Town Hall meeting appears to be promoting anti-wind campaigns
Administrator | Jan 26, 2012 | Comments 30
Dear Mr Smith,
I am writing this open letter to you on behalf of the County Sustainability Group.
The Jan. 11 News Release announcing your Feb. 2nd “town hall” meeting and the (unpublicized) format of the meeting suggests that the meeting has been planned from the outset as a promotional vehicle for the County’s anti-wind energy campaign and the ongoing PC political campaign against the Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy policy rather than as a legitimate forum for public consultation.
Public not informed of meeting format;
Only those organizations involved in setting up the meeting or those who take the trouble to contact your office are aware of the meeting format. For the 2009 special PEC Council meeting to solicit public input on wind energy, public notice was given that deputations submitted a week ahead of the meeting would be allowed 10 min and that deputations from the floor would be allowed 3 min. All deputations were accepted. The announcement of your “town hall” gave no information on rules for deputations nor indicated any other source where such rules are made public.
28-40 min. allocated to anti-wind energy presentations
The campaign to oppose wind turbines in PEC is driven by the CCSAGE coalition which comprises four local organizations including the Point to Point PEC Foundation (a group with no membership according to its co-founder). Enquiries to your office revealed that a total of 18-30 minutes will be allocated to CCSAGE, one of its members, and two local bird organizations, all of whom have taken a strong position against the Ostrander Point wind project. A further 10 minutes is allocated to Dr. McMurtry.
Keynote speaker is the Conservative Party energy critic
This “public consultation” meeting will end with an invited “keynote” speaker who not only happens to be a fellow PC MPP but is also the chief critic of the Ontario Government’s green energy policy.
Time for open public input 20-30 mins. Little opportunity for Wind energy supporters to speak:
Your office indicated that the total time allocated for public input from the floor is 20-30 min. With one exception (see above) individual members of the public have no assured opportunity to express their views.
Only wind energy opponents appear to have been consulted in setting up meeting
The Jan 11 News release noted that “Over the last week, Smith’s office has been working with different stakeholders in Prince Edward County including environmental groups and groups of concerned citizens to set up the event.” The County Sustainability Group is well recognized as a leader in the campaign to ensure PEC citizens are accurately informed about the need for green energy, and a known supporter of wind energy. The fact that that no attempt was made to include CSG in planning the meeting, inevitably suggests that all of the people involved in setting up this event were strong opponents of the Ostrander Point wind project.
Given the apparent anti-wind bias in this meeting, and that it includes only token attempts to seek the views of County residents, we conclude that this meeting does not satisfy even the most basic criteria for an unbiased public consultation process. To describe it as a “town hall” meeting is misleading in the extreme.
We support the Ostrander Point wind project and feel that CSG’s participation on Feb. 2nd would simply add credibility to a meeting whose bias is so fundamental that it cannot easily be cured. Hence we choose not to participate but look forward to meeting with you as our MPP face to face and providing you with our input in a neutral setting.
We also suggest, if you really want to get a credible reading of opposition/support for wind energy in the County, that you enlist the help of a reputable polling company such as Ipsos Reid to design and conduct a survey of County residents.
Sincerely,
Rob Williams,
Member, County Sustainability Group
P.S. In case you were not aware, an Ipsos Reid poll “Wind Energy in Ontario” (July 2010) revealed that 89% of those polled across Ontario supported the production of wind energy in their region of the province. In East Ontario, excluding the GTA, the level of support was 88%.
Filed Under: Letters and Opinion
@ Rob
In your response to Lori you state; “You say ‘Industrial Wind Turbines are BIG BUSINESS. As such, they invest big $ into Lobbyists and their interest is not in the health of the environment or the population, just a healthy bottom line.’ I guess everything is relative. Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room. In comparison with the lobbying $ of the oil and gas industry, those of the Wind Turbine industry are peanuts.” What you state here does indeed have a veil of truth. Before I address this I offer the following credentials: In the past I was the Editor and General Manager of the Public Relations newsletters, PRStrategies Canada and PRStrategies U.S.A. I also wrote the Canadian Encyclopedia definition for the Public Relations entry, and, designed and conducted the research for the Ontario Management Board of Cabinet, which became the criterion for subsequent “lobbyist” legislation. The legislation was designed to alleviate public concerns over the oft perceived improper collusion of political parties and individuals with corporations and other business with vested interests. Coupled with legislation that provided control of political contributions for reasons similar to the need for lobbyist legislation, this altered the nature of corporate influence and the manner in which it was conducted. But it did not disappear and the “public relations/lobbyist” dollar figures, even for renewable energy programs, are now largely hidden from view. One of the more popular ways to direct funds which would be restricted by this legislation is through the creation of NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), and in particular ENGOs (Environmental), all of which can be seen to support particular political enterprise, often clearly visible in partisan campaigns, like that supporting IWTs. This adds an additional opportunity for these organizations to siphon off funds such as endowments, government program grants and Trillium grants, among many other sources. I think we would all be astounded by the “lobbyist” dollar figures if we could possibly trace the amounts.
Lori,
You say “Industrial Wind Turbines are BIG BUSINESS. As such, they invest big $ into Lobbyists and their interest is not in the health of the environment or the population, just a healthy bottom line.” I guess everything is relative. Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room.
In comparison with the lobbying $ of the oil and gas industry, those of the Wind Turbine industry are peanuts. In case you had forgotten, the oil and gas industry is not exactly neutral on the question of whether renewable energy should be adopted to help us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I think they also have more than a casual interest in the health of their bottom line.
IF that is a argument you wish to use, I truly hope you do not use motorized transportation and you have had a Geothermal system installed that is powered by a private Solar system. Then you can judge the vehicles need to grow, sustain and transport our food, Move material goods from point a to point b and get the children to school.
To Deborah Hudson:
To take Dr McMurtry’s comment that “industrial wind turbines must be placed so they do not place people or other living creatures in harm’s way” and suggest that he “tragically overlooks the harm caused by coal-fired plants, nuclear plants (and their meltdowns) & harmful emissions from gas-fired plants” is a gross misstatement.
Please take the time to reread his statement (the first comment at the bottom of list)
In it he clearly states his stance. He was recently awarded the Order of Canada for his body of work. This is someone who should be taken seriously and is not a feat monger nor does he make unsubstantiated statements such as yours.
I am all for green energy, except not at any price and not at the price of our health and environment. Industrial Wind Turbines are BIG BUSINESS. As such, they invest big $ into Lobbyists and their interest is not in the health of the environment or the population, just a healthy bottom line. World wide there are many reports of health problems and they are well documented – just go to You Tube and see all the people who have documented their stories from around the world, trying to get the truth out.
The special interest groups to be feared are not the ones that are community based like CCSAG and APPEC, but the Industry associations like CANWEA. I am constantly astounded at how sensible and educated people can deny the facts that are presented and can dismiss the suffering of real people. Perhaps the CSG group, since they are so beloved of IWTs can all move to Wolfe Island and admire the behemoths there amongst the dead birds and bats. I hear you can buy property real cheap there now.
Beth one of the generators is gas and the other is oil
at present 14 percent of our power comes from gas and turbines have to have gas generators to back them up
as for oil the maybe anyone who has an oil furnace should have it removed–also look at all the disel tractors and trucks on the road and in the fields
Doris, the Lennox and Addington Generating station is a oil / gas fired plant and increasing the output of this station will increase the greenhouse gas emissions. You consider this a better solution?
Deborah that is only one Judges opinion and judges tend to rule
differently on certain issues.
THE COST OF ELECTRICITY IS GOING UP BECAUSE OF WIND AND SOLAR AND IF WE NEED MORE POWER WHICH WE DON’T WHY ARE WE NOT USING LENNOX–WHICH WE DO NOT USE
Dan,
Thanks for your information and source link. Unfortunately the Star doesn’t seem to provide free access to articles over 14 days old.
In the plan that depends on green energy, whether the green energy component is 56% or 100% doesn’t matter.
The key question is how much would prices rise in the alternative plan which uses something else instead of green energy? If in that plan prices also rise 46% then there is no cost penalty associated with green energy.
The Pembina Institute analysis shows that the price rises under both plans are almost the same. If you don’t like the Pembina institute study then please point to an alternative source which compares prices including green energy against prices based on non-green energy sources.
