Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health

This paper is referencing the harm wind turbines cause on the public.  The evidence includes SMART METER TECHNOLOGY!!!!!!..SANDAURA

Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
1
Wind turbine radio frequency/electromagnetic energy: exploring
the risk of harm to human health
December 3, 2018
By
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm (Retired)
Independent Health Researcher

1.0 This submission is public and maybe shared. It’s purpose is to:
 provide a brief overview regarding the potential risk of harm to human health
associated with radio frequency/electromagnetic (RF/EMF) energy exposure in
general and that related to operational industrial scale wind turbines (IWT);
 propose that the Ontario Government include all devices that emit RF/EMF
energy and establish RF/EMF standards which are protective of human health;
 propose that the Ontario Government IWT approval process require that in
addition to actual noise measurements related to IWT noise complaints, RF/EMF
measurements be conducted in the homes of residents who have submitted IWT
health complaints;
 urge that Ontario government health authorities, health care experts and clinicians
respond and adopt a prevention and precautionary approach to potential risk
factors associated with RF/EMF energy exposure;
 rescind the burden of proof of causality imposed on rural residents by the GEA
(Green Energy and Economy Act) with a more realistic level, i.e., one based on
environmental protection and the balance of probabilities;
 propose that the electro-sensitivity team at Women’s College Hospital be
expanded and appropriately funded to support referrals by family practice
physicians and medical specialists in order to investigate and treat patients
suspected of being negatively affected by RF/EMF exposure emitted from any
device; and
 propose that the Ontario Government convene a formal Public Inquiry to hear
testimony regarding the impact of the Green Energy Act and the subsequent
health and social outcomes experienced by many rural families.
2.0 A brief biography:
Krogh is 1) a full time volunteer and published researcher regarding potential risk of harm
(adverse health effects) associated with industrial wind energy facilities and shares
information with communities; individuals; federal, provincial and public health authorities:
wind energy developers; the industry; and others. 2) Author/co-author of peer reviewed
Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
2
articles and conference papers presented at scientific wind turbine noise conferences. 3) Peer
reviewer for a scientific journal. 4) Retired pharmacist whose career includes: senior
executive positions at a teaching hospital (Director of Pharmacy); a drug information
researcher at another teaching hospital; a Director of a professional organization; a
Consultant at the Bureau of Human Prescription Drugs (Health Canada); and Director (A) at
Health Canada (PMRA). 5) Former Director of Publications and Editor in Chief of the
Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS), the book used by physicians, nurses,
and health professionals for prescribing information in Canada.
3.0 Introduction:
The topic of human risk factors to RF/EMF energy is debated globally. However, awareness
of risk factors and electro sensitivity to RF/EMF energy is increasing. Currently, regulations
are often limited in scope and may not include all devices that emit and/or utilize RF/EMF
energy. As a result, exposure to these emissions may be higher than expected due to wide
spread use of technologies such as WiFi, other wireless systems which emit these energies.
While some authorities, physicians and researchers are expressing concerns associated with
exposure to RF/EMF energy in general, research specific to IWT is limited. However,
testimony from residents living near IWT led the Australian Select Committee on Wind
Turbines to recommend that “electromagnetic interference” be addressed [1, pg xviii].
In Ontario, concerns regarding IWT radio/electromagnetic energy are not new. During the
GEA hearings (2009), the Standing Committee was advised of IWT RF/EMF energy and
noise issues which were affecting the health of a group of impacted families [2]. Since that
time, some Ontario residents living in proximity to IWT have taken the step to test their
homes for RF/EMF energy. Some report harm they associate with the start-up of an IWT
project in proximity to their home and consider that exposure to IWT emitted noise as well as
to RF/EMF energy is negatively affecting them. As a result, residents are increasingly
consulting their physicians and other health practitioners [3].
Additional concerns relate to vulnerable population groups such as children (fetus to youth),
the elderly including those with pre-existing medical conditions, chronic disease states and
special needs. However, while it is known that these vulnerable populations are potentially at
risk of harm to noise and RF/EMF emissions in general, research specific to IWT exposure is
limited.
4.0 Risk of harm to human health
Technology-based systems are often utilized during the generation and distribution of
electricity. IWT facilities typically utilize infrastructure support such as wiring, cables,
transformer stations, communication networks, remote data monitoring capability, digital and
GIS interfaces [4,5]. Mechanisms that utilize WiFi for IWT remote monitoring and the use of
smart meters to monitor electricity usage contribute to the overall totality of these emissions.
Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
3
An Internet search reveals that authorities, professional and citizen groups have expressed
concerns relating to RF//EMF energy, A snapshot of these is briefly summarized below.
Physician Lamech (2014) conducted a study on smart meters which are typically used by
electricity utilities to monitor electrical usage data through R/F fields. Conclusions were
based on comparisons with other research and findings indicate that “symptoms were the
same as those reported by people exposed to radiofrequency fields emitted by devices other
than smart meters” [6].
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is an arm of WHO (World Health
Organization). IARC has classified RFR (Radio Frequency Radiation) and ELF (Extra Low
Frequency) as a possible carcinogen to humans [7].
The BioInitiatives working group advises there is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes
childhood leukemia [8] and the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supported a
proposal for a “formal inquiry into radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless
products” [9]. Concerns for children have been published in Redmayne 2016 [10] as well as
in the comprehensive report published by the BioInitiatives Working Group [8].
Boardman reports that Women’s College Hospital in Toronto is the first Canadian hospital
requiring its doctors to be trained in treating the effects of these emissions [11]. Based on
personal communications, the College has a lengthy waiting list resulting in delays before a
