Let me get this straight. Central Maine Power is requesting a $1.4 billion upgrade of the transmission system from the Maine Public Utilities Commission. This transmission system will not benefit Maine because it is to increase transmission capacity between Orrington to the New Hampshire border right out of the state. I think that is about 125 miles. That's a pretty expensive project to take full advantage of wind power.

"You begin to feel like you're being used," a long-time Maine Audubon supporter and state legislator told me about the wind power movement in Maine. "There seems to be no real benefit to the people or communities of Maine." What? We are being used? No benefit to the people of Maine?

Habib Dagher and Governor King make compelling arguments for offshore wind energy. However, I am very skeptical about the continued use of taxpayer money to fund energy experiments like ethanol and off shore wind. Off-shore wind energy, like ethanol before it, has the potential to gobble up billions in taxpayer money and provide very little in return.

Our work has shown that people in Mars Hill living within 3,500 feet of turbines there are truly suffering, in a real medical sense. Clearly, any regulation that results in placement of turbines, anywhere in Maine, at less than a 3,500-foot setback is courting a bad human outcome, regardless of sound modeling used by the industry to show there will be no ill effects in that range. As clearly demonstrated by post-construction measurements at Mars Hill, the model used by the wind industry for that project was seriously flawed.

Maine is a rural, relatively poor state. As such, we have become the target of multi-national corporations that seek to control our natural resources and direct them out of state. Nestle is continually expanding water mining into our communities. Plum Creek is trying to turn the Moosehead Lake region into a destination filled with high priced resorts and acreage for luxury home. Industrial wind farm corporations such as FirstWind and TransCanada seek to put turbines on ridgelines throughout the state.

Roxbury voters are at a fork in the road. They can ignore the loophole-filled promises of free electricity and property tax savings and vote to keep the ridges free from gigantic arm-waving machines, or they can cave in to the lure of easy money and sell Roxbury's soul to the industrial wind "farmers." But let's not fool ourselves that the sacrifice of Roxbury's scenic vistas is justified to curb global warming, or to replace fossil fuel-burning power plants, or reduce dependence on foreign oil, because none of these things will happen. But don't take my word for it.

But the launch of the Freedom turbines brings old adages to mind: "Buyer beware" and "the devil is in the details" ...Freedom threw out its commercial ordinance to make way for the windmills, leaving residents with no legal recourse should the sunny predictions of the developers fall short. It is also worth asking if Waldo County should welcome power plants selling exclusively out of state.

With growing concern, we read the report of radiologist Dr. Michael Nissenbaum's testimony about adverse health effects of wind farms, which are amplified over bodies of water. This is because First Wind is seeking permission from LURC to erect 17 wind turbines within a mile of Upper and Lower Hot Brook Lakes, just west of the Danforth town line which goes down the middle of the lakes.

With Byron voters rejecting Independence Wind's proposal for wind power, plans for 20 turbines in Roxbury are moving ahead, despite efforts from some townspeople to reverse approval of that project. Meanwhile, another company - First Wind - plans turbines for nearby Black Mountain and will hold a meeting Thursday night to provide information and, probably, to quell the inevitable protest. And, in a plot twist, Independence Wind has announced a "Power to the People" campaign. If the zoning needed for their turbines is approved and the turbines are built, they promise free electricity to all Roxbury residents.

Kathryn Swegart's letter concerned former Gov. Angus King's proposal to research the feasibility to build 1,000 wind turbines 26 miles off the coast of Maine. Just wondering, has King lost his mind? The cost of $15 billion is astronomical and with the rising costs of steel, copper for windings, not to mention the maintenance cost being 26 miles off the coast. This is just plain nuts. ...The United States produces more power from geothermal energy than solar and wind combined. This type of power is definitely under-utilized. Wind power is not the answer; any expert in the power generation field will tell you that it's too intermittent. It's time to get real about our energy concerns in this state and explore all options but leave the crackpot ideas on the table.