I must comment on the article in a local newspaper by the County Sustainability Group,D.Chisholm.
It is particularly disturbing with the exerpt and headline on the second page continuing “The general public is an easy target for vocal special interest groups”. It also speaks to massive human die-off if we fail to act.
Does this comment that the general public is an easy target imply that we are ignorant, naive, ill-informed and easily influenced? That is offensive.County folk are quite capable of making informed decisions in regards to massive industrial wind turbines, the benefits and the negative impacts. It smells of someone telling us what is right and that we have been duped. That is insulting.In fact is the County Sustainability Group not a special interest group itself. It certainly isn’t acting on my behalf to protect this community from all the drawbacks of wind power.And the use of fear factor with reference to a massive human die off is nothing less than scare tactics. I believe quite strongly that County citizens are very capable of choosing what is right for our community and determining what is harmful. We are much smarter than the County Sustainabilty Group gives us credit for. They do not represent my views or many others and I resent the inference that they know what is best for us because we are not smart enough to know when we are being targeted by a special interest group. Well I am smart enough to know when this group is attempting to do the same thing.
I never get involved in these conversations but I can’t let Rob William’s comment about the Ipsos Reid poll go by. Of the people who responded to the one that you refer to, how many knew the issues or even cared about them enough to make an informed decision? How many of the 88% in favour are actually affected by the issue? How many live in towns where they won’t even see a turbine? Perhaps you know the answer to these questions, but they weren’t in your post. The possibility of having a turbine next door to you might change your perspective.
An interesting development today from 16 scientists, many experts in fields that directly relate to global warming who say an immediate “crisis management” style – akin to the one being practised by the government of Ontario – isn’t the only or even the best approach to dealing with global warming and the carbon economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The letter as written, is signed by the 16 scientists listed at the bottom.
OK Rob Williams why take a biased forecast from an institute like Pembina when we can get the the true forecast direct from the Liberal horses mouth. Quote: “Ontarians will be zapped with a 46 per cent increase in home electricity costs over the next five years to pay for much-needed hydro system upgrades, warns the Liberal government”
Quote:”Duncan conceded the Liberals’ green energy policies account for 56 per cent of the skyrocketing prices with expansion of nuclear and natural gas power plants the reason for the remaining 44 per cent.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/892879–liberals-warn-hydro-rates-to-jump-46-per-cent-in-five-years
Remember that the natural gas portion of the increase should be added to green energy costs since wind and solar energy will not work without natural gas generators spinning to backup their output variability.
Doris,
At the Waring House meeting, organized by Dr. McMurtry, one of the experts was Dr. Nissenbaum. This is the same Dr. Nissenbaum’s whose evidence was ruled against in Saskatchewan’s Red Lily Wind Farm court case.
Judge Mills ruled that (38) “If Dr. Nissenbaum could be considered an expert to provide opinion evidence on the issue surrounding the granting of the injunction, there are two further reasons to reject his evidence. The first is that he has assumed the role of advocate. A review of his affidavit No. 2 especially shows that he does not take an objective approach to the issues at hand. He passionately believes in the harmful health effects of wind turbines from his own survey on the Mars Hill project and has made that the basis for his foray into an area that he has little real knowledge of….Secondly, in addition to the leaps of logic that were contained in para. 17 of both affadavits, he makes bold, unsupported statements on issues critical to the injunction.” pages 19, 20
The ruling came down October 7, 2010 .
Mark,
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it just led me to the cbc site and “Sorry we can’t find the page you requested”.
I should point out that the 45% rise in electricity charges over five years is not the point in question. What is in question is your opinion that if we didn’t have wind energy in the mix, most of that 45% rise would be avoided. Published study results indicate that’s not true.
To support your argument you would need to cost out over five years, an alternative scenario which excludes wind energy but includes whatever substitutes for it. Comparing the two scenarios would show the incremental %age charge arising because of wind energy.
As far as I am aware, the only comparative results available on this are those generated by a detailed study conducted by the Pembina Institute (see “Behind the Switch: Pricing Ontario’s Electricity Options (2011) http://www.pembina.org/pub/2238 ). This study found that: “…there would be virtually no change in electricity prices in the immediate future if future contracts for renewable energy were ended in 2011.”
With or without renewable energy, costs will rise significantly, a major factor being that according to the OPA, as much as 43% of Ontario’s electricity facilities will need to be rebuilt or retired in the next 10 years (see Q.1, in “FAQ about Ontario electricity prices” http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/re-in-on-faq.pdf) . .
Hope this helps to reduce the confusion around the “45% increase” issue.
This bar is so high that, as far as I know, no manufactured product or human initiative could ever prove that something could not place people or other living creatures in harm’s way.
Here’s a note from a friend:
“Recently, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) asked an independent expert science panel to report on potential health impacts of wind turbines. They were asked to identify any documented or potential human health impacts or risks that may be associated with exposure to wind turbines. In addition, two members of the independent expert science panel submitted, on their own initiative, a review of wind power in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Vermont and Maine. The press release can be viewed at http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/press/0112wind.htm, while the reports and supporting documentation can be viewed at http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/panel.htm
Like many other reports, it indicates no credible evidence. This of course is a long way from absolute proof of no harm to human or creature. There appears to be a permanent impasse.
Donna
The intermittent nature of wind energy is a key issue which gives it a poor return on environmental investment at the present time, so it is important to be precise on the issues involved.
In your comment(below) on unreliability/backup, you made three points:
A. The more widespread wind turbines become, the less this becomes an issue.
This is not accurate, at least not in our jurisdiction. (Wind patterns vary in different parts of the world, so one can’t generalize). Ontario energy system planners originally believe that with wide dispersion across southern Ontario, wind variations at different locations would cancel one another out. In practice, this has not been the case to the degree that was hoped for. Here in Ontario, whole days pass each summer when demand is highest where wind output across the system is at zero.
B. The best back-up for wind is water power which Ontario has in abundance.
There are different kinds of water power. Dammed storage, classically the Hoover Dam in the US, uses large reservoirs to hold vast amounts of water until energy is needed and water is released through a generator. Norway, for example, has extensive storage dam capacity in its fijords, and this ability to store water power (plus a massive grid tie) is what makes it possible for Denmark to use wind power.
Ontario, on the other hand, has very little dammed storage, reflecting the fact that we are not a mountainous province. What we do have is called “run of river” hydro where water flows over a natural elevation change with very limited storage capacity. Run of river hydro is not well suited as a fill-in resource for wind because it can’t be stored, the system operator has to either use it or spill it.
This is exactly the dilemma the province already faces and which the Independent Electrical System Operator has highlighted in the last two 18-Month Reliablity Forecasts. Even at current levels of wind generation, there were more than 50 occasions last spring and summer where hydro had to be spilled because the province’s energy surplus from wind was so great the power couldn’t even be given away to the US.
C. As well, the new gas turbine plants complement wind power exceptionally well.
I believe that you are fundamentally correct in your underlying assumption on this point: natural gas will make up most of the generation required to compensate for the intermittent nature of wind. That will have several unfortunate consequences. From a cost standpoint, it will mean duplicate capital costs, wind generation + natural gas. From an environmental standpoint, it will increase fossil fuel consumption (natural gas) in order to enable a low-carbon solution. This contradiction is compounded by the design of natural gas plants required to support industrial wind. So-called combined cycle gas turbines are more efficient and produce less C02, but they cannot be ramped up and down quick. Instead, so-called open cycle turbine plants are required to support wind, and they produce more C02 and pollutants (especially when ramped quickly).
Until we have cost-effective mass storage to alleviate the unpredictable output of intermittent renewables, they will remain a poor investment choice to reduce our carbon footprint. For the immediate future, water power (including import of water power from Quebec) is a choice with much more impact on our carbon footprint at lower cost.
Rob,
Since you like to call me out about my unsubstansiated claims.
Actually the Liberal finance minister predicts a 46 percent increase in 5 years. Most to subsisdize wind.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/11/18/ontario
First let me say that I am pleasantly surprised that there is apparently significant interest in whether or not CSG attends a meeting and its reasons for doing so. Our group’s opinion is simply that, and is intended only to clarify the reasons for our absence from the meeting agenda. We hope that it may also assist others in evaluating this meeting in terms of its potential to provide unbiased information about wind turbines and a credible indicator of the level of support/opposition in the County. You must make up your own minds.
