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.

Daniel d'Entremont was probably the most impactful ‘lay' witness, as he lived 300-metres from the closest turbine at his home in Nova Scotia. He claims he and his family, were driven from their homes by the turbine noise. He has since been forced to leave the home he built with his own hands and can't sell it, because who would want to live that close to a giant?

Today was the first day of the hearing and most of the day was spent figuring out process and time lines. Over the next seven or eight weeks testimony will be heard from people in Ontario and Nova Scotia who have had their lives ruined by the wind turbines near their homes. Setbacks will be questioned as well as noise levels. This small group of people is fighting not just for themselves, but for everyone who is threatened by a wind farm in their neighborhood.

At the eleventh hour and at the brink of hard-won success, Maritime Electric "ran the numbers" and decided the bypass they worked with us to secure was too expensive after all. At a meeting on Friday, April 20, I was told that the differential cost was about $75,000. This is approximately 2% of the cost for the entire transmission line expansion, estimated at about $3.75 million. According to government sources, it is less than one half of the amount they spent on a botanical analysis and environmental assessment process (required by provincial policy) to safeguard rare flora and ecologically unstable wetlands/streams. Less than $100, 000 to save a community, and Maritime Electric bows out of a year-long commitment. It beggars the imagination.

That's not good enough for Lisa Betts, who is calling on the county to increase the setback to two kilometres. She feels the setback should be 10 times the height of the turbine. Only then would nearby residents not have to listen to the turbine blades or be bothered by shadows cast by the turning blades. While she may or may not be crying wolf, we have to be sure there is sufficient evidence to support the county's proposed setbacks before it ends up with egg on its face. After all, it's a situation that's going to keep coming up as more developers look at the county as a location for wind farms.

CanWEA, as a lobbyist organization for the multi-national wind industry will make every attempt possible to discount or minimize any potential problems in order to keep government subsidies rolling in to the corporations they represent and get their towers erected. CanWEA is not an environmental advocacy group.

From Barton, Vermont, to the German border with Denmark and from the shores of Lake Huron, to the Romney Marches of southern England, wind power advocates are fighting crosswinds from local residents. In Barton in mid-January, a referendum overwhelmingly rejected the wind power turbines that were planned near this upper Vermont community. ...In Germany, where one-third of the world's current wind power is generated, doubters have provoked a loud debate. The company that owns the grid that includes nearly half the wind-farms in Germany reported its wind farms generated only 11 percent of their capacity. The company said the winds vary so much the wind farm had to be backed 80 percent by the conventional power grid.

The associated environmental and health impacts are real. Rural residents will not be persuaded to “do their part” knowing that corporate marketing and provincial promotion overstates the benefits of this power source and plays down the negative impacts. Until developers site these projects in more appropriate areas and earn, not demand respect, they will continue to face costly delays and opposition.