Roxbury Selectman Mark Touchette suggested visiting Mars Hill. My husband and I chose a neutral area 400 miles away. The 220-foot windmill towers we visited were overwhelming. It was a reality check. The swooshing and clanging of those industrial machines as they rotated were alarming. There was a persistent humming, strobe light-like and flickering shadows swirling around the cleared land that surrounded each turbine. ... Rob Gardiner of Independence Wind is now going door-to-door peddling his goods, trying to sway residents into his pockets of this big business, money-making venture.

Byron is doing the right thing about wind turbines, by wondering whether it wants to have them at all. It is a discussion more towns in Maine should start. ... Communities that wish to encourage wind power projects should say so. Those that will oppose one should say so too. There's little equity in Maine, which now has expedited reviews of wind projects for all its organized towns, to have more site-by-site fights. ...The irony is, by stopping a wind project, Byron is now showing the right way to approach one.

We all support clean energy - but what if its expectations are unmet? Maine has one windmill project up and running in Mars Hill, with its share of controversy. There are additional projects proposed in other sections of Maine. The governor's wind power task force has proposed at least 2,000 megawatts within seven years, and an additional 1,000 megawatts within five years after that. I was a proponent of clean energy - something must be done for our environment. But after much discussion, a lot of listening and some research, I now have questions that must be answered before I can support any wind power project in Maine.

I'm sorry to inform you that there is an institution in Maine that repeatedly makes promises to the public, but rarely fulfills them. This same entity is also prone to issuing statements containing exaggerated claims about its accomplishments. And when it comes to the financial benefits it bestows on the public, let's just say its veracity is questionable. The Legislature? Don't be silly. The Legislature's veracity isn't questionable. It's nonexistent. I'm talking about the wind-power industry.

By giving organized Maine expedited status for wind developments, the state's task force has invited developers to consider these areas for projects. It's an incentive, plain and simple, to know where planning reviews will have priority, and where they will not. Reaction in Byron indicates towns and cities won't take to this designation, even if they think alternative energies are necessary. The belief somewhere else, or some other energy technology, is more appropriate is just too strong. It was in Byron, and if a reputed repeal effort in Roxbury gains strength, there, too. And these are emblematic of the towns wind companies should target - rural, mountainous and with low populations, and therefore low impact. But it's a choice to accept wind power, as communities and commissions have myriad reasons to reject proposals.

The reason for "little real debate" about wind power is the result of the media's refusal to initiate discussion by supplying the information necessary for a debate ("Maine steps forward, into the wind," Feb. 16). Rather than providing the facts on the issue, we hear and read only the bellowing hype of unsubstantiated promises by the industry and its developers. ... The newspaper would better serve its readers by offering a look at the other side of this coin.

This week has been a particularly windy one for government regulators: The U.S. Minerals Management Service also declared that a wind farm proposed off Cape Cod in Massachusetts would have little lasting impact on wildlife, navigation or tourism. This ruling could clear the way for construction of a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, 5 miles from the nearest coastline. ...I say: Before we start defiling shorelines and mountaintops with manmade contraptions, let's spend more energy on conservation. Besides, getting through Wicopessett Passage in a kayak, or climbing to the top of Redington, is hard enough without having to duck beneath a spinning turbine.

Can Mainers promote renewable energy, protect natural resources and agree on sites for turbines? Yes -- but it would take some talking. We have a conflict today in Maine between renewable energy development and natural resource protection. Recent debates about several wind power proposals (Kibby, Reddington and Black Nubble mountains) have brought attention to differences between constituent groups. ...Does this mean every wind turbine proposed in adequate-wind areas should be permitted? No. Should most of them be? Perhaps, but today no one can reasonably make such a statement -- the threshold of ecological sensitivities has not been examined closely enough. The regulatory implications of a clear statement to this effect would obviously be enormous. Therefore, formulating the statement should occur only after a concerted consensus- building process among all groups in Maine with a stake in these issues.

Many people, including the editors of the Sentinel, think that the group of neighbors who oppose the wind turbine project in Freedom do so because they do not want it in their backyard. The issue is far more complicated than that. Here are some of the facts that the Sentinel should have researched if it were to write a legitimate editorial.