To Brock: it is our opinion that the “town hall” playing field is so tilted that adding a ten minute CSG slot would do little to level it. We favour the 2009 PEC Council approach (see letter) where no individual or group was given preference and steps were taken to alternate presentations between the pro side and the anti side.
Unfortunately 20-30 minutes allotted to speakers from the floor does not disadvantage everyone equally if it is preceded by 40 minutes of presentations that present arguments for opposing the Ostrander Point wind project, and is followed by ? minutes from the PC energy critic.
We did, in fact, have a very constructive and informative meeting with Mr. Smith today which I believe we all found helpful. We discussed climate change and the urgent need to build green renewable energy sources of all kinds in advance of the need to fill the gap that will be created by reducing our fossil fuel use. Our concerns regarding the “Town Hall” meeting format have no bearing on the availability of other channels to provide our (and your) input to Mr. Smith.
To Doris Lane: I’m afraid you misunderstood our concern. We are happy that Dr. McMurtry has a ten minute slot. We are unhappy that other PEC residents are not given an equal opportunity.
To Mark: Implying, with no supporting evidence, that wind turbines are causing a 45% increase in energy costs, doesn’t make it true, regardless of how frequently you repeat it in many comments on this site.
To Suzanne Lucas: Please review the time allocation I reviewed for Brock above before finalizing your decision on which county residents are being denied.
To Donna: Many thanks for your support and for adding a great deal of valuable information to the discussion, most of which I am familiar with and can vouch for.
R K Williams, Ph.D.
Dr. McMurty’s comments that “…wind turbines must be placed so they do not place people or other living creatures in harm’s way” tragically overlooks the harm caused by coal-fired plants, nuclear plants (and their meltdowns) & harmful emissions from gas-fired plants. This does not sound pro-wind to me.
I wonder who is inaccurate and ill-informed.
http://betterplan.squarespace.com/todays-special/tag/wind-turbine-fire
And this is a really great read. Sound familiar?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/9977-wind-turbines-green-subsidies-under-fire
Congratulations to Rob and Donna on intelligent, well reasoned, and clear thinking.
Mr. Williams has an enviable background for analyzing many of the types of issues that we are dealing with. That he is less forward than Dr McMurtry with respect to his qualifications, does not lessen them. We would be wise to listen and consider his views.
Mark, your list is inaccurate and ill-informed.
Hydro costs: 42 months ago we were paying 5.9cents/kWh for electricity and 6.9cents/kWh for delivery. Today my bill averages 7.2cents/kWh, an increase of 22% NOT 45%. The delivery charge has only increased 1.4% despite the introduction of Smart Meters and heavy investment in rebuilding a network of infrastructure that the Conservative government left badly in need of repair.
Unreliability/back-up: The more widespread wind turbines become, the less this becomes an issue. The best back-up for wind is water power which Ontario has in abundance. As well, the new gas turbine plants complement wind power exceptionally well.
Health risks: The Kent-Breeze tribunal which heard from 10 plaintiff doctors including Dr McMurtry, ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs whose appeal was largely based on health issues.
Environmental risks: The environmental risks of air pollution from fossil fuels is well documented. Added to that are the massive negative effects of climate change, and the widespread fallout from nuclear power plant failures. The slight negative impact of wind turbines pales by comparison.
Birds: Climate change has caused a reduction of bird population in the millions. In the big picture the few deaths from wind turbines is inconsequential, and are no different than (or less than) deaths from other human structures and activities such as buildings, houses, cars, cell phone towers, transmission lines, farming, pesticides, domestic cats…
Devalued property: Studies indicate that property values may decline during the paranoia prior to the installation of wind turbines, but return to normal levels shortly thereafter.
Tourism impacts: Wind turbines can and have been used successfully as a tourist attraction. It only takes a positive attitude, community spirit, and good marketing.
Major fire risks: You mean the ONE fire in Scotland during hurricane-force winds? What about the fires that routinely effect oil refineries? What about nuclear power plant meltdowns? What about hydroelectric dam failures?
Municipal roads/service road costs: Many municipalities have used the installation of wind turbines to successfully negotiate an upgrade to roads paid for by the wind developer. That would be a sensible approach for Prince Edward County.
