[PublicAnimalNo9]

Tricks Tricks:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I dunno.

Why? It's pretty simple. Why is it okay for Ford to ignore the majority wish of a city but not for the Liberals? What's the difference?

$1:

Is the judge in the appeals court an ass hat for reversing judge Belobaba's decision?

I wouldn't say so. If it's constitutional, then he's doing what he's supposed to as a judge.

$1:

Did Ford leave the City Council with zero legal recourse?

Yes, he did. If he had used the notwithstanding clause (which he doesn't have to now) there is nothing the city could do about it. And there is nothing they can do about it now anyways. The province dictates control to the municipalities. Technically speaker, I think the province has the legal right to do whatever it wants in any city it feels like.

$1:

How many residents are for or against this move? City councilors not included.

I can't remember the exact figure, but the majority were against the cut, and a larger majority against the use of the NWC.

I don't disagree with you that the Liberals were giant fucking idiots. But if you're going to be mad at them because they refused to listed to the wishes of the cities they were screwing over, you have to apply that evenly to all parties.

How is Toronto getting screwed over? It really isn't losing any of its power. Of course you do realize there's a huge difference between the Province cutting the size of a city govt and the Province forcing wind turbines on people who don't want them and massively devaluing their properties in the process. Are property values in Toronto going to plummet as a result of a reduction in city council? Do you think this will cause animosity and permanent divisions between residents like the wind turbines did?
Like I suggested, watch the documentary 'Big Wind'. What Ford is doing in Toronto pales in comparison.

[BeaverFever]

As I understand those windmills were mostly put up by private property owners on their own private property, no?

For the record the overwhelming majority of Torontonians strongly disagreed with Ford’s plans.

$1:

...65 per cent of Torontonians said they oppose Ford’s use of the clause.Notably, approximately 56 per cent said they “strongly oppose” the move.

....“Fifty-five per cent of people said they strongly disapprove of the use of the notwithstanding clause. I haven’t seen that since I’ve been working as a pollster. This is pretty strong opposition.”

He added that even 60 per cent of the respondents from Etobicoke, the home of Ford Nation, did not agree with the use of the clause.

...55 per cent of respondents said that they are not in favour of reducing the number of councillors from 47 to 25 and 46 per cent said that they “strongly disagree” with slashing the size of council....

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/major ... -1.4098463

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

That argument cuts both ways, Ford claiming that they’re standing up for “municipal rights” after this recent notwithstanding clause fiasco is a joke.

The GEA will likely be remembered as a policy failure overall given that it didn’t achieve its goals of creating a strong green energy base or a strong stand-alone green manufacturing sector and the jobs that were to go with it as of its date of death. It did create SOME of these but to date most would say not enough to justify the amount subsidies or controversy.

But one of its achievements that will probably be remembered well is the closure of the coal-fired power plants. There used to be dozens of “smog days” every year, peaking at 53 in 2005, but we haven’t had a single one in the province since the last coal plants were shut down 4 years ago . Not only that but coal ash is toxic waste and people need only look at the environmental disaster currently unfolding in the Carolinas as coal plants’ ash heaps have been breached by flooding from Hurricane Florence and are now contaminating local water sources (Unfortunately for Americans Trump has already repealed many environmental protections on water contamination on coal ash heaps specifically and also issed a new requirement that utilities buy coal powered electricity so disasters like this will be the new normal - but I digress).

I can admit that the act was controversial and its critics have many valid arguments. But this article in Forbes representing the green Energy sector’s viewpoint suggests Ford’s strategy could do more harm than good:

$1:

Ontario's Economic Investment Outlook Dims With New Government Energy Actions

Ontario sold $3 billion in bonds in one day the other week. Investment outlook doesn't look too dim.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ontario’s Carbon Pricing Reversal Will Cost Billions

In 2016, Ontario established a cap-and-trade system in the province with the passage of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act with the first auction in March 2017, and linked the system with California and Quebec through the WCI carbon market in January 2018. Two joint auctions were successfully held, selling out all available allowances in February and in May 2018 – demonstrating a high level of future confidence in the system. All told, the individual and joint auctions generated over $2.8 billion for Ontario.

