As opponents of the proposed backyard wind turbine at 70 Iona St., we can assure readers that it was not "fear of the unknown" that led to our opposition to the installation. It was concern about the known. The Ontario Municipal Board decision focused on planning issues and the applicant as a result failed on all four required tests for the minor variance Graham Findlay sought.

Some might suggest council erred on the side of caution Monday night, by deferring wind turbine projects until provincial legislation is updated. But when council takes action to potentially protect the health of Chatham-Kent citizens, while also waiting to ensure future wind projects are up to provincial snuff, it is a wise move indeed.

Zoning violations - big or small - tend to get people upset. And the fact remains that, at 10 metres tall, Findlay's turbine would be twice the height permitted for city backyards, not to mention the feeling among some neighbours that the structure is too close to their homes. Hence the city's committee of adjustment rejected Findlay's proposal to harness wind power right on his own property.

We do need to invest in technologies that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. But I believe we must do so with intelligence and not be seduced by vague or reckless promises that clearly do not stand up to scrutiny. Nor should we proceed with enormous public expenditures without appropriate due diligence and reasonable care, especially when it comes to the health and welfare of our fellow citizens and the future of our children.

Their responsibility is that they will listen to the discord and harmony of public discourse and determine the right direction for our public good. To emphasize, we expect them to listen. However, it appears they are failing to meet that expectation. When Mr. Smitherman hosts a town hall meeting and fails to reflect a basic level of empathy with his constituents, telling them the plant will be built regardless of what they have to say, he fails our expectations to listen.

I am writing to express grave concern about the new Windmill law that will stop municipalities from controlling their own futures. This is particularly important to Prince Edward County. ...Lower property values and dropping tourism are things that we cannot afford and should not have to put up with. Why should the people of Prince Edward County have to sacrifice our new economy, our jobs, our lifestyle, for a provincial initiative that could place these turbines anywhere else in this huge province? The suggestion that this is "NIMBYism" is offensive.

Here in Huron County we have municipalities struggling with how to regulate proposed wind farms. Those opposed to the turbines point to the potential of the health risks some have claimed are possible by living close to turbines. Others don't like the noise from the turbines. Others just don't like what they look like. Whatever the reason, it's clear the issue of wind farms is a controversy that won't go away soon.

Nancy Madsen's article "Cape Vincent to air turbine zoning plan" (Aug. 15) informs readers the town has appointed a committee to review a new draft wind law. The article listed conflicts of interest for each town officer related to contracts with the wind developer. For a board that has a history of trying to ram through these wind projects any way they can, why are they suddenly trying to do things by the law? Perhaps the recent investigation of wind-company corruption slapped them into the realization that their questionable actions could actually jeopardize passing a wind law. So they talked to their wind-law lawyers who advised them to do everything right.

There is an atmosphere of intimidation in this province stemming from the attitude that if you challenge or question the government or industry about a proposed alternative energy project, you are an opponent of renewable energy and have little regard for the future of this planet. The citizens of Wolfe Island who are questioning the wind-farm project are not against renewable energy. They are for environmental responsibility.

Members of Chatham-Kent council who have expressed some hesitation about the proliferation of wind turbines within the municipality are right to be worried. According to the municipality's planning consultant, Chatham-Kent could receive proposals to build as many as "650 to 700 additional turbines," although just 200 to 250 turbines in Chatham-Kent AND nearby Essex County can be supported right now by the electricity grid. Yet a land rush mentality appears to be sweeping through those companies ...But wind energy won't solve all of our energy challenges. Interest in their development was only launched by the McGuinty government four years ago, after the Liberals had won the election and had promised to close Ontario's coal-fired plants by 2007. It was a decision made entirely because of political idealism. It was a rash promise, but part of the public's imagination was piqued by the idea of harnessing the wind.

To zone four more plots of land for this use without first seeing a wind turbine in production in Chatham-Kent is a gross error, in my humble opinion. An area close to Wheatley has already been zoned for wind energy. Based on my technical background, I think it is of vital importance to first see this up and running over a period of time before we move forward with these new proposals. ...Only by pressing pause on the present proposal can you find out what is best for your customers - the citizens of Chatham-Kent. Should the turbines be 500 meters or 750 meters from the nearest house based on their noise levels? Should they be one kilometre from shorelines like Essex County is discussing?

The setback from an industrial wind turbine to a home is smaller than the setback to an industrial zone. Since the wind turbines themselves are industrial, this would seem to be an absurd policy. The setback from property lines and roadways is 50 metres. Since the turbines are 120 m. tall, if one should fall, throw ice, or parts, etc. it would damage neighbouring and/or municipal property. This will also affect what citizens can do in the future with their property (i.e.: not being able to build a barn, or house, or any number of future opportunities that will be curtailed) and so, will be infringing on their rights. The setback from an off-site residential dwelling (a house on a non-leased farm for example) is 300 m., while the setback is 600 m. from a rural residential home (i.e. a house on a severed rural lot). Isn't a home - a home?

Contrary to what you may have heard, the Great Bear Rainforest is not under attack. Neither is Premier Gordon Campbell backing down from his promise to protect environmentally significant portions of the central coast because the province is considering applications for electrical-power generation in the region. As The Sun's Larry Pynn discovered this week, the province is looking at proposals for a large wind farm and four commercial run-of-the-river power generation projects that have the potential to infringe on either existing or planned conservancies. ...The 2006 legislation defining the conservancies on the central coast specifically forbids "large hydro-electric" developments, but permits run-of-the river projects designed to provide power to local communities not serviced by the provincial power grid. ...But the legislation is silent on wind power and does not specifically forbid transmission lines.

In the last several months my neighbours and I have directly spoken to many people whose lives have been affected by wind energy projects. It seems like there is not a project out there, large or small, that leaves a community unaffected. We have most recently heard from Pastor Mark Harris of Mars Hill, Maine. Pastor Harris was here at the Seventh Day Adventist camp on the Gulf Shore this week. This camp sees an average of 1000 people per week through the summer season. There is only one wind farm in Maine, and it is on Mars Hill. There are 20 families whose lives have been seriously and detrimentally affected by this project, built by UPC. Some turbines are extremely close to families. Complaints have been made from people living as far away as three miles.

Wind turbine setback bylaws for Cumberland County are clearly inadequate for protection of the rights of residents who will be living adjacent to wind turbines. They desperately need to be re-examined and amended.

A very bad day for the people of Ontario. Everybody must continue to fight this McGuntiy Govt. and their ridiculous energy policy.

I would ask the Nova Scotia Government to take a serious, long, hard look at this whole industry and take some leadership by declaring the minimum standards by which wind energy projects must abide. A responsible, intelligent set of standards could set the way for the rest of the country! Use the experience of those who have had turbines for decades and learn from their mistakes. Blindly surging ahead into wind energy without considering health and safety factors and reasonable enjoyment of a resident's property is not looking after your constituents - the people of Nova Scotia.

THEY say the population in Pugwash more than triples in the summer months with the huge influx of cottage owners, none more distinguished than singer Anne Murray. These seasonal residents have a right to be heard just like any others............This squabble reveals the growth of the wind industry in Nova Scotia is occurring in a largely unregulated environment. The province wants 20 per cent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2013. This means more wind projects are coming and the government should adopt uniform regulations to bring certainty to developers and the public. Voluntary Planning, an independent and trusted board, should be asked to consult with the public and experts, and come up with recommendations on rules to harness this energy.

Thank you Anne Murray for your support! Thank you to the hundreds of others who have also voiced their support in trying to preserve this beautiful, peaceful area. Maybe some of the media interest spurred by Ms Murray's comments will help AWPC (and their subsidiary Cobequid Area Wind Farms [CAWF]) to finally understand that there is considerable opposition to this proposed project. There is no small voice of just a few people here, the entire Shore is in opposition.

Earlier this month, the National Academy of Science put forward some compelling evidence that industrial wind power has some serious flaws. Also, recent U.S. Congress hearings brought forth several expert testimonies that warn of a potential environmental disaster (birds, bats, etc.) due to poor siting of turbines and lack of accountability. There are gaping holes in the protection of wildlife, birds and bats in particular, from poorly sited, constructed and monitored wind turbines in both the U.S. and Canada.