We DO want wind turbines in Prince Edward County because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. We have an energy resource in abundance and it’s our responsibility to share it.
Mr. Williams it is unfortunate that you feel that you have been left out of the town hall meeting. Do you feel that your voice is not being heard? Join the club. You now know how many rural voters feel. The Green Energy Act has excluded us from the decision-making process despite our growing opposition. It is ironic in my view that you would take this stand on the town hall meeting. I believe that it is your opinion that municipal councils, and therefore the property tax payers they represent, need not be included in the decision making process for IWT development in our communities because the fight against global climate change is a war that needs to be waged and we don’t have time for dissenting voices. This town hall is an example of the democratic process – a process that you seem quite comfortable denying county residents who disagree with your view.
Obviously Mr.Williams was not well informed on his position.
Further why would anyone want industrial wind turbines in our community? Do they support;
– 45% increase in energy costs in 4 years
– an unreliable energy source that requires backup
– health risks
– environmental risks
– impacts to a major migratory bird route
– devalued property
– tourisism impacts
– major fire risks
– municipal roads and service road costs
All for what. $$$$$ Energy Act.
Someone explain to me why all this discussion about health concerns if nobody lives near the proposed project.
Rob how dare you take exception to Dr McMurtry having ten minutes to speak. Were you at the large meeting he organized at the Waring house last year?? experts from all over the world where there and spoke about health concerns, He just recently received the Order of Canada for his work in HEALTH CARE.
We are fortunate to have on CCSAGE individuals who have had and have outstanding jobs across North America, They are willing to lend their expertise.
Dalton should never have started the GEA-we do not need the power and it is not substainable and costs too much money
Poor judgment on his part does not mean we have to have poor judgment on our part
Hey Rob,
On the PEC Voice thing last night, Mr. Smith offered you and your group time to speak equal to the other groups, in fact, he even offered you the first speaking slot so that you wouldn’t have to sit through presentations with which you disagreed.
Several friends of mine received mailed and emailed invitations from Mr. Smith’s office weeks ago because they took time to write his office – or so the invitations read. These invitations quite clearly stated the format. So, this remains yet another unfounded claim by CSG.
If 30 minutes is alotted for speakers from the floor, doesn’t that disadvantage everyone equally? Or is this a tacit admission on your part that most people in PEC oppose the wind factory and thus would constitute most of the speakers from the floor?
Also, last night on PEC voice, your exchange with Mr. Smith seemed to indicate that your group failed to contact his office the way that the other groups had. Why did your group not speak up? Shouldn’t you guys have been on the phone with Mr. Smith’s office on Jan.11 right after the Town Hall was announced and thus, you would have become a part of the process well in advance of the timeline you lauded council for setting in 2009?
And didn’t you say last night on PEC Voice that you were meeting with Mr. Smith “on Friday”? It hardly seems to me, sir, that your voice has been silenced at all. In fact, a reasonable person could argue more has been done to accommodate your opinion than you claim has been done for others.
Quite frankly, sir, your argument has more holes in it than a target ship. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. If you’re so sure you’re correct, you have, by your own admission, been provided with a willing host, and you should take advantage of the forum offered to you. To “take your ball and go home” is juvenile and speaks ill of the whole CSG organization.
Thanks for that input, Rob. I was bemoaning the fact that I was going to be away and miss this “town hall” meeting so that I could be among those who could put paid to the lie that the majority of people in the county are not supportive of wind energy here.
It would seem that the format as you have exposed it will unfortunately be just another soapbox for the rabidly anti-wind crowd to spread their message that the Green Energy Act somehow just sprang full blown from Dalton McGuinty’s brain. That this is ludicrous propagandizing may be lost on those who are not aware of how precarious is our current environmental situation.
I applaud the County Sustainability Group for continuing to present facts, not fear-mongering in this ongoing war of words.
I am not and have never been “anti-wind”. By virtue of being a member of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada I must be a health advocate which I am proud to be. Perhaps that is why I was honoured with the James H. Graham Award by the Royal College for career achievement in furthering the Royal College’s goals.
My stand remains clear. Industrial wind turbines must be placed so they do not place people or other living creatures in harm’s way.
R Y McMurtry CM, MD, FRCSC, FACS