Shame on the Berkshire Eagle for patronizing Peru residents into being guinea pigs to Industrial wind. Some of these residents will clearly be negatively impacted either by having their home’s beautiful views obstructed or having the value of their home decline. Health and sleep disturbance from noise, shadow flicker and the overall well-being of some of these residents might take a drastic turn. Some of these 40 homes will be directly under these 500-foot turbines and not the 1-mile property line setback that the bylaws should be amended to.
Zoning bylaws are presumably drafted so everyone concerned is protected. Peru’s current wind bylaws do just the opposite and need to be updated before any project goes forward, including large-and small-scale wind. The moratorium was a two-year “time-out” to do some unbiased research, find answers to questions that could not be found at the informational meetings and update the current wind bylaws. Obviously, the author of this editorial did not attend any of the informational meetings in Peru or they might have been better informed.
Relying on scientific studies is a good thing, however the wind turbine energy companies keep trying to delude people on what a scientific study is. A study is considered scientific if it is approved by other unbiased experts with high level academic degrees in the same and related academic fields. Usually the participants have several degrees.
The wind turbine industry only uses industry propaganda in its studies. It continuously misrepresents the words “scientific” and “facts” in an attempt to confuse people. There are some scientific peer-reviewed studies showing that adverse health effects due to exposure to wind turbines exist. One study is “Summary of the Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines,” Oct. 20, 2009, compiled by Keith Stelling, MA,MNIMH, Dip Phyt, MCPP (England), with additional files from Carmen Krogh, BScPharm.
Blasting hillsides and clearing ridgelines is not green. These are not medieval times in “itty bitty” Peru (or anywhere else) and it is barbaric to promote that families and their children should possibly suffer for others for the sake of green energy as suggested by the editorial and the supporters of Lightship Energy’s plan, not to mention what may happen to the displacement of wildlife.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding