Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Opponents continue pressure versus turbine plans
Credit: by Gus Steeves, www.spencernewleader.com 12 April 2011 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
CHARLTON – At a public hearing Wednesday, April 6, local residents raised the same objections to Bay Path’s plan to erect a wind turbine as they had to Overlook’s plan a couple weeks ago, again citing concerns about infrasound, audible sound, flicker and property values.
But the Planning Board again noted they have a limited amount of authority under state law, being able to nix it only if the site is unsafely designed, audible sound is too high or the flicker effect excessive. Those limits, however, didn’t sit well with some folks.
Expressing worries over the fact the state doesn’t require “frequency analysis,” particularly of sounds below the audible level (infrasound), one man claimed to have read about “detrimental medical and physical effects.”
“We can’t ignore this just because the law [limits the board],” he said. “We can’t ignore that as responsible people for our community.”
A little later he advocated denying the project, saying, “let them sue us.”
For more on this story, please see tomorrow’s Southbridge Evening News.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
Wind Watch relies entirely on User Contributions |
(via Stripe) |
(via Paypal) |
Share: