M'Chigeeng activist dismayed by weak deal reached in Copenhagen

by Lynzii Taibossigai

COPENHAGEN, Denmark-As I write, this is my last night here in Copenhagen. I've been here since December 4 for the United Nations Climate Change summit with the Canadian Youth Delegation (CYD), as you may have read in last week's edition of the Expositor.

This was supposed to be a time in which the leaders of the world came together to agree on a new treaty to ensure global action on climate change, which would ensure survival for all. In regards to the status of negotiations, that did not happen. It didn't even come close: some say we've taken a step backwards.

In 1992, the world came together at the Rio Earth Summit in Brazil, and gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol. Adopted in 1997 and implemented in 2005, the protocol was an agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aimed at combating global warming. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

Over 187 countries have signed and ratified the protocol as of November 2009, including Canada. The sad thing is the leadership of our country has failed to respect our side of the deal and we've really hit a low point in time as Canadian citizens. Many of my friends within the CYD are embarrassed to be Canadian now, as am I. We jokingly talked about sewing US flags or badges onto our backpacks while here instead of Canadian ones! And now, I want neither.

President Obama spoke last night during the final hours of the conference and I was shocked, not at what he said but how he said it. I remember listening to his acceptance speech last November in Guyana with tears in my eyes. Last night, I felt nothing, because his words were just words-they weren't from the heart, and that really scares me.

Today the conference is over; many of my friends have left for home, along with thousands of others who came for this global event. The outcome: to be continued. They have decided to put a hold on negotiations, possibly for six months, and reconvene in Bonn, Germany; and word is COP 16 (COP stands for Conference of the Parties) is already scheduled to be in Mexico a year from now. I still don't know the ins and outs of the UNFCCC process, but from what I've seen here, it just isn't working. It's been over 17 years and they are talking about the same problem. There has to be another way, or at least room to include other ways of knowing and doing, such as the civil society-regular people like you and me. Our voices and lives matter too.

Friends who have attended these conferences before say there have been significant increases in the amount of young people and community activists in attendance. For example, last year there were just over 500 youth at COP 14 in Poznan, Poland. This year, the United States had over 500 youth here! And we totalled at around 1,500 worldwide! That says a lot. That says to me that the youth of the world care about their future. I care not only of my own, but of my nephews', my future children's and grandchildren's. I've heard this saying over a dozen times in the last three months: "climate justice is the civil rights issue of our generation." That's how big this is. And the movement is growing. I now have over 35 allies across Canada and the United States; my CYD family and other Indigenous youth I've met from the US, we know we're in this boat together, and we're in it for the long haul.

After President Obama's speech last night-which by the way interrupted our CYD debrief (in which I was leading a Sharing Circle-it's been such an amazing experience being able to share my culture with my new friends!)-the whole building was abuzz. We needed to do something; we were not going to stand for this injustice. Mobilization took less than an hour, and I found myself back at the Bella Centre where the ever-important talks were still taking place. People were already gathered outside once I arrived with most of my CYD family and the police were everywhere. It was a peaceful demonstration of our frustration with the world leaders' inability to actually lead. Banners were put up, candles were lit and there was a lot of yelling; my good friend Rhiya can hardly talk today. It felt good to go there, to demonstrate our unhappiness of this monumental failure of leadership, and that we aren't giving up, we know that it's not over!

I've had many conversations this last week as to what can we do to really make a difference. What will really influence change for the betterment of all of our futures? Is it the everyday things, like using a reusable water bottle, carrying a grocery bag with us everywhere we go, biking to work and school? Or is it developing renewable energy, such as wind and solar power? Or educating the next generation on the importance of living sustainably and being respectful to Shkakmig-kwe (Mother Earth)? Or does it include speaking to our chiefs and lobbying our members of parliament, and Prime Minister Harper, for a fair, ambitious and binding deal? And finally, what about organizing a non-violent direct action, such as a sit-in at various parliamentary offices across Canada?

