Voice of the People

Letter To the Editor
February 6, 2013                                                                                                                           
Major factors in promoting industrial wind turbine (IWT) facilities in Vermont is to lessen our 'Carbon Footprint' and keep electricity rates affordable.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA) collects and compiles all energy information.  Their breakdown of CO2 emissions in Vermont for 2009 and measured in millions of metric tons (MMTN) are:       

                                 Residential                             1.5 MMTN CO2
                                 Commercial                            0.7 MMTN CO2
                                 Industrial                                 0.5 MMTN CO2
                                 Transportation                      3.7 MMTN CO2
                                 Electricity Generation       0.0 MMTN CO2 (It's so low that it rounds out to 'Zero')
                                 Total                                         6.4 MMTN CO2            
For 2010, the USEIA ranked Texas, a leader in IWT facilities, as #1 with 251,409,188 metric tons (MTN) of CO2. Wyoming, the only state with a smaller population than Vermont, ranked #21 with 45,702,951 MTN. Idaho ranked #49 with 1,213,214 MTN. Washington D.C. actually ranked #50 with 190,742 MTN. Vermont ranked last, #51, with 8,016 MTN.
As for affordable rates, Vermont is consistently in the 'Top 10' for highest rates in the U.S.  From October 2011 to October 2012, rates mostly fell or stayed the same in the states east of the Mississippi, with three notable exceptions: Rhode Island rose by 3.5%, Michigan rose by 4.3%, and Vermont rose by 6.8%. Maybe we should rethink our 'State Energy Plan'. Conservation and thermal efficiency would make more sense for Vermont.
John M. Lewandowski                                                                                                                                    Newark, VT

Letter to the editor 
January 17, 2013
 In the debate over “Renewable Energy” in Vermont's future, one commonality seems to be, 'preserving' Vermont for 'future generations'. I'm confused by what is meant by 'future generations'. I believe, along with many others, that we should turn over to our children and grandchildren, the 'future generations', a state that is as good or better than the one left to us. One with the pristine beauty of the ridges, the pure water of our lakes, streams, etc., and all other facets of a clean and healthy environment.
 It seems that some people in the state, including many elected and appointed representatives, see 'future generations', not as children and grandchildren, but as kilowatts and megawatts, future 'electricity' generations. There are some distinct benefits to this way of thinking. We could actually blast the mountains down and make new ones out of concrete. This alone has several advantages. The footings would be in place for future industrial projects. There wouldn't be any wildlife (or their supporters) to get in the way. We could even fix God's oversight, by forming huge flat areas on 'our' mountains for industrial wind turbines (IWT). The ridges could also be made flat for roads connecting the IWTs. If God had any insight at all, He would have thought of this Himself. I guess nobody is perfect, except wind developers. Ask them. They seem to have all the answers.
Of course when all this happens, we won't need a governor anymore. There won't be any citizens to govern, just operations & maintenance personnel. Maybe Governor Shumlin could become CEO, and the other politicians could be on the Board of Directors of the 'Great Generation State of Vermont' (has a nice infrasound to it). Maybe Vermont's star on the flag can be green instead of white. Better yet, remove the star from the U.S. Flag and put it on the Canadian Flag, since most electric power in Vermont is controlled by them.
Vermont, “Preserved for Future 'Electricity' Generations”. What a Legacy!! Thank you Governor Shumlin, Senators Sanders and Leahy, Representative Welch, and all others who are instrumental in the fight to remove all life forms from the state to preserve it for 'future generations'.
Here are a few slogans they could use to get the (wrecking) ball rolling: “A Kilowatt In Every Pot”; “When Better Mountains Are Built. . . IWTs Will Be On Them”; “As American As Mom, Apple Pie, Baseball, And Industrial Wind”; “There's Something New On The Horizon. . . IWTs”; “Got Wind Turbines?”; “IWTs, The Other White Towers”; “When You Think Of Big Wind, Think Of Us”; and of course, “Pass Wind To Your Kids”.
With regards,
John M. Lewandowski
Newark, VT

