I found it amusing that Larry Cole’s analysis of the so-called McPherson report concluded it was “junk science” (“No surprise turbine effect felt by those paid to feel it,” Letters, Jan. 7). Further, he finds complaints of residents in the impact zone to be “consistent with the existence of a hysteria cluster.”
How should we view Mr. Cole’s opinions? He doesn’t live near large wind turbines; he makes judgments of those who do by dismissing their opinions and cannot give credence to anything other than scientific research founded on double-blind studies.
In my view, the situation in Falmouth is a result of poor planning; a consensus of opinions from so-called experts not living with the problem; and a town less than responsive to negative public comments.
The human response to changes in the environment is based on a complex set of strong connections related to the differences in individuals; personal, emotional, physical, and physiological sensitivities. Compounding the difficulty are the variations in house construction where large rooms/ open floor plans enhance adverse effects.
Well-grounded technical analysis by recognized experts should be combined with firsthand experience living within a community and coping with wind turbines. All other opinions are merely armchair views.
Conrad M. D’Esopo
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding