2.pdf

http://www.capital.fr/a-la-une/politique-economique/scandale-des-eoliennes-les-condamnations-d-elus-pour-prise-illegale-d-interets-s-empilent-1038489

North American Platform Against Wind Power

Pag

e23

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2011/09/27/turbine-developers-on-hook-for-fire-protection-in-arran-elderslie/

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2010/dairy-cattle-suffer-from-wind-turbine-syndrome-japan/

http://www.humanfaceofwindturbines.ca/index.php/turbines/ontario-map

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2010/09/19/trca-toronto-and-region-conservation-authority-shows-%E2%80%9Cconservation%E2%80%9D-leadership/

###