Petition Tag - wind turbines

1. My Child & families safety first NO WIND TURBINES for Seafield or surrounding areas

Seafield National School was built in 1957 to replace two old schools in the area. The two schools that closed were Ballylaneen NS and Bunmahon NS in Ballinarrid. The new school was opened in September 1957 and was called St. Anne's NS after the patron Saint of Ballylaneen.
There have been many students that have passed through the gates of this fantastic and essential educational facility over the years, which has grow in size and standard since being built.
Our children's health, safety, well - being and education is in severe jeopardy and will not and cannot be aloud to proceed by these profit first, safety last parasites.
The future of Seafield National school is in your hands.
BSB Energy Ltd are planning on erecting Wind Turbines in close proximity to Seafield National School and surrounding areas.
Thank You for your SUPPORT

2. HELP SAVE Brechfa Forest Barns - totally dog friendly holiday cottages


We stand to lose our home, our business and the dream that we have worked so hard to achieve if permission for 9 ENORMOUS INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES (the largest in Wales) are granted for placement within a stone's throw of our home and business - THE NEAREST JUST 1000M FROM US on Llanllwni Mountain. They will be 500ft TALL (150m) with a propeller span LARGER THAN THE LONDON EYE.

Our 2 multi-award winning tourism businesses which thrive on the beauty of the local landscape plus the peace, quiet & tranquility of the stunning local area will suffer immeasurably. The sight of these from the cottages plus the noise and underground vibration they omit will be the death of Brechfa Forest Barns - totally dog friendly holiday cottages and MudTrek Mountain Bike Breaks. Worse still, there are very real potential health threats due to the proximity of them to us. Our property will be devalued or worse still become worthless and therefore unsaleable.

This affects not only us but the whole of the local area and it's economy. We are not against green energy. We are against the energy companies putting these monsters so very close to dwellings on low populated countryside just because there are less individuals to fight them.

PLEASE - we are not asking for money - just your signature. We need as many as possible. And if you think it won't help you are wrong - we have fought and won these greedy companies twice already in this way and YOUR SIGNATURE WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. How will it affect you? It won't. All you will receive is a letter of acknowledgement.

Thank you, thank you, thank you in anticipation.

Nikki & Jason

3. Help protect our unspoilt South Wicklow Environment, Wildlife and Homes

Residents of the R747 road corridor area, located between Aughrim and Tinahely in South Co. Wicklow are opposed to the application by ABO Wind Ireland Limited/Ballymanus Wind Farm for Planning Permission for 12x 150 metre high Industrial Wind Turbines in their immediate neighbourhood.

This area, which blends undulating farmland with mixed wooded upland, is home to approximately 150 families -all of whom depend for their water supply on the aquifer located within the immediate area of the proposed the wind farm-, as well as a diverse range of flora and fauna. In addition the target area offers an abundance of majestic, entirely unspoiled, scenic views in all directions and forms the central part of a varied but unified Visual Amenity of the very highest order, running in a westerly direction from Woodenbridge for a distance of approximately 25km.

The imposition on this landscape of an industrial Electricity Generating facility in the form of a cluster of wind turbines, each equivalent in height to that of a 50 storey building, would permanently destroy the integrity of an idyllic, bio-diverse mixed woodland environment and would transform it into a visibly obtrusive, rural equivalent of a high density urban industrial estate.


For up to date information on SWWAG please visit us on Facebook:
SWWAG South Wicklow Wind Action Group 581074251955482

4. Wind Turbine Llanfynydd

Latest Update:- 3rd December 2013

The Petition has now been submitted to the council with a total of 193 signatures. This online petition will remain up and running and is still able to be signed. If the consultation period for the planning is extended then any new signatures will be submitted.

Thank you for your help and support and I will continue to update this page with the latest information.

Please take a few minutes of your time to watch these youtube clips.