Unfortunately, carbon trading actually cost Ontario $5.2 billion. But let's assume that $2.8 million was profit. Took a year to make that. Ford drew in $3 billion in investments in one day.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Canceled Clean Energy Projects Will Cost Thousands Of Jobs

Ontario’s climate rollback wasn’t limited to the carbon market, however. The provincial government pulled out of more than 750 early-stage wind and solar energy contracts in early July, pledging that the move would save ratepayers nearly $800 million – but the move could have quite the opposite economic effect.

Solar and wind are emerging from a nascent stage in Canada, and Ontario has led the way with more than 90% of national solar capacity. But Canada’s Solar Industries Association (CanSEIA) estimates the cancellations will cost Ontario 6,000 jobs and around $500 million in expected investment, while the cancellation of just one approved wind farm could cost more than $100 million, which may be paid by power consumers across the province. Those jobs and investments may shift to other provinces – CanSEIA expects increased development interest in Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which have 2030 renewable energy targets.

Renewable energy costs have fallen fast over the past decade, making them cheaper than new coal or nuclear and cost-competitive with natural gas globally as of 2017, and those cheaper costs can create savings for electricity consumers through new development. 90% of the cancelled Ontario contracts were distributed solar that would have benefited farmers, schools, cities, and Indigenous communities – and clean energy installations had already pushed down medical costs due to declining coal use and increased public health.


The government also cancelled a wide array of energy efficiency programs including support for high-efficiency window and door installations to reduce energy use and costs for homeowners and businesses —causing concerns for an industry valued at $1 billion across Ontario — as well as heat pumps and wood heating systems.

Ontario’s clean energy rollback could also hit the brakes on its budding electric vehicle (EV) industry and market, with the government’s cancellation of EV rebate programs, as well as a host of programs supporting electric school bus and commercial vehicle purchases.

Ontario is the heart of Canada’s auto manufacturing sector, but domestic and global markets are shifting toward clean transportation – EVs could reach 28% of global sales by 2030 – so Ontario automakers risk losing out on accelerating market growth if domestic demand declines while investments dry up.

Business Community Flags Risks Over Climate Policy Backslide

Canada’s federal government will implement a federal carbon pricing backstop on January 1, 2019, in all provinces that do not already have a carbon pricing system in place that complies with the minimum federal requirement. The backstop system combines a carbon price on fossil fuels paid by fuel producers or distributors with an output-based pricing system for emissions-intensive trade exposed sectors. This policy approach allows provinces and territories to design systems that work for their own unique circumstances, while ensuring that a carbon price is applied across the country.


The Ontario government has set aside $30 million for a legal challenge to the federal carbon plan but broad consensus, echoed in a legal opinion obtained by the Government of Manitoba, is that the federal government has a constitutional right to apply such a system. In addition to a costly legal fight, Ontario’s intransigence would cost it an estimated $316 million in discretionary funding it would have received from a federal Low-Carbon Economy Fund.

This leaves the business community understandably cautious about investing in Ontario at this point – with two key sources of uncertainty looming over future investment decisions.

First, the government’s action breaking contracts that companies made in good faith by purchasing allowances combined with legislated immunity sets a dangerous precedent. Potential investors have voiced concerns, from German and multinational companies to businesses across Canada – including John Manley, president of the Business Council of Canada, who flagged the recent decisions as a risk to Ontario’s “reputation for fair dealing and respect for the rule of law”.

Second, businesses find themselves in the difficult investment situation of facing uncertainty about future environmental regulation and costs. While cap-and-trade is clearly out, Ontario’s public has been clear in its desire for climate action, and the provincial government has provided few details about what a new climate plan might look like. Meanwhile, the federal government has been clear that provinces without a price on carbon will be covered by the federal carbon pricing backstop.


As a result, instead of taking the opportunity to design a carbon pricing system that is unique to Ontario’s economic realities, by default the provincial government is opting to have the federal backstop applied to its economy. Thus, companies considering investments might instead consider neighboring jurisdictions which have more clarity on policies and decarbonization support.

First off, solar is a complete waste in Ontario. Look at a solar radiance map of Canada. There's only one place in the entire country that makes sense for a commercial solar installation and that is southern Alberta. Secondly, this nonsense about wind being cheaper is just that, nonsense. That's the promise we got from the Libtards and all Ontario saw was skyrocketing hydro bills. Nuclear and Hydroelectric are the cheapest forms of power once the initial building cost is paid. IN any given month, the Libtards would contract only 2-3% of their capacity for Ontario. The rest was exported while we got stuck with the expensive power from useless whirlygigs and solar. All the Liberals needed to do was shut down the coal-fired plants and add a few gas plants.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ontario’s Major Economic Steps Backward

The decisions made by Ontario’s government risk missing out on long-term economic opportunities to transform the province’s energy consumption footprint, as well as to transition the economy into one that manufactures the products which are valued in a low-carbon future.

Moreover, a significant portion of the permits already purchased by businesses could be passed onto Ontarians, who may also be stuck with the legal fees for a challenge to federal plans with little chance of success.

In one fell swoop Ontario’s government has dramatically slashed a source of funding for clean transportation infrastructure to help consumers lower travel costs, erased hundreds of clean energy projects to help consumers reduce electricity costs, dimmed the prospects for jobs and economic growth from clean tech industries, and took a major step backwards in making the province an attractive climate for business and investment today – and into the future.

I think a challenge to the federal plan has great chance of success and here's why. Trudeau proved that this has nothing to do with carbon reduction and everything to do with generating tax revenue for the UN. Nunavut came up with a perfectly workable carbon reduction plan that would meet the federal timeline. Only one problem, it didn't have a carbon tax component. Trudeau roundly rejected their plan because it didn't have that carbon tax component. Now, one would think that if carbon reduction was indeed the goal the PM wouldn't care how you did it, as long as it was getting done.

As for manufacturers, remember those two wind turbine plants that McGuinty was crowing about. We were told they'd employ about 1700 people between them. The sad reality was there were only 80 full-time jobs between them and both of them have since shut down and moved elsewhere because Ontario was NOT a business-friendly province under the Liberals.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

As I understand those windmills were mostly put up by private property owners on their own private property, no?

Watch the documentary 'Big Wind'. Yes, many of those windmills were put up on private property. Private property which had neighbours who didn't want a wind turbine next to their property. This is what I meant when I said the turbines caused serious divisions within communities. It pitted neighbour against neighbour. It devalued properties significantly.
As I stated earlier, the international standard for turbines placement says no closer than 2000m from a residential area or residence. Ontario's standard is 550m. There have been a shit-ton of studies showing that regularly occurring low-frequency noise and light flicker can have a detrimental effect on some people's and animal's health.
Studies which the Liberals utterly ignored. They were simply desperate to signal their virtue to the world.
All for something that Ontario absolutely does not need. On any given weekday starting in the early afternoon, Ontario generates enough power to supply, on average, around 15 million households. Meanwhile Hydro Quebec is laughing as we pay them market rates to take excess off our hands, which they in turn export to the US for market rates. Pretty sweet deal eh? They make roughly 5 cents/kWh for hydro they don't even have to generate. Hmm, I guess you really can get money for nothing. I wonder if they get their chicks for free too.

[BeaverFever]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

That argument cuts both ways, Ford claiming that they’re standing up for “municipal rights” after this recent notwithstanding clause fiasco is a joke.

The GEA will likely be remembered as a policy failure overall given that it didn’t achieve its goals of creating a strong green energy base or a strong stand-alone green manufacturing sector and the jobs that were to go with it as of its date of death. It did create SOME of these but to date most would say not enough to justify the amount subsidies or controversy.

But one of its achievements that will probably be remembered well is the closure of the coal-fired power plants. There used to be dozens of “smog days” every year, peaking at 53 in 2005, but we haven’t had a single one in the province since the last coal plants were shut down 4 years ago . Not only that but coal ash is toxic waste and people need only look at the environmental disaster currently unfolding in the Carolinas as coal plants’ ash heaps have been breached by flooding from Hurricane Florence and are now contaminating local water sources (Unfortunately for Americans Trump has already repealed many environmental protections on water contamination on coal ash heaps specifically and also issed a new requirement that utilities buy coal powered electricity so disasters like this will be the new normal - but I digress).

I can admit that the act was controversial and its critics have many valid arguments. But this article in Forbes representing the green Energy sector’s viewpoint suggests Ford’s strategy could do more harm than good:

$1:

Ontario's Economic Investment Outlook Dims With New Government Energy Actions

Ontario sold $3 billion in bonds in one day the other week. Investment outlook doesn't look too dim.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ontario’s Carbon Pricing Reversal Will Cost Billions

In 2016, Ontario established a cap-and-trade system in the province with the passage of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act with the first auction in March 2017, and linked the system with California and Quebec through the WCI carbon market in January 2018. Two joint auctions were successfully held, selling out all available allowances in February and in May 2018 – demonstrating a high level of future confidence in the system. All told, the individual and joint auctions generated over $2.8 billion for Ontario.

