I Hate Wind Turbines

What you and so many people don't get is that one can agree that the use of renewable energy is good and that wind energy has the potential to be environmentally sustainable, BUT the 'devil is in the details' as they say.
If you had done your homework you would know that the wind turbines (which bear little if any resemblance to the original Dutch windmills and actually require power to work) which are currently being planned for ON are close to double the size of what was built in Europe 20 years ago or more. You can't compare a pick axe with dynamite. Even those built as recent as 2008-09 at the Whitelee Wind industrial complex 15 km from Glasgow (it is no farm - a farm is a biological based entity) were only 295.2 ft high from base to tip of blade with a capacity of 2.3Mw, and they were built on a mainly uninhabited Moor.
If you still don't get it think of the different impact on the environment of many of the original small dams in ON, then look into the environmental damage done by the mega projects like the Hoover Dam and the Three Gorges Dam in China. When considering environmental impact size does count! While lack of understanding and knowledge may have been used in the past to-day's ' "willful blindness", especially from those claiming to be environmentalists, is a disgrace.
Not only that but there has never been any attempt to look at Life Cycle Impact of these projects - for example has anybody calculated the CO2 released into the atmosphere during the construction phase - cement production is not carbon neutral. And have you read any recent reports based on DATA out of Europe (please don't quote me the pr from the pro-wind faction - I'm still looking for real data from them to back up their claims) which show how damaging their push for renewable (mostly wind) has been?

And the negative health impacts are real, even some wind companies are admitting it grudgingly. Once again size does matter! And by the way, stop throwing out 'red herrings' to discredit the people who are trying to wake the rest of you up to a potential environmental disaster! "Peer reviewed" does not mean it is superior, more accurate or even true - consider that the recent world wide s scare about the MMR vaccine originated in a peer reviewed journal (the Lancet no less) and has since been exposed as a colossal fraud fabricated by a researcher who received more than £28 to do it. Crossover data and double crossover data sets are a valid way to identify new health problems early on, and are far more telling than using a computer model created by someone with no knowledge of human health issues or even biology! Those models are in the same category as the third part of "lies, damn lies and statistics". And it's not about NIMBYism - these people are far more humane than our ON government, and it sounds like you, because they don't want them in anybody's backyard!
So you do your homework - follow the evidence - read the documents, then read the references used by the government and the wind proponents to see if they really do support what they say they do - you may be surprised to find you can't find the referenced statement - I no longer am.
And yes, I know this takes time, hundreds and hundreds of hours on my own dime, but unlike so many I truly believe in "do no harm" and, unlike so many, I recognize that the environment is extremely complex and single point solutions that are not appropriately applied can do way more damage than good.
And so-called environmentalists that want to 'do good' but don't take the time to do more than take a superficial look at ALL the issues and systems involved do as much harm as any rampaging industrialist - in fact they even sometimes go forward arm in arm, as they are now doing with the current wind energy debate in Ontario.

It is you, sir, who should be embarrassed by your lack of real knowledge. Having used my brain and done hundreds and hundreds of hours of research I'm afraid it is you are misinformed. in fact there is so much misinformation in this post it's hard to know where to start!
1) % of energy production from coal plants has been dropping for years - it was not because it was replaced by wind. In fact NOT ONE traditional plant has been closed in Europe and they are having to add more to back up unreliable wind production. In 2011 % of energy produced by fuel type was 2.6% for wind and 2.7% for coal, because we've been reducing that produced by coal for years - please get the data before you speak - not the pr of the wind companies and the government.
It's obvious from your comments that you really haven't a grasp of the complexities, and what's worse haven't even been willing to seek the truth - guess it's easier to 'greenewash' yourself than actually think.
2) I don't know how many studies you've read but this statement claiming that 'wind-turbine syndrome' is junk science and disputed by all is totally false and as time goes on your having made it will only make you look more ignorant than you appear now. And by the way, 'peer reviewed is not some 'holier than thou' state. There has been junk science published in peer reviewed journals and just recently the MMR paper that appeared in the Lancet (peer reviewed no less) that started the world-wide scare about the MMR vaccines was exposed as pure fraud, done for the money! And crossover studies and double crossover studies are a valid way to detect new health issues that were previously unknown. Additionally I've checked the references of some of those government studies you put so much faith in and they don't say what the government says they say - do your homework, don't just mouth the pr put out by those with a very big vested interest. And BTW, where's the peer reviewed papers by the wind proponents? Most I've read have been reviews (cherry-picked) and computer modelling - garbage in, garbage out! And health studies done by non-medical people don't count at all - do you want an electrical engineer treating your medical problems?
3) Find out who's behind many of the wind companies - big gas companies because they know that for every Mw of wind energy there must be a equivalent Mw of reliable traditional power. And BTW - NOT ONE traditional plant has closed in Europe, Denmark etc., they're building more to ensure a continuous supply of electricity.
4) Size matters - it's only since the monstrous turbines started coming online that major health problems started - and BTW, many other jurisdictions have much greater than ON's 550m setback. In fact in Europe with the advent of larger turbines they are recommending a 2km minimum.setback. It's not the wind energy intelligent people are against, it's the inappropriate application of it with no regard for anything but the almighty $$. Make no mistake - this is an environmental disaster in the making - think Three Gorges Damn.
5) And as for wind energy in Europe, how out of date are you anyway? Check the latest reports on job losses, health issues and moves to limit and remove subsidies (and after 2o years wind companies still can't survive without them). Why don't you do us all a favour and get your head out of the sand and start researching the facts, not regurgitating the pr.
People like you who think they are saving the planet but haven't even taken the time to research the DATA and FACTS and try and understand the complexities inherent in environmental systems do far more damage than good.