patient can be seen [3].
5.0 Conclusions
To conclude, Ontario researchers Havas and Colling 2011 comment that symptoms from
electro hypersensitivity are consistent with IWT generated sound waves and that IWT:
… make pressure waves and electromagnetic waves. The pressure waves (or sound
waves) generated by the moving turbines can be heard as noise and/or perceived as
infrasound. The electromagnetic waves are generated by the conversion of wind
energy to electricity. This conversion produces high-frequency transients and
harmonics that result in poor power quality. These high frequencies can flow along
the wires (dirty electricity) and along the ground, thereby causing ground current.
These four types of waves—noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, and ground current—
and shadow flicker are each likely to contribute to ill health among those who live
near wind turbines [12].
Havas and Colling propose a number of recommendations on how to minimize “adverse
biological and health effects for those living near wind turbines” including the “obvious
steps” to “eliminate or reduce exposure to the agent(s) causing the illness” [12].
Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
4
BioInitiative (2012) reviewed the risks associated with RF/EMF energy exposure and
emphasize the critical importance of prevention and reducing exposure to these emissions
[8].
In an overview and summary fashion, during concerted efforts over a two year period of
time, the Wind Plant Collector System Design Working Group considered harmonics and
resonance issues associated with IWT:
This paper has presented harmonics and resonance issues for wind power plants in an
overview and summary fashion. This included an introduction to series and parallel
resonances, frequency scan analysis, and the harmonic source characteristics of
WTGs and of utility interconnections. Further, the issue of compliance with the
power quality standard IEEE Std 519 was presented, as was an overview of harmonic
filters.
Reasonably, it is understood that such studies will not always insure compliance.
No harmonic mitigation solution is ideal for every situation and accordingly post
construction harmonics monitoring may be need to determine a viable solution should
an issue arise. It should also be noted that post-commissioning harmonic
measurements might be inconclusive because it is problematic to segregate harmonic
currents caused by the wind plant from harmonic current flow into the plant as a
result of grid voltage distortion. In the worst case, failure to comply with harmonic
limits could result in a default of the terms of an LGIA, which could lead to
termination of the agreement if the default is not cured [13].
Ontario has a provision in the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA) [14] to
investigate residents’ complaints. Using the provisions in the Act, an investigation should be
conducted using the already established team at the Women’s College. The Austrian Medical
Association has published a guideline for the “diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health
problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome) [15]. As well, in a medical journal McMurtry and
Krogh provide diagnostic criteria to assist physicians with diagnosing adverse health effects
associated with living in the environs of IWT [16]. Both references could be utilizeed during
such investigations.
Ontario’s GEA requires a high burden of proof during Environmental Review Tribunal
(ERT) hearings. The legislation requires that rural community residents and other
participants who wish to appeal the approval of a IWT project must prove the project “will
cause serious harm to human health” [17] prior to the start up of WT operations.
However, proof of causality is rare in health and ranks at about 95 to 99% certainty. This is
rarely possible for biological systems; the Precautionary Principle ranks at the about the 50%
medium level, consistent with civil and some administrative law; and environmental
protection has a low level of certainty (10 to 30%) [8]. The burden of proof imposed on rural
residents and communities should be adjusted to a more realistic level, i.e., one based on
environmental protection.
Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
5
Regarding the burden of proof, Goldstein (2001) comments:
…the burden of proof for potentially harmful actions by industry or government rests
on the assurance of safety and that when there are threats of serious damage,
scientific uncertainty must be resolved in favor of prevention. Yet we in public health
are sometimes guilty of not adhering to this principle [18].
WHO 1999 provides “environmental management principles on which government policies,
including noise management policies, can be based” [19]:
a. The precautionary principle. In all cases, noise should be reduced to the lowest
level achievable in a particular situation. Where there is a reasonable possibility that
public health will be damaged, action should be taken to protect public health without
awaiting full scientific proof.
b. The polluter pays principle. The full costs associated with noise pollution
(including monitoring, management, lowering levels and supervision) should be met
by those responsible for the source of noise.
c. The prevention principle. Action should be taken where possible to reduce noise
at the source. Land-use planning should be guided by an environmental health impact
assessment that considers noise as well as other pollutants.
It is proposed that the Ontario Government for the People adopt the WHO 1999
precautionary, polluter pays and prevention principals and take pro-active measures to
protect public health by:
 Acknowledging that there are some rural families experiencing adverse health effects
from living in proximity to IWT;
 Rescinding the burden of proof of causality imposed on rural residents by the GEA
with a more realistic level, i.e., one based on environmental protection and the
balance of probabilities;
 In addition to noise measurements, requiring RF/EMF energy measurements in
homes where residents are reporting adverse health effects;
 Taking action and working proactively with those residents reporting adverse health
effects in order to resolve the issues to their satisfaction;
 Establishing an independent investigative process under the HPPAct. This potentially
could be conducted by the Women’s College whereby physicians can refer patients
suspected of adverse health effects from living in proximity to IWT;
 Providing priority attention to vulnerable population groups such as children (fetus to
youth) and the elderly, including those with pre-existing medical conditions and
disease states as well as those with special needs; and
Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
6
 Convening a formal Inquiry to hear testimony from rural families regarding the
health, social and other impacts of Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm (Retired)
Independent health researcher
Ontario
Mobile: +1 613 312 9663
Email: carmen.krogh@gmail.com