Unfortunately, carbon trading actually cost Ontario $5.2 billion. But let's assume that $2.8 million was profit. Took a year to make that. Ford drew in $3 billion in investments in one day.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Canceled Clean Energy Projects Will Cost Thousands Of Jobs

Ontario’s climate rollback wasn’t limited to the carbon market, however. The provincial government pulled out of more than 750 early-stage wind and solar energy contracts in early July, pledging that the move would save ratepayers nearly $800 million – but the move could have quite the opposite economic effect.

Solar and wind are emerging from a nascent stage in Canada, and Ontario has led the way with more than 90% of national solar capacity. But Canada’s Solar Industries Association (CanSEIA) estimates the cancellations will cost Ontario 6,000 jobs and around $500 million in expected investment, while the cancellation of just one approved wind farm could cost more than $100 million, which may be paid by power consumers across the province. Those jobs and investments may shift to other provinces – CanSEIA expects increased development interest in Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which have 2030 renewable energy targets.

Renewable energy costs have fallen fast over the past decade, making them cheaper than new coal or nuclear and cost-competitive with natural gas globally as of 2017, and those cheaper costs can create savings for electricity consumers through new development. 90% of the cancelled Ontario contracts were distributed solar that would have benefited farmers, schools, cities, and Indigenous communities – and clean energy installations had already pushed down medical costs due to declining coal use and increased public health.


The government also cancelled a wide array of energy efficiency programs including support for high-efficiency window and door installations to reduce energy use and costs for homeowners and businesses —causing concerns for an industry valued at $1 billion across Ontario — as well as heat pumps and wood heating systems.

Ontario’s clean energy rollback could also hit the brakes on its budding electric vehicle (EV) industry and market, with the government’s cancellation of EV rebate programs, as well as a host of programs supporting electric school bus and commercial vehicle purchases.

Ontario is the heart of Canada’s auto manufacturing sector, but domestic and global markets are shifting toward clean transportation – EVs could reach 28% of global sales by 2030 – so Ontario automakers risk losing out on accelerating market growth if domestic demand declines while investments dry up.

Business Community Flags Risks Over Climate Policy Backslide

Canada’s federal government will implement a federal carbon pricing backstop on January 1, 2019, in all provinces that do not already have a carbon pricing system in place that complies with the minimum federal requirement. The backstop system combines a carbon price on fossil fuels paid by fuel producers or distributors with an output-based pricing system for emissions-intensive trade exposed sectors. This policy approach allows provinces and territories to design systems that work for their own unique circumstances, while ensuring that a carbon price is applied across the country.


The Ontario government has set aside $30 million for a legal challenge to the federal carbon plan but broad consensus, echoed in a legal opinion obtained by the Government of Manitoba, is that the federal government has a constitutional right to apply such a system. In addition to a costly legal fight, Ontario’s intransigence would cost it an estimated $316 million in discretionary funding it would have received from a federal Low-Carbon Economy Fund.

This leaves the business community understandably cautious about investing in Ontario at this point – with two key sources of uncertainty looming over future investment decisions.

First, the government’s action breaking contracts that companies made in good faith by purchasing allowances combined with legislated immunity sets a dangerous precedent. Potential investors have voiced concerns, from German and multinational companies to businesses across Canada – including John Manley, president of the Business Council of Canada, who flagged the recent decisions as a risk to Ontario’s “reputation for fair dealing and respect for the rule of law”.

Second, businesses find themselves in the difficult investment situation of facing uncertainty about future environmental regulation and costs. While cap-and-trade is clearly out, Ontario’s public has been clear in its desire for climate action, and the provincial government has provided few details about what a new climate plan might look like. Meanwhile, the federal government has been clear that provinces without a price on carbon will be covered by the federal carbon pricing backstop.


As a result, instead of taking the opportunity to design a carbon pricing system that is unique to Ontario’s economic realities, by default the provincial government is opting to have the federal backstop applied to its economy. Thus, companies considering investments might instead consider neighboring jurisdictions which have more clarity on policies and decarbonization support.

