Reality Check: While the turbine base and access road may seem minor individually, the total cumulative footprint of a wind project includes:
Access roads, often widened and extended through productive farmland.
Crane pads, laydown areas, substations, and underground cable trenches.
Drainage disruption, compacted soil, and long-term yield loss near heavy equipment traffic zones.
Supporting Evidence:
According to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), even temporary land disturbance from heavy construction equipment can permanently degrade soil quality and crop yield near turbines.
USDA research shows soil compaction from turbine access roads can reduce yield by up to 25% near the installation.
Post-Decommissioning Myth:
There is no guarantee the land will be restored to pre-construction conditions, especially after 30+ years of turbine operation, concrete degradation, and soil compression.
The concrete base (up to 4m deep) is often left buried, not removed — a concern validated in multiple Ontario wind project decommissioning plans.
Livestock Studies:
Peer-reviewed research, such as by N. Alves-Pereira, has found vibroacoustic disease in livestock exposed to infrasound from turbines.
Reports from Ontario farms near turbine projects (e.g., in Chatham-Kent) describe decreased fertility, behavioral issues, and increased stillbirths in cattle.
Farmer Testimonies:
Dozens of farmers across Ontario, particularly in Dutton Dunwich and Amaranth, have reported lower yields, soil drainage issues, and compromised crop dusting operations due to turbulence and tower height restrictions.
Unspoken Risk: Wind turbines often limit future expansion of precision agriculture systems due to interference with GPS signals, aerial application routes, and autonomous tractor systems.
"Turbines won’t harm wildlife. We avoid sensitive habitats and assess environmental impacts."
Bird and Bat Mortality:
Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada have confirmed that wind turbines cause thousands of bird and bat deaths annually.
The Purple Martin, bobolinks, and other threatened species — common in Southern Ontario — are at significant risk from rotor collisions and habitat loss.
Bats suffer from barotrauma, where internal organs rupture due to rapid air pressure changes near spinning blades — a phenomenon well-documented by researchers at University of Calgary.
Insufficient Environmental Assessments:
Assessments are typically conducted by consultants hired by the developer, posing a conflict of interest.
The three-year post-construction monitoring period is often cut short or underfunded, and rarely results in meaningful mitigation.
Expert Testimony:
Biologists have raised concerns that Ontario’s Natural Heritage policies allow “low-importance” habitats to be sacrificed in exchange for “offsetting” — which often fails to recreate lost ecosystems.
Safeguarding Water Sources
Shallow Water Tables:
South-West Oxford and Malahide lie within regions with high water tables, making them especially vulnerable to subsurface disturbance.
Even short-term turbine construction can lead to fuel or chemical spills, sedimentation, and long-term groundwater migration of contaminants.
Concrete Leaching:
Turbine foundations contain hundreds of cubic meters of concrete. Over time, rainwater infiltration can lead to alkaline leachate, which raises pH and harms aquatic ecosystems and soil bacteria.
Stormwater Runoff:
Stormwater plans, while required, often fail during high rainfall events, causing soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby wetlands and streams.
Case Study: In Prince Edward County, a now-cancelled wind project faced public backlash after groundwater testing revealed excess turbidity and sediment in nearby wells — an issue that was dismissed in initial studies.
1. “Minimal farmland impact” → In reality, access roads, cables, and compaction degrade much more than claimed. Restoration is rarely complete.
2. “Farming continues as usual” → Livestock issues and yield losses are real. Precision agriculture is compromised.
3. “Wildlife protection is a priority” → Bird and bat deaths, migratory disruption, and biodiversity loss are well documented and underestimated in reports.
4. “Water contamination will be prevented” → Shallow water tables, concrete leaching, and runoff risks make rural groundwater vulnerable.
Key Issue: The term “no direct association” does not mean no effect. Most official reviews (like Ontario’s 2010 Chief Medical Officer of Health report) only refer to direct, measurable physiological damage — not broader adverse health outcomes caused indirectly by sleep disturbance, annoyance, or chronic stress.
Health Canada Study (2014): Often misquoted by wind proponents. While it found no direct physiological damage, it did confirm a statistically significant link between wind turbine noise (above 35 dBA) and:
Increased high annoyance
Sleep disturbance
Increased use of sleep medication and reports of reduced quality of life
Ontario’s noise limit is 40 dBA at night at the receptor (home) — but this is an average, not a peak, and doesn’t account for tonality, modulation, or low-frequency pulses, which are most commonly reported as intrusive.
Peer-reviewed research by Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira, a leading authority on infrasound and vibroacoustic disease, demonstrates that even sub-audible frequencies can lead to long-term health issues like cardiovascular stress, nausea, and headaches in sensitive individuals.
📚 Alves-Pereira & Branco, 2007 – Vibroacoustic Disease: Biological Effects of Infrasound
Chapman’s “communicated disease” theory has been heavily criticized for its lack of physiological data, and for ignoring documented symptoms among people who did not previously know turbines were planned near them.
Courts have dismissed Chapman’s work as speculative and biased. In fact, Chapman has no medical degree and has been accused of minimizing community concerns without field investigation.
📚 See: Krogh, C.M.E., et al. (2011). “WindVOiCe – A Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring”
It was published in 2010, before the full effects of Ontario’s Green Energy Act projects could be studied in communities like Chatham-Kent, Amaranth, and North Kent.
The Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) in Ontario, in several cases, concluded that turbines can cause serious harm to human health through sleep disturbance and annoyance — two well-documented pathways to chronic stress-related illness.
📚 [Chatham-Kent Tribunal Ruling, Case 13-070 – Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario]
Courts typically ruled that plaintiffs could not meet the legal threshold for proving causation beyond a reasonable doubt — not that turbines are safe.
In multiple cases, even when plaintiffs were believed, the government’s regulatory framework was deemed untouchable unless legislation changed.
📚 [Wiggins v. WPD Canada Corp., 2014] – Tribunal acknowledged possible serious harm but could not stop project due to burden of proof.
1. Health Canada confirms noise is linked to sleep disturbance, stress, and reduced quality of life.
2. Infrasound and low-frequency noise are not measured by current regulations — but are reported as the most harmful.
3. Claims that symptoms are “psychosomatic” are insulting and unsupported by medical field evidence.
4. Ontario’s noise guidelines are outdated and do not protect rural residents from long-term exposure.
5. Tribunals have acknowledged harm but lack power to stop projects without legislative change.