1 - Wind turbine shadow flicker and noise, Byron Wisconsin;
2 - wind turbine sound;
3 - The noise of wind turbines.
4 - Living in a power station HD

Nant y Ffrith Wind Energy Ltd, a subsidiary of West Coast Energy Ltd have submitted an application for the erection of a wind turbine up to 77 metres vertical tip height with associated crane pad, substation building, formation of new track and new entrance junction off unclassified road and provision of temporary construction compound. The location of which is Mount Farm, Ffrith, Wrexham LL11 5HU.

Why Object?
Here are just a few examples, however there will be more details and updates on the Petition website:- then in the search, type - wind turbine llanfynydd. Or find us through facebook.

• Noise pollution – Wind turbines can start turning at relatively low wind speeds which means the turbine will be in use in all weathers day and night.
• Over dominance – With the possibility of a 77 metre high turbine, the consequence of loss of light, the ‘flickering effect’, and its sheer presence are a concern.
• Impact on the appearance of the landscape - The proposed site is on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty. The visual impact on the local and surrounding views will be immense and may have an adverse effect on local tourism.
• Setting a precedence for new developers to construct more turbines – Although the turbine may not directly affect some residents in its current proposed location, if the planning was approved and the turbine went ahead, a precedence would have been set. Although West Coast Energy say they only plan on erecting one turbine, other developers may follow suit and attempt to build more in the area.

For all the planning details and location map go to and under residential, click planning then click on view and comment on planning applications, then click search the planning applications database and enter this code:- 051143 in the application number search box.

Further Information on the Petition
I only found out about this Planning Application on the 28th October 2013. I believe it has been poorly publicised to local residents. This is why I have decided to take urgent immediate action within our community and hope to make an impact as the planning vote is believed to be no more than a few months away. I am in favour of renewable energy, however I believe that such an imposing, large scale project in this area would be more detrimental than beneficial. This, together with the fact that in my view, there has been very little effort made to consult the surrounding residents and authorities, has driven me to increase awareness.

As a contrast, take the Wales Rally GB awareness campaign compared to the Wind Turbine.
For months prior to the event there have been posters on lampposts, flyers in shops and more importantly, notices through letter boxes where the rally would be taking place over just a few days. Compare that to the efforts made by West Coast Energy, on the proposal of a permanent 77m structure.

As stated on the website the date for making online comments has now elapsed. Therefore the only way of putting a point across is by sending a letter in to Flintshire County Council, and/or providing your details and signature on the petition. The next stage of the planning will be a hearing and then a vote by council planning members.

Signing a petition is a great way to show your support, however it will ultimately only be one letter signed by perhaps a few hundred people. If we can combine that with a few hundred individually signed letters to the council, they would carry a lot more weight and increase the chance of a successful outcome. So whilst your signature on this petition is extremely well valued, if you can find the time to write a personal letter to the council, this would be hugely advantageous to the cause. Here are a few bullet points to consider when stating your reasons. These have been copied from the website. Details for who to write to and what information to include are on the final page.

The issues you raise must involve planning matters such as:
• Impact on residential amenity (e.g. hours of use, loss of privacy, loss of light, over dominance, noise, traffic)
• Impact on the character and appearance of an area (design, appearance and intensity)
• Impact on highway safety (e.g. poor visibility, pedestrian safety, parking)
• Impact on community facilities
• Planning policies and proposals, or Government planning advice.
We cannot take into account comments on the following types of concerns:
• Personal characteristics of the applicant
• The effect of the proposal on property values
• Disturbances during building work
• Loss of view
• Private rights of way, private drains and other private easements and legal covenants
• Disputes over land ownership
• Commercial competition
• Building Regulation issues (e.g. structural stability, drainage, fire precautions, hygiene and internal space).

Send your letter to:

Head of Planning
Environment Directorate
County Hall
You must include the following information in your letter. Failure to do so may result in your comments not being taken into account.
Site address of application: Mount Farm, Ffrith, Wrexham, LL11 5HU
Description of proposal: Erection of wind turbine up to 77m vertical tip height with associated crane pad, substation building, formation of new track and new entrance junction off unclassified road and provision of temporary construction compound
Application number: 051143
Your name:
Your address:
Your comments about the proposal:
The inclusion of your telephone number is not a mandatory requirement, however, should a Planning Officer wish to contact you it would be useful.

Only 55 people attended the first planning meeting, I was not one of them as I had no knowledge about it. If we can better that at the next meeting then surely we can make more of an impact.

The Petition is available to sign at the Cross Keys Public House, Burrows MOT Garage, and the Post Office in Llanfynydd.

There is also an online website including more information, updates and an online petition which you can sign. Just google search then type wind turbine llanfynydd into the search box. Click the first box matching the title. Or find us through facebook.

Thank you for taking the time to read the information provided. If you feel as passionately as I do regarding this issue, then please take action by writing in, and in doing anything else that may help.

Lead Petitioner: Greg Holloway
Contact: 07745 273 733

5. Stop the Rampion Off-shore Wind Farm

E.On’s “Rampion” massive off-shore wind farm, up to 690ft high and as wide as Mid Sussex, should not be approved:

1. Offshore wind farms are unreliable. E.On boasts of an installed electrical capacity of up to 700 megawatt (MW) from the 100 to 195 turbines. This is the potential output if the wind was blowing at optimum speed all the time.

Currently all the 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average just 1,000 MW into the grid – no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. Because of this unreliability, conventional power stations will still be needed on permanent standby, thereby negating any alleged CO2 savings.

2. Off-shore wind farms are an extremely expensive way to produce electricity – nine times as much as gas-fired power. E.On would not dream of building this wind farm unless they were guaranteed a huge Government subsidy. This comes in the form of a subsidy scheme, paid for by dramatically increasing our household fuel bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every ‘megawatt hour’ they produce, and twice that sum for offshore wind turbines.

What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

3. Offshore wind farms do not ‘save the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2.

Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth’s climate, the CO2 reduction allegedly achieved by a wind farm over a year, would be cancelled out by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America, over the same period.

Sources: The Real Global Warming Disaster – Christopher Booker. The Rational Optimist – Dr Matt Ridley.

6. No to Wind Turbines at GlaxoSmithKline Montrose

GlaxoSmithKline plans two 130-metre wind turbines at their Montrose site on the East Coast of Scotland.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is hoping to install two wind turbines on its Montrose site, taller than the ones at the Michelin tyre plant in Dundee.

Read the full story and GSK justifications in the article of local paper The Courier :

Wind Turbine




December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

October 1957
Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.

Winter 1957-'58
A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.

January 3, 1961
Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961
The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

October 5, 1966
The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

January 21, 1969
A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

December 7, 1975
At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.

March 28, 1979
Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

April 25, 1981
Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

April 26, 1986
The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.

March 24, 1992
At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.

November 1992
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995
Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.

March 1997
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 30, 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.
NOW.... New Nuclear accident with 6 Nuclear Power Plants in JAPAN
Unfortunately, Japanese will learn not to trust Nuclear Power with the hard way.

There are a lot of renewable energy sources. We can use Photovoltaics, Wind turbines, New technology Hydrogen power plants ( ) etc.


We do not just ask to close down the Nuclear power plants we also propose the alternative solution of Hydrogen. So, there are not excuses.

We must sign as many as possible. We must declare our will to our Governments and this will be our first step.

8. Recall and Replace the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority Commissioners

On page 5 of the GE Energy publication titled “Wind Energy Basics” (www. _energy/en/downloads/wind_energy_ basics.pdf), it states, “Siting wind turbines and assessing the feasibility of a proposed location must consider factors such as Community Acceptance and compatibility with adjacent land uses. … Hence, megawatt-scale wind turbines cannot be located in densely populated areas.”

In Union Beach, NJ a “densely populated area” begins just 1,080 feet from the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority’s site for their planned 380-foot-tall GE industrial wind turbine. There are real and serious concerns regarding the negative impact the turbine will have on property values, health and safety due to its proximity to homes. Many experts recommend a minimum setback of 1.25 miles from residential property lines. Our current BRSA commissioners have categorically denied these dangers in their zeal to erect the turbine, although there is a large and growing body of evidence to support these claims. As for "Community Acceptance," Union Beach, Hazlet, Keyport and Monmouth County have all passed resolutions opposing the turbine. About 80 percent of area residents are staunchly opposed and 10 percent are ambivalent. There is a bill before the state legislature calling for a 2,000-foot mandatory setback. Yet, the BRSA has claimed that area residents are friendly to the idea of a turbine. They clearly are not.

What is most troublesome is that the BRSA already constructed the foundation in order to meet their deadline for receiving fifty percent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, they did this prior to having all their permits finalized and also prior to acquiring an additional half-acre of land from JCP&L on Conaskonk Point, a pristine wetland and bird-nesting ground. They need this to allow for the blades of the industrial turbine to overhang their existing property line. Essentially, they spent that money on spec because they are in a legal battle with Union Beach and its neighbors for the rights to purchase the land and finish the project. The outcome is uncertain. This is the height of fiscal mismanagement. They have spent millions of ratepayer money already and even more ratepayer money is in jeopardy of going down the sewer if the BRSA is unable to erect the turbine and they have to pay back Uncle Sam.

The commissioners were appointed to represent the interests of their towns, residents and ratepayers. Clearly, they do not. The two from Union Beach even voted to sue their own town for putting on a sign outside of borough hall. Union Beach won that suit, a First Amendment victory, but it further makes the case that the commissioners put the wind industry above the interests of their communities. An organic outcry has begun among area residents, “Recall and replace the commissioners with ones who represent their towns, not Big Wind.” This petition is in response to that outcry.

9. Safe Distances between Ontario Residents and Industrial Wind Turbines

The Liberal Government have established 550 meter setbacks from the homes of Ontario residents without performing any health studies. Europe is calling for 1.5km to 5.0km setbacks to reduce the adverse health affects.

In Ontario there are over 110 residents who are experiencing adverse health affects from Industrial Wind Turbines and The Liberal Government continues to deny the adverse health affects and won’t even visit the homes of people impacted. Some homes have been abandoned and others bought out by Wind Developers after legal action.

People are sick all over the world from wind turbines and Ontario must also increase the distances to protect health and property values. Please sign our petition to increase wind turbine setback distances.

10. Stop Industrial WIND Turbines in City of Kawartha Lakes

An increasing number of victims are reporting adverse
health effects from exposure to industrial wind projects.

Many families have abandoned their homes to restore
or protect their health. Wind turbine noise, including low frequency noise, may cause annoyance, stress and sleep disturbance. Currently there is no authoritative international guideline for wind turbine noise designed to protect the health of children or the general population.

Research the impact of Industrial Turbines on communities;

Bird Population
Destruction of Oak Ridges Moraine
Loss of Property Values
Economic Impact
Hydro Rate Increases

Our tax dollars will be subsidizing these Industrial Turbines costing Ontario residents BILLIONS.

11. Proper Wind Turbine Set-Backs for Georgian Bluffs

Large wind energy turbines:

Generate a wide range of noises and vibration, day and night, that cause loss of sleep, headaches, tinnitus, irritability, dizziness, nausea, and other symptoms in people who live near them.

Raise noise levels to a degree that is incompatible with the rural or wild environment in which they are typically sited.

Create intrusive shadow flicker over a long distance when the sun is behind the turning blades. May shed and throw large pieces of ice over a great distance.

Are subject to stresses that often cause catastrophic blade failure, collapse, and fire.

Large wind turbines therefore need adequate setbacks to protect the health and safety of nearby residents. A minimum distance of 2 kilometers (or 1-1/4 miles) between homes and the turbines is recommended by a number of noise and health experts.

