Now we find that Elecon, the manufacturer of the city's first industrial wind turbine, doesn't have that many clients either. This will be their first U.S. installation. How do we know their manufacturing standards are up to snuff? The Center for Wind Energy Technology (CWET) reported that 60 percent of the wind turbines survived a cyclone in Gujrat, India, in 1998. However, 14 out of 14 Elecon turbines were destroyed. Didn't anybody notice this? Elecon pulled out of the wind turbine business for a while, and now they are back in. Did anyone find out why?

When the turbines started up near her home, in Shelburne, Ont., Helen Fraser suffered severe health effects. ...The latest ad from Sky-Power [a developer of renewable energy projects], states: "In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 turbines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by wind turbines." ...So who is telling the truth?

Over the last couple of years, concerned citizens all around Jefferson County have sponsored informational sessions on wind turbine issues. These sessions have brought out the facts and the health hazards of placing wind turbines where people live. ...The facts are there and the facts are being stepped over to pick up money our Congress has made available for renewable energy. This is your money, and this is just another giveaway program for an inefficient source of energy. We need to channel our tax dollars into the development of real fuel-cell technology for cars and trucks.

As we stood on Telegraph Road in the Town of Eagle, looking at a landscape of turbines erected by Noble Environmental ... one turbine in particular almost seemed to whistle. The rest of them raised a steady whoosh, whoosh, woosh. Maybe it was just one errant whistling turbine, and a field of them may be scenic, but what if New York fulfills its alternative energy goal, and there are thousands of these 400 foot towers in the upstate countryside? Would you live next to one?

I am writing this to make clear my vehement opposition to the wind turbine proposed by Mark Richey Woodworking. It will be constructed in the Newburyport Industrial area at 40 Parker St. I do support renewable energy but I feel that the location for this turbine is a highly unsuitable one. I do not believe that the Newburyport Zoning board (ZBA) thoroughly investigated the impact that these projects would have before approving them. This turbine will have a direct and very negative impact on the neighborhoods that surround them.

I am extremely opposed to the location of the 300-foot, high wind turbine at the Mark Richey property, 49 Parker St. I am not opposed to alternative energy but, just as the discovery of X-rays had everyone getting new "pictures" taken, to later discover the ramifications of incorrect use of this technology, we cannot build enormous hazardous turbines in such close vicinity to habitable structures industrial and residential.

The Ocean State recently granted a New Jersey-based renewable energy firm the right to build an industrial-size wind farm about 20 miles off the coast of Rhode Island. DeepwaterWind CEO Chris Brown told the Associated Press his firm builds turbines on large platforms originally designed for offshore drilling rigs, which means they can operate in deep waters and out of sight of land. He expects to build around 100 turbines offshore. "What we've really focused on is that we want to be beyond the horizon," Brown said. "We don't think that you have to choose between...the view and the environment."

The long-awaited full report on the Horse Creek Wind Farm noise study will go public in a week, the town announced Wednesday. But the availability of the report was not enough to satisfy upset residents who stormed into the council meeting demanding that the town start formulating a local law to limit noise levels of wind turbines and establish setbacks. "We need to start clearing the air," said Patricia Booras-Miller, vice president of Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization of Jefferson County.

In the ongoing debate on these pages regarding Cape Wind's proposal to install 130 towers in Nantucket Sound, facts often have taken a back seat to emotion. ...A key question is: How much will the project cost and what is the impact of the cost and the ongoing maintenance and security on the cost of power produced by the proposed Cape Wind turbines? ...The financial data are easily provided by the folks at Cape Wind. Instead, by withholding vital information about the project, Cape Wind has fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and encouraged circulation of misinformation by proponents and opponents alike. Let's have all the facts.

Do you live inside an industrial wind farm? I do. I live within the Forward-Invenergy project. It is a tremendous invasion of our life style and a horrible happening to our area. My wife, our 13-year-old son and I have experienced headaches, nausea, light headedness, lack of sleep because we hear them in all rooms of our house ...I trusted the elected officials of the town and county and the state's public service commission. That was a terrible mistake. If you allow large industrial limits closer than the set backs I mentioned above you will regret it. It will divide your community.

