Windfarm article refuted
The Mercury, www.rsmercury.com 26 March 2009
Your article, “Jordanville Wind Farm Put on Hold,” in the March 19, 2009 edition of the Mercury, does a great disservice to your readers. Since it poses as an objective article on the subject when in fact it is an editorial, it confuses and distorts the issues. The bias of the writer is evident from the very first sentence, which seeks to cast what follows in a very favorable light in regard to the project. And the statement regarding the assumed influx of funds from the wind turbines is in itself one of controversy.
Further on, Mr. Palmer implies that it is due to an organization, Otsego 2000, that opposition was mounted against the wind turbine project in question. However, the truth is that opposition to the project was initiated by residents of the towns of Warren and Stark, for whom this project poses real and possibly dire consequences. Many, many such residents have raised concerns regarding health impacts, noise and visual disturbances, including the disturbing flicker effect on both humans and animals, risks to neighboring wells and water supply, negative impacts on the topography, the destruction of wildlife and wildlife habitat, interference with bird migration, the use of herbicides, the risk of dangers from ice build-up, fire risks, the destructive effects on infrastructure, and the probable decline in property values to name some. These simply augment the aesthetic, cultural and historic concerns of Otsego 2000 and other concerned citizens.
I find it both amusing and disturbing that Mr. Palmer looks to a lone dairy farmer as an expert in declaring the degree of project support in our entire area – with a specific percentage to boot!
Opponents to this project are not necessarily opposed to wind energy per se. But the size of the project, the lack of sound planning, the lack of expertise within the town boards and their refusal to thoroughly research the issues, the lack of regard for neighbors’ concerns, the greed of the wind companies and questions regarding the monies that will actually be available on the local level, the intrusion into the life of the Holy Trinity Monastery and the impact on this historic and cultural site – all of these compound the already-existent concerns stated above.
It is also important to note that, despite the information supplied by Mr. Palmer, there has been much written questioning the reliability and efficacy of wind power in reducing our use of fossil fuels. Many environmental experts in the field see wind turbine projects as inefficient, cumbersome, and ironically actually adding to the problem.
For anyone seeking to obtain balance on this issue, the Internet supplies much food for thought. One such well-researched site is www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html. In addition, the disquieting reality regarding the health risks of these industrial turbines has been documented by Nina Pierpont, M.D., in articles that can be found at www.windturbinesyndrome.com.
Louise Doubleday
Warren, N.Y.
26 March 2009
URL to article: https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/03/26/windfarm-article-refuted/