[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

How Grafton protected itself  

Credit:  Valley News | November 5, 2013 | www.vnews.com ~~

I read your Oct. 31 article regarding the changes to Iberdrola’s Wild Meadows industrial wind complex proposal. A reporter left a message the day before at 1:40 p.m. regarding the press release I submitted. When I returned home at 6:35, I made several attempts to reach her, but only got her voicemail. I feel the need to try to bring some balance to the very slanted article.

First of all, industrial wind complexes are not farms. Farms are where living things are raised such as crops and livestock. Seeds are planted and new lives are born. Industrial wind complexes are made of concrete and metal and destroy nature and wildlife habitats in order to be constructed. After they’re up and running, they kill and maim bats and birds. The health effects on humans from high- and low-frequency sound waves can be so debilitating that some are forced to abandon their homes.

The quote attributed to me in the article didn’t include the statement that immediately followed: “I’d suggest any towns currently or potentially being targeted by industrial wind companies contact (the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund) immediately and find out how to protect themselves like the brave citizens of Grafton did.” Over 150 of these types of ordinances are in place in the U.S. on numerous topics, but all put the rights of citizens and essential ecosystems above corporate rights. In Nottingham, N.H., a similar ordinance has prevented a bottling company from draining the town’s aquifer. We’re not alone in taking back our rights, and momentum is building across the state, New England, the country and the world.

Edward Cherian, representing Iberdrola, has said several times that Iberdrola would not force the project on any town that didn’t want it, yet Grafton’s the only town that was removed in the revised proposal. Alexandria also voted in March against the turbine invasion. The only thing different in Grafton is the ordinance we passed establishing our right to determine our own energy future and self-governance. How could one not come to the conclusion that it was the ordinance that prompted Iberdrola to change the proposed footprint of destruction?

Cindy Kudlik


Source:  Valley News | November 5, 2013 | www.vnews.com

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 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 Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.