It was noted that there are always costs that must be mitigated when producing power for our consumerist lifestyles. One glaring omission from the meagre list of negatives to wind power is the pollution of noise and its sequela. These generators are very noisy. Research into sound pollution is not complete and its effects on both human and wildlife must be considered. ...We must do a full environmental assessment on how the sound vibrations will affect life within its footprint, just as we would any other technology.

First of all, I want to say that Cape Vincent's Town Supervisor Tom Rienbeck is doing the right thing. I never thought I would ever say that, but I saw firsthand what he is trying to do for the town. He has appointed a committee of local residents to hammer out a wind-turbine zoning law. They are working from a draft document written by the town's law firm.

Why are wind turbines being rammed down the throats of people who don't want them? They are fine for people who want them, but if their neighbors don't want that noise, why isn't there help for them? I know people who are being forced to move because their neighbor wants the turbines, and the company is putting them within 500 to 750 feet from the home of the people who don't want them.

In his recent letter ("Wolf showed courage in supporting Cape Wind"), Elrick misrepresents the FAA's current position on Cape Wind and totally ignores the safety concerns of all three local airports. In fact, in a January 2008 letter to Rep. William Delahunt, the FAA cited a "presumed hazard determination" for Cape Wind due to concerns for local air traffic and radar interference to air traffic control systems.

The Maple Ridge wind-power project in Mr. Yancey's town "produces enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes." Most articles on wind power include such boilerplate information, but rarely put the number in context: Despite tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies for research, development and marketing, wind power still is two to three times more expensive than carbon-fired electricity. It's why, despite all the hype and the pipe dreams, wind turbines still produce less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity ...

I attended the July 30 showing of BP Alternative Energy's proposed 95 wind turbine settings in the town of Cape Vincent. A presentation by Dereth B. Glance, program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment, stated that in her experience there was no noise at 750 feet away from operating turbines. She also stated that studies have shown that there is no reduction in property values as a result of proximity to wind turbines. These statements are in sharp contrast with the reality that I have encountered in my efforts to learn the truth about wind turbines.

There is a face-off brewing between two federal agencies over the fate of birds in Nantucket Sound, centering on the Cape Wind energy project. At issue is whether the U.S. Minerals Management Service defers to the cautionary advice of its expert peer, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or will it ramrod the Cape Wind project forward, driven by political considerations? ...In the apparent hurry to permit the Cape Wind project this year, Minerals Management seems poised to ignore the Fish & Wildlife Service. Citizen action is needed to get the message across to Minerals Management: "Proceed with caution. Do not play 'wind turbine Russian Roulette' with endangered species. Move Cape Wind elsewhere, out of harm's way!"

Currently, the wind law is designed to accommodate the noise levels expected by the developer PPM Energy. These levels are measured at the outside wall of a resident's home, disregarding one's property line, and are unhealthy. Federal guidelines state that an appropriate level of noise in a bedroom during sleep is 24dBA (A-weighted decibels). However, our current local laws allow noise levels to reach 50dBA. State guidelines in New York state that an increase of 6dBA above normal background will cause complaints and should be avoided. According to the guidelines, an increase of 20dBA is intolerable. ...We have shown our local government that placing 62 turbines in a four- by five-mile populated area is harmful to residents. To date the town leaders in Clayton continue to ignore the plea from residents to protect us.

Often, the visual impact of 130 wind turbines as tall as the Statue of Liberty in the middle of Nantucket Sound is presented as a clash of aesthetic sensitivity vs. alternative energy reality. But the National Trust for Historic Preservation has reminded the U.S. Minerals Management Service that real laws and mandates exist, and it says MMS is not going by the book in its evaluation of the Cape Wind project. ...Nobody, the National Trust included, expects that the views at the Kennedy Compound or the Nantucket historic downtown will remain forever unaltered. But Congress has decreed that all efforts must be made to preserve the integrity of historic sites, and the MMS must comply.

But here in Gloucester, it seems that government is "by the developer, for the developer." The City Council has cast a unanimous vote to grant a special permit for a private-use wind turbine that Mac Bell plans to install on the banks of the Annisquam River, rising 240 feet into the air and only 315 feet from a playground. Sixty neighbors who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed turbine site signed a petition opposing it. Ward 3 Councilor Steven Curcuru dismissed this number as "insignificant."