It may be a balance of all of these things and possibly more that will influence positive change in people, governments and nations across the globe. And the best place to start is at home. Canada still has a chance to be a leader in climate justice; if we can now rally together and stand up for our rights, we will win. I believe.

We've all come to the conclusion that there is so much work to be done when we return home, but it's also a week away from Christmas-a time I cherish most with my family and friends, all the people I love dearly. I plan to take in every moment with them, to relax and enjoy the food, laughter and gifts of the season, because in 2010 I will continue to stand up for Shkakmig-kwe, our Earth Mother.

Town cleared on 'secret meeting' charge

NE_Councillor Skippen apologizes for circulating allegations

by Lindsay Kelly

NORTHEAST TOWN-Northeast Town council got the apology it wanted from Councillor Paul Skippen this week, just as the Ontario Ombudsman ruled that council did not hold a secret meeting on November 5.

The ombudsman received complaints of an inappropriate meeting taking place in council chambers following a regular committee meeting, and launched an investigation that involved interviews with town staff and council members.

However, the ruling decided that "no discussions were held which furthered the business of the town, and therefore no meeting took place," noted a press release.

Mayor Jim Stringer said he was pleased to see the issue resolved, suggesting that false allegations take attention away from council's responsibilities.

"These types of unfounded accusations can undermine the community's confidence in its leadership, and I am convinced that this never should have been referred to the ombudsman in the first place," he said in the release. "This council has consistently shown that we are committed to development and growth in this community and it was ridiculous to have this type of accusation distracting council from our important role of moving the town forward."

This was not the first time council found itself under the scrutiny of the ombudsman's office. This marks the fifth time within the last four months a complaint has been lobbed against council, and in all cases, the ombudsman found no evidence to support a claim of wrongdoing.

"It is time for members of special interest groups to set aside their personal agendas and let council get on with the business of running the town," Mayor Stringer said, adding that he appreciates the professional and thorough nature of the investigators.

Following the finding, Councillor Skippen said he accepts the ruling and expressed optimism that the town could move beyond this chapter.

"I was not the person who made the original complaint to the ombudsman group," he said. "The ombudsman asked me for input and I followed their instructions. I accept the ombudsman's ruling. I made my apology in an attempt to move the business of the town forward. I hope that everyone involved will accept it."

He had, however, supported the initial allegation in an email that purported that five members of council held a meeting addressing town business, from which he and Councillor Bruce Wood were excluded. The email was brought to the attention of council, members of the public, government representatives, and several media outlets, a move that council deemed slanderous, and for which it demanded an apology.

At last week's council meeting, a war of words erupted after Councillor Skippen said that, in the interest of harmony amongst council members, he would meet the terms of the motion that council passed demanding an apology.

"I would like to inform council that I have called (Municipal Affairs and Housing representative) Ben Horner," he said. "He made it clear that I don't have to adhere to any motions made at the last council meeting, but I would like to clear the air and I apologize to council."

The Ward 4 councillor said he had prepared a statement to submit to council, noting that it would be emailed to members of council, staff, and the people who had been sent the original email.

"I apologize for having distributed an email on November 6 alleging wrongdoing on the part of council," he read from his statement.

The wording of that mea culpa didn't entirely satisfy Councillor Al MacNevin, who led the original charge for an apology. He wanted a specific reference to the secret meeting that was alleged to have taken place and a retraction of that claim. While he agreed that Councillor Skippen was not obliged to offer an apology, he contended that any apology should include a statement that refers back to the original wording of the email.

"I want to know if he still believes that we held a secret meeting on November 5 because that's what he said in his email," Councillor MacNevin said.

"It means any wrongdoing," Councillor Skippen retorted. "I don't know what else you did in there, quite honestly. I apologize, I did what you want, and if you want to make another motion, go ahead. Next week I'll apologize for something else. I've already apologized and you know what it means like everyone else here."

Dissatisfied with that response, Councillor MacNevin asked him a second time whether he still believed a secret meeting had taken place, even after the rest of council attested that no secret meeting occurred-an important distinction since the secret meeting is the alleged wrongdoing.