References:
1. The Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, Final Report, August 3 2015. Commonwealth of Australia.
ISBN 978-1-76010-260-9.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final_Rep
ort
2. Ripley Group. Legislative Assembly of Ontario First Session, 39th Parliament. Official Report Journal of
Debates (Hansard), Wednesday 15 April 2009. Standing Committee on Green Energy and Green Economy Act,
2009. Chair: David Orazietti. P. G-547.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=en&Date=2009-
04-15&ParlCommID=8856&BillID=2145&Business=&DocumentID=23801#P1296_397237.
3. Krogh. Personal Communications.
4.Wind Power, Monthly. GE and remote turbine monitoring.
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/989462/ge-remote-turbine-monitoring.
5. SCADA, ReGen POWERTECH. Wind Turbines – Operations & Maintenance, Onshore Wind Turbine,
19/07/2015. http://www.regenpowertech.com/57/scada.
6. Lamech F, Self-reporting of symptom development from exposure to radiofrequency fields of wireless smart
meters in Victoria, Australia: a case series. Altern Ther Health Med. 2014 Nov;20(6):28-39.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478801.
7. World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) Health Risk Assessment, Dated 31/May/2011.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf.
8. BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale
for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation, December 31, 2012.
http://www.bioinitiative.org.
9. American Academy of Pediatrics. Correspondence to The Honorable Julius Genachowki, Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission. Washington DC, July 12, 2012.
https://www.scribd.com/document/104230961/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-letter-to-the-FCC
10, Redmayne M. International policy and advisory response regarding children’s exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Taylor & Francis Online. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Volume
35, Issue 2, Pages 176-185, 2016. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368378.2015.1038832.
Wind turbine radio/electromagnetic energy: exploring the risk of harm to human health
7
11. Boardman W, Electromagnetic Radiation Effects Addressed by Canadian Hospital, June 24, 2012.
http://ivn.us/2012/06/24/electromagnetic-radiation-effects-canadian-hospital/.
12. Havas M and Colling D, Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become
Ill. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 414. DOI: 0.1177/0270467611417852.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467611417852.
13. Harmonics and Resonance Issues in Wind Power Plants. IEEE PES Wind Plant Collector System Design
Working Group. Contributing Members: M. Bradt, B. Badrzadeh, E. Camm, D. Mueller, J. Schoene, T. Siebert,
T. Smith, M. Starke, R. Walling. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6281633
14. Ontario, Canada. Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA) R.S.O. 1990.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h07_e.htm#BK13.
15. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health
problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome). Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s Working
Group AG-EMF. http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/EMF-Guideline.pdf.
16. Robert Y McMurtry and Carmen ME Krogh, Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of
wind turbines. JRSM Open 2014 5:1-5. DOI: 10.1177/2054270414554048. PMID: 25383200 [PubMed]
PMCID: PMC4221978
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Diagnostic+criteria+for+adverse+health+effects+in+the+environs
+of+wind+turbines.
17. GEA (Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009). S.O. 2009, c. 12 – Bill 150, Ontario, Canada. An Act
to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation
Leadership Act, 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes. Schedule G, p. 48.
https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2009/2009-05/bill—text-39-1-enb150ra.
pdf.
18. Goldstein BD. The Precautionary Principle Also Applies to Public Health Actions. Am J Public Health.
2001, Sep;91(9):1358-61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11527755.
19. WHO (1999). World Health Organization. Edited by Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH. Guidelines for
Community Noise. Part 5. Noise management.
http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsci/i/fulltext/noise/noise.pdf.

“Smart” Meter Case Taken to Arizona Supreme Court

“Smart” Meter Case Taken to Arizona Supreme Court
Information & Perspective by Warren Woodward
Sedona, Arizona ~ January 10, 2019

Last month the Court of Appeals ruled against me in my appeal of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s decision regarding Arizona Public Service Company’s “smart” meters. Among other things, that “smart” meter decision allows APS to charge customers who refuse “smart” meters an extortion fee, and it completely disallows solar and commercial customers to refuse a “smart” meter when in the past they always could.

The case was consolidated with my appeal against another decision the ACC made regarding the so-called “grandfathering” of APS’s R-Basic Large plan which is no longer available to customers even though some people are still on it. I also appealed the so-called “90-day trial period” whereby new APS customers can’t take the R-Basic rate for 90 days but instead have to be on a Demand or Time Of Use rate.

Denying certain rate plans to residential customers while other residential customers can take those rate plans is obvious discrimination. Regarding the 90-day trial period, the Court was so dumb it actually stated that there was no discrimination because new customers could choose from among all the available plans — except they can’t! If new customers could chose from all the rate plans then there wouldn’t be a 90-day trial period!

That wasn’t the only obvious error the Court made. It ignored evidence. It didn’t know what evidence was (comments at ACC open meetings are not “testimony”). It misrepresented my positions in order to make them easier to argue against (straw man fallacies). It even doctored a quote from a case citation to make the quote support the Court’s result oriented decision.

The details are in my Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court which was filed there yesterday and is attached to this email.