Industrial wind turbines are being pushed by government and wind developers, doing their own studies, to promote their own interests. All of us who are in the line of fire from these gigantic industrial installations seem to be of little concern. Our rural countryside is threatened with industrial wind power installations with minimum setbacks from homes of only 400 meters.

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.

These three letters all respond to recent news reports on the wind energy facility proposed for Amherst Island and the potential of that project exceeding the 88-turbine Wolfe Island facility now under construction.

Wind turbines sound great when you first hear about them. Who is against renewable energy? Farmers who struggle to make a living are eying up the $9,000 they are to receive per turbine per year. Ten turbines is a retirement income of $90,000! Who would blame the farmers! And the Bonnechere and Madawaska township councils can see much-needed tax dollars flowing in. But there are problems with the whole scheme. ...Let's make sure that if we choose to install hundreds of 400- foot high turbines in our heritage countryside we do so from informed choice.

Accompanying the myth that wind turbine energy will replace fossil fuel energy is denial of the ecological impacts and health effects of wind turbines by governments and promoters. The ugly reality is that wind turbines are a serious addition to the industrialization of quiet rural landscapes, places that people have long valued for quality of life, retirement and recreation. The environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people have been systematically ignored by a political and regulatory system that has corrupted individual and societal freedom and environmental integrity by relegating these values to some distant offshoot of economic growth.

Sunday's massive series of explosions at a Toronto propane plant gives credence to every Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) argument posed to this point in time. ...In Barrie, Northern Ethanol's plan to build a plant on the former Molson Brewery site has faced opposition from residents in every part of the city. Opposition to Bob Jackson's plan to built a wind turbine on his Mapleview Drive West Toyota dealership has, conversely, caused mostly local concerns. In both cases, however, opponents fear the worse. ...And everyone is concerned about how it will affect their bottom lines, property values. The point is, the reason people look at worst-case scenarios is that sometimes they happen.

People have been hoodwinked into promoting wind turbine energy as some sort of Nirvana all while human population growth and per capita energy consumption continue to spiral upward. Turbine energy generation is fueling growth in human population and energy consumption and growth in a false "economy". It is NOT doing the opposite. Matching the folly of the energy replacement misunderstanding is denial by governments and promoters of the ecological impacts and health effects of turbines; the ugly reality is that they are a serious addition to the industrialization of quiet rural landscapes that people have long valued for quality of life, retirement, and recreation. ...Wind turbines are an assault on human well being and act to degrade the human "gestalt". Promotion of wind turbine energy is a case of serious misjudgment by those who fraudulently use green wash to promote their commercial aspirations.

The safety of the citizens of Chatham-Kent is being compromised by improper siting of industrial wind turbines. The General Electric wind turbine "Ice shedding and ice throw -- risk and mitigation" manual states that "1.5 x (hub height + rotor diameter) is the formula for calculating a safe distance for turbine siting from roads and public areas." ...The setbacks C-K has in place for industrial wind turbines (50 m from roadways and property boundaries, and 300 metres from homes) are a threat to the public.

Is the proposed wind-energy farm on Wolfe Island an example of a community making environmentally sound choices? The honeybee story has made me skeptical. Are decisions being made because they are good for the environment and the residents of Wolfe Island or because the project is going to line the pockets of the people involved? Are people so anxious to make money they won't wait for an environmental assessment? Has anyone taken into consideration the location of the turbines and their impact on the people who live near the site? Do those residents have a say?

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.

One of the reasons we try to minimize damage to the environment is to preserve the pristine and beautiful landscapes with which Ontario is blessed. But the presence of windmills can itself mar such locations. ...Perhaps there are ways that we can locate these electricity factories in areas where they don't detract from the beauty of some of our last wild areas. Maybe there are windy sites along the shores of the Great Lakes where industrial plants are already located. Certainly these windmills are a pleasant diversion from smokestacks and slag. As much as possible, people want their natural sites to remain natural. That doesn't happen when windmills are constructed. Some people think wind power is the perfect environmental energy but, like most things, it has its drawbacks, too.

Had the research been peer reviewed, published in a scientific journal of repute and conducted completely independently by Ryerson University, with funding for the project not emanating from any level of government, credence could legitimately be given to its findings. ...The lengths and depths to which governments at all levels will go in order to foist their projects onto an unwilling electorate no longer surprises me, but I am bitterly disappointed. We deserve better.

Gengrowth wind turbines are to be situated in a great monotonous line along the historic Talbot Trail, through Palmyra, Morpeth, and stretching out along the shores of Lake Erie. It is hard to imagine that in 2008, precious land bordering beautiful natural beaches and cliffs of Lake Erie will be dotted with giant wind turbines sweeping the countryside. This is only one of many lines and grids that will weave through, connect, and wind around heritage and cultural landmarks while fencing in small towns and fencing out the natural beauty of rural Chatham-Kent. ...Like Quixote, one cannot help but feel an unsettling and disturbing ill wind brewing. ...Hopefully, there are a few Don Quixotes left. It is important and necessary to fight against the smiling giants of profit and opportunity whose false promises of economic benefits are, in this opinion, full of hot air and come at a great expense. It is time to demand that both the provincial and municipal governments preserve the heritage, and unique cultural and natural assets of Chatham-Kent. It is time to "tilt at windmills."

So the wind power industry and consultants hired by the government tell us Ontario's noise rules for wind farms are 'very good' and 'strike a balance'. ...While the MOE studies the problem, Ontario's lax noise rules allow the government to let contracts worth $15 billion for another 3,000 wind turbines to be squeezed into populated southern Ontario. As the wind farm developers follow the yellow brick road to Oz, families caught up in the developments will be exposed to noise pollution levels two times higher than what the World Health Organization says are safe.

With the current threat of some 725 industrial-scale wind turbines proposed for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent many local residents have begun to alter their plans for the future. These altered plans will have a serious economic spin-off for our municipality. The following is a list of some economic opportunities that are being lost due to the threat of industrializing the countryside with wind turbines: ...Wind farms will reduce any infill housing in rural Chatham-Kent and preclude many lifestyle developments and economic opportunities. Existing housing located next to wind farms will deteriorate and become abandoned. Is this the vision we have for our municipality?

Editor's note: This letter is addressed to the members of Chatham-Kent council and Mayor Randy Hope. ...I am incredibly shocked and disappointed that people who wish to do business in this community could care so little for the people who live in it. It is appalling to me that a representative of this company could show such disdain and contempt for people that could be potential neighbours. So, I am left with the following questions: Should we find that our quality of life is disturbed, the noise level is greater than expected, our property becomes unsellable and/or devalued or our health is adversely affected, who is liable? Where do we seek recourse?

Chatham-Kent is proud to be known for its farmland, outstanding fishing and hunting and most importantly our quality of life. Now threatening all of this is AIM PowerGen Corp. proposing a possible 100 wind turbine generators and Gengrowth proposing nine wind farms with five wind turbines on each. With government grants and incentives, there will be more. Before we make it easier for them to destroy our quality of life with our tax dollars and by changing existing development bylaws, please stop and consider.

A report commissioned by the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities is going to do very little to settle the debate over just how close wind turbines should be located to homes and it's not likely to be welcomed by those fighting proposed wind farms in their backyards - such as those opposing the plan to erect turbines in the Gulf Shore region of Cumberland County. In the report, consultants Jacques Whitford suggest it should be left up to individual municipalities ...The 117-page report concludes there are no internationally accepted standards for dealing with controversial issues surrounding wind farms, especially when it comes to things like setbacks, the impact on real estate values and noise.

... before we rush off to embrace wind energy we must make darn sure it's not going to ruin people's lives. While it would be easy to study this to death, there has to be definitive answers to lingering questions and they must be settled before the first turbine is put in place next door to communities and homes. It's too late to try and answer questions after they're already erected. Let's get it right while we still have a chance with solid fact-based evidence so we're not looking back at what could have been done.

... in the rush to set up giant wind-powered turbines to fight global warming, we shouldn't discount growing evidence that they can significantly harm the health of their neighbours if built too close to homes. ...Environmentalists don't seem worried about wind-turbine syndrome, either. The need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions has created an atmosphere where it's tantamount to sacrilege to raise concerns about turbines. Complaints are dismissed as NIMBYism.