I wasn't one of the 500 county residents asked to express their opinion about wind turbines.

Oh, I got the call about a survey commissioned by Florida Power & Light Co. I flunked out at Question 2.

"Do you or does any member of your household work for a public utility or in advertising, market research or the media?

"Yes, ma'am!"

"OK, thank you for taking part in the survey. I have no further questions for you."

This week FPL touted the survey results, arguing an "overwhelming majority" of county residents are in favor of allowing them to site wind turbines at their nuclear plant site.

According to the survey, more than 81 percent of respondents said they'd support such a proposal.

That's quite an impressive vindication, Eric Silagy, vice president for development for FPL, said in a phone interview Friday. It's proof, he said, the objectors are a vocal minority.

True, the naysayers have hogged the podium so far. Hundreds of them spoke up about negative effects on fish, fowl and humans. We've heard about grating noise, incessant vibrations and scary stories of flying turbine blades.

I'm less worried about those things than getting my head around why a gigantic for-profit utility wants to spend $40 million-plus (down from $61 million for nine turbines) to benefit less than a village full of people.

Perhaps FPL is right. Perhaps the majority of St. Lucians could care less if the company wants to play at windmills on its own land.

But I have to wonder if the survey questions weren't just a little, shall we say, skewed?

It's well-known in market research circles that how you ask the questions can be as important as the questions themselves.

FPL's survey, for instance, made no distinction as to where phone respondents lived — the island or inland? I suspect few of the "yes" votes came from Hutchinson Island.

FPL also didn't seem to want to hear from people who rarely vote in general elections. And they didn't bother to find out exactly what 20 percent of the "yes" voters meant by being only "somewhat" supportive.

FPL officials say it was their market research consultants who wrote the questions. They are the same people who've worked on campaigns for Hillary Clinton and several Republican presidential candidates, Silagy said. Well, that certainly fills me with confidence.

Silagy also denied the timing of the survey was intended to have any effect on the company's upcoming public hearing before the County Commission.

"We don't know when the hearing will be. That's entirely up to the county," he said.

A coworker wondered why I still care about this.

After all, the visual and environmental concerns were never top of my list. It's spending $45 million (paid mostly by FPL customers for 20 years, by the way) on a project with such little overall positive benefit that sticks in my craw. It makes no economic sense unless FPL is going into the philanthropy business.

Silagy is looking forward to a full public hearing at the county, and so should we.

Perhaps if both sides are allowed to fully present findings of fact we'll get somewhere.

Perhaps.