In certain terrains, such as rolling hills, in quiet rural areas, and under some climatic conditions, greater distances of 3-5 km (~2-3 mi) are required to protect the health and welfare of neighbors. Any specified setback, however, must be part of a robust set of regulations to also limit noise and protect the environment and landscape.

For more information, see

12. 2-km Wind Turbine Setbacks for Health and Well-Being

(scroll down for petition; e-mail addresses are not public and will not be used for solicitations of any kind; you can also choose to hide your name)

Large wind energy turbines:
  • Generate a wide range of noises and vibration, day and night, that cause loss of sleep, headaches, tinnitus, irritability, dizziness, nausea, and other symptoms in people who live near them.
  • Raise noise levels to a degree that is incompatible with the rural and wild environments in which they are typically sited.
  • Create intrusive shadow flicker over a long distance when the sun is behind the turning blades.
  • May shed and throw large pieces of ice over a great distance.
  • Are subject to stresses that often cause catastrophic blade failure, collapse, and fire.
Large wind turbines therefore need adequate setbacks to protect the health and safety of nearby residents. A moratorium on building large wind turbines is needed for epidemiologic and acoustic studies to determine safe setbacks. Meanwhile, a minimum distance of 2 kilometers (or 1-1/4 miles) between homes and the turbines is recommended by a number of noise and health experts.

In certain terrains, such as rolling hills, in quiet rural areas, and under some climatic conditions, and with increasing numbers of turbines, greater distances are required to protect the health and welfare of neighbors. Any specified setback, however, must be part of a robust set of regulations to also limit noise and protect wildlife, farm animals, the environment, and the landscape, all of which may well require much greater setbacks.

For more information, see
How to use this petition

Show it to your legislators and government officials in discussing regulation of the wind industry. Use it as a starting point for local zoning. Use it as a model for local petitions.

Use one of these graphics on your web site or blog:

Also see the European ( and North American ( Platforms Against Windpower.

13. Wingates NOT Wind Farms

'Wingates Not Wind Farms' action group is set up to fight the proposals by Novera Energy, Coronation Power and Res (UK) Ltd in their plans to build several wind farm sites which would envelope Wingates village and the surrounding area.

Our 3 key objectives are simple
Protect Northumberland landscape
Protect Northumberland people
Protect Northumberland local businesses

14. Oppose Wind Turbines on Florida Beaches

15. No Implementation of Wind Turbines

April 3, 2006

The Niagara Escarpment in wrongly being threatened with destruction. Recognized as one of the most scenic landmarks in Canada, characterized by its rolling hills and forested regions, little can replace the natural spectacles viewed there.

However, this environment is challenged by the Superior Wind Energy, who wishes to implement 133 wind turbines, structures that stand over 400 feet tall and would obliterate the serenity and splendor of the region. Not only would these turbines be unappealing to the aesthetics of the Escarpment, but also rival the sustainability of many species of animals populating the region.

Considering that very rare species of vegetation, birds, reptiles and amphibians inhabit this if would be a tragedy to see these natural organisms become extinct.

Another quality of the Niagara Escarpment the implementation of Wind Turbines would affect is the local economy. The tourism industry would be gravely hurt by such construction because many hikers blaze the trails of the Niagara Escarpment, but with the Wind Turbines obstructing the trails the serenity of the region would be impeded.

Also with less space for housing development and the threat that some current habitants might choose to move because of the turbines, local businesses and industries will not be able to reach there full potential without adequate numbers of employees.

The last topic that will be mentioned is the very relevant fact that so many alternatives to wind energy exist. Solar energy, geothermal energy and bioenergy are all safe and not obstructive method of retaining energy, which do not supplement harsh on the surrounding Escarpment as the potential wind energy would, and these other options must be considered.

The Blue Highlands Citizen Coalition would like to take this time to thank you for taking the time to read our petition, and with you we hope that we have bestowed the knowledge of how many species of wildlife would be affected by potential wind turbines, and we trust that you have become aware of the vital need to prevent any construction of this nature.

Thank you for your patronage.