The Final Straw
LSARC.ca is pleased to report a good turnout for the final Goulais Project public con held September 25, 2012 in Goulais and Awares and would like to thank those who attended to voice their opposition to the unwarranted destruction of our social, environmental and economic resources. Special thanks to those who helped out with distributing information and answering questions.
How can it be said that there has been “consultation” when the information is not complete, accurate, nor transparent? The developer still has not revealed which make and nameplate capacity of Industrial Wind Turbine (IWT) will be used, an important factor influencing sound pollution. Various makes of IWT have significantly different acoustic signatures, a factor which greatly influences the noise emissions to which a home-owner will be subjected. Unfortunately while the developer provided very scientific-looking noise studies, complete with noise propagation maps, they are based on ISO computer models and MOE Guidelines which have been shown to be woefully inadequate at predicting actual noise levels at nearby ‘receptors’ aka homes.
The term “noise receptor” is used by the wind industry in siting Industrial Wind Turbines relative to human habitation, but at this late date we are still not permitted to know the MW size; in effect people are being forced to trust a wind developer who, using out dated and cherry-picked science, continues to deny there are even potential adverse health effects and a government with computer-modelled safety setbacks which by their own staff recommendations and actual experience will cause adverse effects in a non-trivial number of citizens:
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 contrary to subsection 14(1) of the EPA.
Doug Mosley, a noise receptor who has done considerable research for himself, is not impressed by the developer’s quoting of CANwea as an authority on anything but lobbying. He is well aware that the developer is presenting a salespitch and attended with a high level of skepticism. The unadorned truth is very different and depressingly destructive.
Those of us who see the way Prince Windfarm blights the landscape for 40 km, the way it has eroded the wilderness allure of Superior’s shores both day and night, and the impossible-to-ignore aesthetic offence of the tangled blades which vandalize the skies, are not going to fall for the obscuring artifice of photomontages.
Neither are we going to buy the story that IWT don’t have a negative effect on property values when so many of us would not buy our own property adorned with IWT… The property value issue is another instance where we can see the deliberate misinformation applied in the approvals process. The Hoen Report is an example of “purpose done” research from the wind industry, of which Michael S. McCann, CRA, McCann Appraisal, LLC (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and a peer reviewer of the Hoen//Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report said:
“Moreover, not being a licensed appraiser, Mr. Hoen was not bound by any enforceable code of ethics or standards of practice. Although his report “looked” (to the untrained eye) to be compelling, in fact it failed to follow the property appraisal industry’s “best practices” standards. Al Wilson, an appraiser eminently qualified in both Regression Analysis for mass appraisal and in assessing the impact on value from contamination, points out that Hoen’s Regression model fails to conform to any of the accepted and tested (verified) Regression models used by assessor’s for valuing properties for either ad valorem assessment or “mass appraisal” projects. It was idiosyncratic—custom made—for this project. Leading Wilson to conclude that the LBNL report is unreliable for any public policy purposes”
The sub text here is that of an abuse of our environmental rights, The Environmental Bill of Rights is supposed to give every citizen of Ontario the right to participate in environmental decision-making; its goals being to protect, conserve and restore the integrity of the environment, to provide for the sustainability of the environment, and to protect the right to a healthful environment but how are we to rely on our environmental watchdogs, when they are toothless and rabid for renewables?
While this process has been more about insulting our intelligence than consulting per our human rights the one last straw we have to cling to is the upcoming Environmental Bill of Rights posting for the Goulais Project. Watch for it on the EBR Registry (just type in Sprott or Goulais in the search box) or ask email@example.com to give you a heads up.