We must have a moratorium on all wind farms, even those already with planning permission, until an energy strategy based on facts, not greed and misplaced good intentions, is developed.

Your front page article on the proposal for more wind turbines in Fenland does indeed raise some serious questions for our local planning authority. Since the planning acts came into being in 1947, our local planning authority has, in the main, been successful in resisting developments in the countryside which would harm the visual amenity and special character of the Fenland landscape. However, when proposals for the gigantic wind turbines came about, it appeared to ignore all its previous policies for retaining the special character of our landscape and with no special policies for controlling both the number and siting of these massive turbine structures, it has given the turbine developers a free hand to develop wherever they wish.

Similar stories are told by governments and the wind power industry throughout the world, but the whole monstrous lie is blown apart in a letter sent this month by the Noble Environmental Power company of Churubusco, New York State, to neighbours of Noble’s wind power developments.

Our experience shows that there is a real noise problem, which can be severe. Unfortunately, it is clear that existing regulations are not adequate to protect people, and until this whole noise phenomenon is better understood and regulated we feel that Councils and wind developers should be exercising the Precautionary Principle. Large wind turbines should not be permitted close to residential areas.

Green ideology is an understandable response to adverse change but it is wrong to make science and technology the scapegoats for its anger. Not surprisingly any alternative energy scheme that seems natural and not based on science or technology is embraced by environmentalists. Some of these alternatives, such as biofuels are positively dangerous and if exploited on a large scale would hasten disaster. Others such as wind energy are inefficient and expensive. In the now rapidly changing world the green concepts of sustainable development and renewable energy that inspired the Kyoto meeting are far too late to have any value. What we need now is a well planned and sustainable retreat from the polluted and degraded world of today. The only way, I think, to do this is to welcome science and technology and make maximum use of environmentally friendly nuclear fission energy. We are an urban civilization and to survive the severe climate change soon due we need secure supplies of food water and electricity. We cannot expect to go on burning fossil fuel nor establish a non polluting way to do it in time. Therefore, except where electricity is powered by abundant water flow or geophysical heat, there is no safe alternative to nuclear energy.

There are scores of these applications in the pipeline which will, no doubt, be rejected by local people and possibly refused planning permission by local authorities only for permission to be granted by the Scottish Executive in a misguided attempt to be seen to be “green”.

None of the renewables is anywhere close to being a potential alternative and it has been admitted by Scottish Renewables that "wind power will not form the base load for electricity". Many people, including BBC interviewers and researchers, have been misled by the false claims of wind power companies.

Massey University, Palmerston, New Zealand, has recently published a survey showing that 80 per cent of people who live within 3km of wind turbines in Manawatu, near Palmerston, find them intrusive and 73 percent think them unattractive.......... Our politicians need to take the temperature of public opinion rather than fallaciously trust that a few UK windmills might alter the warmth of the planet.