Councillor Skippen avoided answering the question directly, but said he would comply with any motion council wanted him to.

"If you read the motion, I've complied with the motion," he said. "I have written exactly what it says. You guys made the motion...read the motion, see if it doesn't comply; if it doesn't then make another motion or tell me what to do and I'll write it a different way."

Members of the public, and presumably supporters of Councillor Skippen, had to be called to order after Councillor MacNevin suggested accepting the motion and Councillor Skippen's acknowledgment that there was no secret meeting.

"The apology that he's made for wrongdoing is a statement that we held a secret meeting, so I'm suggesting that we accept that apology and him acknowledging that that is not the case," Councillor MacNevin said. "He just asked me to word it any way I want and I'm saying this is how I want it written."

The final motion indicated that council "accepts the apology from Council Skippen and acknowledges that there was no secret meeting held on November 5, 2009."

Councillor Marcel Gauthier, whose comment that he was attending another meeting that evening touched off the controversy, said he respected Councillor Skippen and accepted his apology.

He suggested that council has, until this point, worked well together, and the municipality would be better served if council could refocus on the task at hand.

"We have a lot of plans and we will achieve those plans a lot better if we work together as a group," he said. "There is going to be some friction from time to time, but I'd like to go on with more important things we have to do on this council."

Council's acceptance of the apology was unanimous.

IJC_panel rules no change needed at St. Clair River

Climate change cited as main driver of lake level

by Jim Moodie

LAKE HURON-Georgian Bay advocates and environmental allies in the US are appalled by a recent decision on the part of an international panel that no structural changes to Lake Huron's outflow through the St. Clair River are required.

Last week, the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) board ruled, in its final report on the St. Clair River, that "there has been no significant erosion" in the upper reach of the river in the past decade.

While the report's authors concede that there has been an increase in the river's carrying capacity-they measure this at seven to 14 centimetres (2.8 to 5.5 inches) over the period of 1963-2006-they contend that "change is not ongoing" and that, since 2000, there has actually been a decrease in the amount of water flowing through the St. Clair.

The report blames most of the water loss from the upper lakes in recent years on climate change, describing this as the "main driver of lake level relationships." Erosion of the shipping channel and man-made changes to the shoreline along the St. Clair are deemed not consequential enough to warrant remedial measures.

That conclusion baffles and saddens Mary Muter, Georgian Baykeeper with the Waterkeeper Alliance and a board member of Georgian Bay Forever (GBF), the charitable wing of the Georgian Bay Association (GBA). One of two advisory members to the IUGLS study, along with John Jackson of Great Lakes United, Ms. Muter has repeatedly pushed for some action to be taken on the St. Clair River, which her organization believes hemorrhages twice as much water as has been quantified by the IUGLS team.

In 2004, the GBA commissioned a costly hydrological study by the respected engineering firm Baird and Associates, which concluded that the river, due to erosion and alterations to its banks, is responsible for a loss of 12 billion gallons of water per day, likening this to a "drain hole" in the bottom of Lake Huron.

That assessment is questioned by the binational team since set up through the International Joint Commission-a quasi-judicial body that oversees regulation of the Great Lakes-to study Huron, Michigan and Superior over a period of five years. The earlier Baird study, according to a comment provided to The Sarnia Observer by Ted Yuzyk, Canadian co-chair of the IUGLS board, had "no credible numbers" on water loss.

Ms. Muter believes otherwise, and suspects the international study board took a blinkered approach to the issue, driving towards a foregone conclusion. She notes that other individuals and groups, including the National Wildlife Federation in the US, have vociferously shared the concerns of the Georgian Bay Association, but this chorus has not had any impact on the final determination.

"They have basically ignored the public's response to the study," said Ms. Muter. "It makes you think the result was predetermined."

A series of public meetings was held on both sides of the border over the summer, following the release of a draft report in May, and Ms. Muter was present for many of them. She recalls numerous individuals raising tough questions, including one posed by an attendee at a session in Midland.

"This person asked how much of a water loss (through the St. Clair) would justify remediation, and the study board representatives said they didn't know," she said. "The five inches they're talking about is a huge amount when you think of that being taken off the surface of the whole lake."

Her own group feels the loss is much greater, but even the amount gauged by the IUGLS group would necessitate some action, in her view. And she wonders about the commitment of the international crew of scientists to address the problem if they "can't even say how much of a loss would justify remediation."

To Ms. Muter, mitigating the outflow through the St. Clair River would be neither complicated nor all that costly. "You don't need dams or locks," she said. "It could be flexible structures like submerged inflatable weirs, or turbines at the river bottom that wouldn't interfere with fish or ships at all, and would actually generate green electricity."

Those options have been brushed off by the IUGLS board, based on what Ms. Muter describes as "flawed bathymetry data." Bathymetry is the term for measurement of the depth in water bodies.

"They have said that we don't need anything, but the data was created from a hypothetical St. Clair River instead of the actual measurable numbers," she said. "It raises a lot of questions about the scientific integrity of this work. And I think it's a huge opportunity missed."

The "most egregious oversight" in the research, according to Ms. Muter, concerns a failure to measure the depth of the St. Clair "right up to the river's edge on west side in the US." The channel here features a steel wall, and recreational fishermen as well as more authoritative types have communicated that the water goes down a half-dozen metres, or 20 feet, along this man-made bank; the IUGLS, said Ms. Muter, assessed it as much shallower at just one metre (or three feet).

"They missed a whole chunk of the river where it flows the fastest and excluded that from the modelling work," she alleged.

The IUGLS team also failed to properly assess the impact of dredging to a natural sand and gravel bar, which was opened up earlier for the passage of ships. "They dredged through that a number of times, cut through it and basically opened up the dam," said Ms. Muter. "But the (IUGLS) modelling didn't go out to where that used to be."

Melinda Koslow, Great Lakes climate safeguarding manager with the National Wildlife Foundation, shares Ms. Muter's frustration. "Dredging and erosion in the St. Clair River has had a massive impact on Great Lakes water levels, and there's substantial evidence that this erosion is continuing," she states in a release. "But the study ignores or dismisses that evidence in concluding that erosion has stopped and no action should be taken. That 'no action' conclusion puts the Great Lakes at further risk."

Lake Huron is relatively flush with water at the moment, up a foot over last year's level, but that swell is a deceptive one, said Ms. Muter. "We've had above-average precipitation and good ice cover in the winter (which prevents evaporation), but we're still below the long-term average. And we're still lower, in terms of the long-term mean, compared to the other Great Lakes."

Ms. Muter fears this upward trend in the lake level won't last long, and Huron could be back to a near-record low in no time if conditions change. "We're in a cold, wet period," she said. "But the next warm spell we get-boom, down the lake levels fall."

Now is the time to act on the St. Clair River, she said, particularly since the lower lakes are at or above their long-term averages at the moment, meaning that curtailing the flow through Huron's outlet wouldn't have a huge impact downstream. "They're missing a golden opportunity right now," she rued.

Ms. Muter feels Huron and Michigan-the two are connected, so function as one system-have been unaccountably overlooked when it comes to the regulation of Great Lakes levels. All the other lakes in the basin have a method by which their levels can be managed and a control board to oversee that process.

"Why is this huge body of water ignored?" she asked, adding: "We're often referred to as the 'forgotten part of the Great Lakes.'" Huron and Michigan, in her view, deserve their own control board, at the very least, and better yet some structural mechanisms-be they weirs or a layer of substrate or hydro-producing turbines-that could be placed in the St. Clair River to slow the flow of water to the south.

The IJC, through its upper lakes study, may have judged this egress to be trivial, but Ms. Muter maintains that, even by their (undervalued, in her estimation) reckoning, this outflow is anything but a drop in a bucket. "The Chicago diversion permanently lowered Huron and Michigan by one to two inches," she noted. "This, according to their research, is five inches, and it's ongoing. Chicago was a one-time drop. So this is much bigger. Yet the board is saying it's no big deal."

There is still a chance to fight the decision by the upper lakes board, as "the IJC commissioners will hold public meetings on this at the end of March," noted Ms. Muter. But the baykeeper worries the time has come and gone for citizens to make a difference, if it was even possible in the first place.

"I suspect the public is going to be burnt out on this issue," she said. "And it looks like they (the study board) wanted to drive towards this conclusion from day one."

Ms. Muter declined pointing a finger at a particular industry or political force for the failure to recommend action on the St. Clair, but vowed to continue pressuring for a change that would protect Lake Huron from future siphoning.

"I don't want to assign responsibility," she said. "I just want them to get on with this and do the right thing and solve the problem once and for all."

EDITORIAL

The earth needs more than fine words or good intentions

The billowing contrails of jets bearing the world's elite from Copenhagen have faded into the cold currents of the earth's upper reaches while echoes of nobly spoken words drift upon the disquieting silence.

Our youth have returned from Scandinavian shores after embarking upon a journey of discovery, and they have returned bearing tidings that their parents' vision of a Canada respected on the world stage has now also dissipated. Generations of Canadians have proudly stitched the red maple leaf upon their backpacks before setting out on that rite of middleclass passage-the global walkabout to the corners of Europe and beyond. That ubiquitous emblem has defined us as a nation and symbolized a sense that we Canadians would lead the world down a better path of tolerance and social justice.

And yet Lynzii Taibossigai, a M'Chigeeng activist and youth delegate at the Copenhagen summit, has communicated that she and her compatriots felt embarrassed of their nation and half-jokingly considered stitching a US flag on their backpacks.

Those whose busy holiday season schedules have allowed time to watch the evening news will have discovered Canada's new place as pariah on the international stage. Our carbon footprint has been stamped in stark black contempt across would-be manifestoes as our diplomats and bureaucrats scrambled to prevent any hope of a meaningful declaration that would provide the nations most threatened by a fast-warming climate even a glimmer of hope.

Canada not only turned its back on commitments made at Kyoto to reduce our carbon quotient; under the new Canadian government, we gave up even the pretence of trying.

The repercussions of this new global image for Canada goes beyond the ignominy of our youth contemplating slipping surreptitiously into airport washrooms to sew the bars and stars upon their packs, out of sight of their boomer parents. In the coming years, as climate denial becomes as hard to maintain as that of big tobacco's over the hacking coughs of cancer victims, the stench will linger upon Canadian product and exports.

Canada has been rebranded as a climate villain, and the impassive visage of our leaders provides no apology or promise even to attempt to do more, surrendering any pretense of sovereignty to await the verdict of America.

Yet within this dismal decline of the first decade of the 21st century lies the ember of hope. Like their parents before them, today's youth are finding their feet and their voices in a cause that will rock the world, albeit to a hip-hop beat.

Young leaders like Ms. Taibossigai, an Anishinabe-kwe, are coming to realize that they cannot depend upon the jaded indifference of their parents' generation to turn humanity from its plummet toward self-destruction. They are learning about the dangerous lure of fine words hung upon the wind alone, and, more importantly, that the world needs concrete actions: we are not an Island standing aloof and alone in the global environment.

The ember of hope remains, despite the minutes wasted by our leaders in Copenhagen. That's because a determination still burns in the souls of our youth. Upon their future actions cling the hopes of a resurgent pride in the red maple leaf.

Letters to the Editor
 

Town should be plowing in front of funeral home

Piled-up snow is a hazard

To the Expositor:

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letter has been sent to the Northeast Town and is reprinted here at the author's request.

In addition to your flooding of the basement of 1 Meredith Street in Little Current due to your ignorance of the physical and most important human aspects of Little Current and failure to support the law (i.e. the People's Law) that there be a Giant's Monument on private Little Current property 10 feet from the Meredith Street sidewalk, to say nothing of the two other People's Laws (i.e. opposition to capitalist hotel on parkland next to entrance to Manitoulin Island and the Island becoming a capitalist windmill), there is the little matter of snow removal from Little Current's public roads and streets.

In the case of the Worthington Street private funeral home, you have not removed the sidewalk and road snow, merely banked it and then shoved it to make a road hill.

In the case of Meredith Street next door, you have completely broken the law and simply banked it, obstructing the exit and entrance to 1 Meredith Street.

The snow must be removed from the public roads and streets to a suitable public land similar to other municipalities.

You cannot lawfully obstruct exits and entrances to people's homes. Good government is obeying laws and rights, hard-fought-for rights of workers on a planet being rapidly destroyed by non-democratic capitalist governments.

I trust you will respect the lawmakers of Little Current in this election year and, among other things, remove the snow from roads and sidewalks.

Captain D.K. Campbell

Little Current

Gun-registry private member's bill should be killed

But a serious redesign should be considered

To the Expositor:

Took me a while to pick myself up from the floor when I read Mr. Middleton's "unbiased" critique ("Every news outlet has bias," December 9, letters).

Hysterical, really, that he would accuse me of Liberal Party activism when one prominent local Liberal has given me a pet name, "the loose cannon," for my regular criticism of the Liberal leadership. The AMK Liberal riding association executive has still not forgiven me for some pretty blunt comments on their performance during the last election campaign and since! But, like everyone else, Mr. Middleton is entitled to his opinion.

As for the publishing policies of the Expositor and Recorder, they invariably publish the "always off the wall" comments of Larry Killens who, from his bully pulpit on the school board, isn't shy in promoting his pretty Conservative views on politics in general and his particular favourite target, Mike Brown. So, like your apparent friends-the Federal Conservative Party-you clearly don't let the facts influence your view of the world, Brad! Actually, I'm pretty sure that the editorial board of the Expositor would welcome a regular sparring of two opposing views to brighten up their letters page, and increase circulation (but please don't take that as an invitation)!

More seriously, I was taken to task by some Island folks whose opinion I'm always prepared to listen to for my comments on the opposition to the Private Member's Bill trying to kill the gun registry. In that letter I mentioned that post-vote polls showed that there would continue to be strong opposition to that bill being finally passed. I suspect that Carol Hughes' posture will change when that bill is reviewed clause by clause in committee. My friends took my letter to be stating my position (which it didn't). I grew up a country boy in rural England where all guns have been registered and tightly controlled for many years. My father-in-law was a ranger (like an MNR conservation officer) so I know the view of the rural population there very intimately. My brother-in-law is a retired police staff sergeant who, unarmed, disarmed bank robbers who had sawed-off shotguns, because they knew that the book would be thrown at them if they shot a cop!

In summary, I want this Private Member's Bill killed, but a serious rethink of the gun registry undertaken. The original gun registry bill was intended, in the emotional period following the Montreal Massacre 20 years ago, to get automatic weapons and handguns out of all hands-even my hunting friends agree with that. The gun amnesty did a good job in starting that. Apparently, even the populist and Tory-loving Toronto Sunday Sun is wondering today about irresponsible hunters, as they feature in a prominent news story the shooting from a stationary vehicle on a road a white-tailed doe (Minnie) prominently draped with bright red ribbons-a family pet! Stories like this do not help the sensible hunters get their message across-that the venison they take adds to the winter larder in rural homes, and that long guns for this purpose can be justified! However, for those who believe the NRA and Second Amendment right in the US should be enshrined up here in Canada, I'll counter with some stats from a good friend south of the border. He told me the body count last year in Washington alone from gun-related deaths exceeded last year's body counts in all the wars that the US was waging across the world! I would be happy to prise the guns from the "cold dead hands" of any Canadian version of Charlton Heston if it helps reduce all that spilling of human blood, and I certainly don't want that Wild West mentality to be imported here in Canada. Merry Xmas, Mr. Middleton!

Paul Darlaston

Kagawong

Laurentian prof shares concern about low-frequency noise from turbines

Some people are more sensitive to 'subthreshold' pressure fluctuations

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letter was sent to Ray Beaudry of the Manitoulin Coalition for Safe Energy

Solutions and is reprinted here with the author's consent.

Dear Mr. Beaudry:

I have read the newspaper articles you sent me entitled "Health issues concern wind farm opposition; Manitoulin group sets up website" by Michael Erskine published in the Manitoulin Expositor, and "Officials cover up wind farm noise report" published in the Sunday Times. There are both theoretical and empirical bases to your concerns about the direct and indirect effects of extremely low frequency and low frequency mechanically induced changes in air pressure. I offer the following facts and comments for your information.

1. As noted in the chapter "Mechanical stimuli of the weather matrix: barometric pressure, wind and infrasound" in my book Weather Matrix and Human Behavior (Prager, 1980, pp.182-206) there have been clear correlations between infrasound generation and adverse experiences, including sickness, nausea, and dizziness. The mechanisms involve both resonances with the whole human body because of its intrinsic oscillations between 6 Hz and 20 Hz with amplitudes in the order of five micrometers. The linear distance model, i.e., the amplitude decreases linearly with distance, is not always correct because there can be propagation within an earth surface/upper atmosphere wave guide. Hence the effects could occur at far distances with no obvious influence intermediately.

2. As aptly stated in Cameron et al (Physics of the Human Body, Medical Physics Publishing, 1992) the power density of the faintest sound discernable to the ear at 1000 Hz is approximately 10-12 W/m2. Moderately complex calculations indicate even this small quantum is sufficient to displace molecular components within the range of the width of the hydrogen atom (in the order of 10-11 m). Because the effect is frequency dependent, decreasing to 10 to 100 Hz would result in displacement values within the range of the cell membrane. There is approximately one to 10 trillion cells, each with a membrane, in the human body.

3. The most frequent component of sound level pressure that acoustic engineers and other "experts" ignore are the extremely low frequency amplitude modulations of higher sound frequencies. In other words the audible frequencies may be within the 500 to 5,000 Hz range but their generation is not consistent over time. Amplitude fluctuations between five to 20 Hz are experienced as "fluttering" or "beats" that are both fatiguing and disrupt concentration. I have attached a reprint of one of our publications in a refereed, scientific journal. This was one of the first experimental (rather than correlational) studies that actually demonstrated a large negative impact upon behaviour even though the "average sound pressure level" was considered within acceptable ranges by architects and acoustic engineers. The expertise for measuring impact is usually accommodated by behavioural scientists.

4. The critical role of individual differences in sensitivity to "subthreshold" air pressure fluctuations cannot be over emphasized. Sensitivity for all sensory modalities displays a normal distribution. As recently reported in the journal Science, some individuals can discern varying sound pressures from ordinary vocalization through skin sensors. Most people appreciate the individual differences from chemical substances (for example the untoward effects of allergies to peanut butter or medications). We have legal remedies for people who have particular sensitivity to cigarette smoke or perfumes. However, this important factor appears to be neglected in the debate concerning sound pressure fluctuations from wind turbines.

5. I am not sure of the rationale for the statements that there are no studies that demonstrate adverse effects from the sound pressure levels and their beats from wind-turbine sources. There are multiple references in refereed scientific journals, although many of them are written in Chinese.

I share your concern about the potentially serious effects of wind turbine generated pressure changes at significant distances from the site. The problem is similar to the premature application of 750 kV lines (for which I was a consultant) and the various US Navy projects (e.g., Sanguine, Seafarer) that resulted in significant health problems because political and economic enthusiasm eclipsed perspicacious and informed decisions. I would recommend a delay in the construction and operation of wind turbines in your region until an objective environmental impact study is completed.

Dr. Michael A. Persinger

Departments of Biology and Psychology

Behavioural Neuroscience and

Biomolecular Sciences Programs