First off, solar is a complete waste in Ontario. Look at a solar radiance map of Canada. There's only one place in the entire country that makes sense for a commercial solar installation and that is southern Alberta. Secondly, this nonsense about wind being cheaper is just that, nonsense. That's the promise we got from the Libtards and all Ontario saw was skyrocketing hydro bills. Nuclear and Hydroelectric are the cheapest forms of power once the initial building cost is paid. IN any given month, the Libtards would contract only 2-3% of their capacity for Ontario. The rest was exported while we got stuck with the expensive power from useless whirlygigs and solar. All the Liberals needed to do was shut down the coal-fired plants and add a few gas plants.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ontario’s Major Economic Steps Backward

The decisions made by Ontario’s government risk missing out on long-term economic opportunities to transform the province’s energy consumption footprint, as well as to transition the economy into one that manufactures the products which are valued in a low-carbon future.

Moreover, a significant portion of the permits already purchased by businesses could be passed onto Ontarians, who may also be stuck with the legal fees for a challenge to federal plans with little chance of success.

In one fell swoop Ontario’s government has dramatically slashed a source of funding for clean transportation infrastructure to help consumers lower travel costs, erased hundreds of clean energy projects to help consumers reduce electricity costs, dimmed the prospects for jobs and economic growth from clean tech industries, and took a major step backwards in making the province an attractive climate for business and investment today – and into the future.

I think a challenge to the federal plan has great chance of success and here's why. Trudeau proved that this has nothing to do with carbon reduction and everything to do with generating tax revenue for the UN. Nunavut came up with a perfectly workable carbon reduction plan that would meet the federal timeline. Only one problem, it didn't have a carbon tax component. Trudeau roundly rejected their plan because it didn't have that carbon tax component. Now, one would think that if carbon reduction was indeed the goal the PM wouldn't care how you did it, as long as it was getting done.

As for manufacturers, remember those two wind turbine plants that McGuinty was crowing about. We were told they'd employ about 1700 people between them. The sad reality was there were only 80 full-time jobs between them and both of them have since shut down and moved elsewhere because Ontario was NOT a business-friendly province under the Liberals.

What the hell is “tax revenue for the UN”????

[BeaverFever]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

As I understand those windmills were mostly put up by private property owners on their own private property, no?

Watch the documentary 'Big Wind'. Yes, many of those windmills were put up on private property. Private property which had neighbours who didn't want a wind turbine next to their property. This is what I meant when I said the turbines caused serious divisions within communities. It pitted neighbour against neighbour. It devalued properties significantly.
As I stated earlier, the international standard for turbines placement says no closer than 2000m from a residential area or residence. Ontario's standard is 550m. There have been a shit-ton of studies showing that regularly occurring low-frequency noise and light flicker can have a detrimental effect on some people's and animal's health.
Studies which the Liberals utterly ignored. They were simply desperate to signal their virtue to the world.
All for something that Ontario absolutely does not need. On any given weekday starting in the early afternoon, Ontario generates enough power to supply, on average, around 15 million households. Meanwhile Hydro Quebec is laughing as we pay them market rates to take excess off our hands, which they in turn export to the US for market rates. Pretty sweet deal eh? They make roughly 5 cents/kWh for hydro they don't even have to generate. Hmm, I guess you really can get money for nothing. I wonder if they get their chicks for free too.

I couldn’t find any “international standard” for wind turbine setbacks but a quick google found 550m as the standard in Ireland and UK. Also I note that the 550m minimum in Ontario can be greater depending on variety of factors for example the setback is greater depending on the number of windmills in a 3km radius.

Also the health concerns from flicker and noise-vibration are not widely accepted. Although I understand there have been some legitimate concerns regarding stray current due to inadequate construction in some cases.

But regarding the distance around windmills isn’t it ironic that people who want “less government interference” want government to place more restrictions on how private property owners use their private property? Like if Ford increases regulation to make it 2000m would you be satisfied?

[Tricks]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

How is Toronto getting screwed over? It really isn't losing any of its power. Of course you do realize there's a huge difference between the Province cutting the size of a city govt and the Province forcing wind turbines on people who don't want them and massively devaluing their properties in the process. Are property values in Toronto going to plummet as a result of a reduction in city council? Do you think this will cause animosity and permanent divisions between residents like the wind turbines did?
Like I suggested, watch the documentary 'Big Wind'. What Ford is doing in Toronto pales in comparison.

I don't need to watch it. At it's core, both are ignoring the wishes of the citizens. Your bias is refusing to let you see it as the same. That's the point I'm getting across here. You had no issue shitting on "leftards" for not condemning the government for putting up windmills without approval from it's citizens. You refuse to do the same in this case. Do you not see the complete hypocrisy of that?

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

But regarding the distance around windmills isn’t it ironic that people who want “less government interference” want government to place more restrictions on how private property owners use their private property? Like if Ford increases regulation to make it 2000m would you be satisfied?

IIRC, to have one of these installed on your property, you need the government to approve the site rather than having the green light and people need to ask for someone to step in and stop it. Exceptions have been made to allow these things to be built.

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well start from the top actually.

As for that link you posted what does it have to do with anything?

Or maybe, you make all of your links accurate rather than spamming a bunch to make it look better? Just an idea.

As for my link, it's a report about Tropospheric ozone, the major component of smog and the effects on the pollution in the GTA and the causes for increased/decreased pollution.

[BeaverFever]

I don’t understand what you think the relevance of that study is to your argument. I mean it specifically mentions the closure of the Lakeview and Nanticoke coal plants. Sections 3.6 amd 4 also attribute reductions to new regulations and reduced emissions from power plants.

[Tricks]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

How is Toronto getting screwed over? It really isn't losing any of its power.

The argument, of which I haven't come down on a side of, is that it's going to create an inordinate amount of work for each councilor, where things will fall through the cracks. Comparing the amount of MPPs or MPs doesn't make much sense, because they don't have the same micro-level responsibilities. They aren't dealing with the general public nearly as much, and if you double the amount of general public, shit isn't going to get done. That's the argument however, and I haven't decided if it's bullshit, and will likely have to wait and see how the downsizing goes.

$1:

Counci Of course you do realize there's a huge difference between the Province cutting the size of a city govt and the Province forcing wind turbines on people who don't want them and massively devaluing their properties in the process.

Lots of things are done that devalue properties. Building a nuclear power plant in a city devalues properties in the surrounding area. Or a Landfill. Or a refinery. Or anything that people don't like to live near. Should we just stop building anything that people don't like?

$1:

Are property values in Toronto going to plummet as a result of a reduction in city council?

Maybe not, but their access to representation in their city's government almost certainly will. Democracy?

$1:

Do you think this will cause animosity and permanent divisions between residents like the wind turbines did?

Definitely could. Jim down the road keeps tying up everyone's time with his bullshit when we need to get something else addressed.

$1:

Like I suggested, watch the documentary 'Big Wind'. What Ford is doing in Toronto pales in comparison.

Since you won't give it a rest until I do, I'll watch it now.

[Tricks]

So 95% of the documentary is about health affects that have little to no credible scientific data to support them. This is like vaccines causing autism nonsense.

Yawn.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

So 95% of the documentary is about health affects that have little to no credible scientific data to support them. This is like vaccines causing autism nonsense.

Yawn.

Any study that claims wind turbine blades create noise is full of shit. The turbine blades would have to move through the air faster than the wind powering it to create noise. That's unpossible.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Tricks Tricks:

So 95% of the documentary is about health affects that have little to no credible scientific data to support them. This is like vaccines causing autism nonsense.

Yawn.

Any study that claims wind turbine blades create noise is full of shit. The turbine blades would have to move through the air faster than the wind powering it to create noise. That's unpossible.

they claim it creates "infrasonic" noise, so noise below a perceptible level, which causes such things like node bleeds, sleeplessness, head aches, and cancer.

Also claimed is that the voltage leaks into the ground and it burns their feet.

I'm disappointed in TVO for spreading such nonsensical fear.

[raydan]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Any study that claims wind turbine blades create noise is full of shit. The turbine blades would have to move through the air faster than the wind powering it to create noise. That's unpossible.

I'm surprised you made that mistake. Some turbine blades can move at 180 MPH... at the tip... which is probably faster than the wind moving them.

EDIT: Wind speed of 22 MPH.

https://gizmodo.com/5930272/the-worlds- ... at-180-mph