In My Opinion...
This is in response to “In My Opinion...” (12/6/2012), by Jack Kenworthy, CEO of Eolian Renewable Energy, LLC.” (ERE), a wannabe wind developer based in New Hampshire. Mr. Kenworthy states that Seneca Mountain Wind, LLC. (SMW), a company formed by ERE and Nordex, an industrial wind turbine (IWT) manufacturer, “. . .will not seek to place turbines in Newark if Newark voters reject a proposal presented by SMW for an actual wind power facility.” Aside from being such a contemptuous statement, Newark has already had a petition opposing the MET tower, signed by more than half the voters. They also voted in, an amended Town Plan that prohibits industrial structures more than 125' tall above 1700' elevation by 3:1, in one of the largest voter turn-outs in Newark history.
Jack, “. . .believes that this important decision can only be fairly made once the specifics of a project are understood.” This, from someone who has stated numerous times that a majority of Vermonters support these projects. Even his underling, John Soininen, stated to the Vermont Energy Siting Commission, “. . .the clear public support that we see from the majority of Vermonters. . .” How can they know? Has SMW proposed “. . .an actual wind power facility” to the whole state so, “. . .the specifics of the project are understood?” It seems they want it both ways!
Next, Kenworthy clarifies, “. . .That the proposed MET tower in Newark will create new direct impact on just 1.1 acres of land.” This doesn't consider the destruction taking place widening the roads to the site. When he's been asked about the excavation work going on in areas that SMW leases, he more or less feigns ignorance. This is one response that even I won't dispute.
Jack then insists, “Simply installing a MET tower does not mean that a wind project will be built in the area. . .” This is true, but the only purpose of a MET tower is to determine the feasibility of a wind project that the town does not want.
His next assertion is, “. . .seek to employ a radar activated lighting system. . .” on the turbines. In talking with the FAA, I've learned that this system has been approved for all structures EXCEPT IWTs, which they are still investigating. They may very well get approval, but no date could ascertained on this decision. Hopefully, this system will be more reliable than the turbines, or no aircraft will ever be safe. Of course the lights should be powered from the Grid, so they'll also work when the wind isn't blowing!
This brings me to a favorite part of the propaganda, where SMW thanks the landowners that they're working with, for their commitment to 'all of the money', sorry, I mean 'all of the community', by keeping the land, “. . .open for recreation, including hunting, snowmobiling and hiking.” I'm sure it was an oversight that the land was posted during hunting season this year. Apparently, SMW's lawyer hadn't gotten the memo either. He refused access to someone researching 'bear habitat' at the Hawk Rock site.
The last paragraph begins, “Seneca Mountain Wind, LLC believes that a well-designed project can bring great benefits to all three towns that we are considering for this project.” In my opinion, it would be more accurate as, “. . .a well-DECEIVED project. . .benefits FROM all three towns TARGETED for this project.” He adds that wind power can provide much needed clean energy to Vermont and region; create economic development opportunities; increase tax revenues to communities; and offset energy supplied by more dangerous technologies and fuel sources. First of all, there is a glut of electricity on the regional grid, so it's not needed. Secondly, as far as clean energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Vermont is by-far the cleanest state for CO2 emissions from generation, and has been for years. For economic development, there will be ~200 construction jobs, with most from out-of-state, and probably five or less TRUE full-time permanent jobs. As for tax revenue, I'd like to know how much it would be from a 100MW conventional power plant? Lastly, not one fossil fuel power plant  in the world has been shut-down due directly to wind power. Actually, some gas fired plants have been built to back-up wind power's intermittency.
Why doesn't Mr. Kenworthy mention costs? Without Production Tax Credits, PTCs, and other incentives both state and federal, and they were unable to sell Renewable Energy Credits, RECs, wind power would cost about 4 to 5 times as much as conventional power (or more). How about reliability? No wind. . .No power!!! Take a hot Summer day with a high demand for power, and the only fans that aren't running are the 500 footers on the ridgelines! Uppermost, he fails to address the undetermined full extent of health and environmental impacts associated with industrial wind turbines worldwide.
Thank You, John M. Lewandowski
Newark, VT
I am a Newark resident, retired after nearly three decades of working in the gas and electric industry, over one-third of which was in electric generation.
Letter to the editor
November 27, 2012

The PSB (Peter Shumlin's Bullies) has once again shown that 'Public Service' has nothing to do with the 'Public Service Board' (PSB), unless of course they believe that the 'Public' they serve are the out-of-state, inept, wannabe wind developers. Seneca Mountain Wind, LLC (SMW) was formed by one of the wannabe developers, Eolian Renewable Energy, LLC, who have never installed a wind turbine anywhere, and whose world-wide headquarters is a storefront on Fleet Street in Portsmouth, N.H. teaming up with an industrial wind turbine (IWT) manufacturer, Nordex, based in Hamburg, Germany, that has a facility in Chicago called Nordex USA. SMW is in the process of applying to the PSB for a 'Certificate of Public Good' (CPG) to erect four meteorological test (MET) towers, as a precursor to a full blown (pun intended) wind factory, in the towns of Newark, Brighton, and Ferdinand, Vermont.
The PSB's application states emphatically, under the heading, 'Notice Provisions':
               “The applicant must provide written notice, at least 30 days in advance of filing the application form. . ., to the Vermont Department of Public Service, the Agency of Natural Resources, the municipal and regional planning commissions and legislative bodies of the towns where the project will be located, the landowners of record of property adjoining the project site, and the Board.”
The application was sent by SMW on April 11, 2012, and stated that the 30-day notice was sent to the Board and others on March 6, 2012. As of the middle of November, SMW had still not notified all of the adjoining landowners (their third failure to do so). When motions to Dismiss or Deem the Application Incomplete and Stay the Proceedings were filed by the town of Newark, Shumlin's Bullies' Hearing Officer, Bridgette Remington, determined that SMW has “Substantially complied with the notice requirements”. I remember trying that argument with teachers in school many years ago. I can still hear them laughing. One teacher's response to 'substantially complied with' was, “Your bridge fell down!”
Pete's Bullies also contend that section 246 only pertains to MET towers and that impending IWT's (the elephant in the room), should not be mentioned. It's like a railroad applying for a permit to lay tracks down Main Street, and the public adamantly opposing a train through the middle of town. The railroad insists that the proposal is for 'tracks', nobody said anything about trains.
Special Counsel for the Department of Public Service (DPS), Aaron Kisicki, wrote to the PSB, after reviewing SMW's preliminary response, that the DPS believes that SMW has not completed preliminary procedures, thus their application is incomplete. Since a completed application has not been submitted yet, it stands to reason that Newark's latest town plan, adopted on September 17, 2012, that prohibits industrial structures taller than 125 feet, above 1700 feet elevation, should be the prevailing plan considered by the PSB in this matter. Not so! Shumlin's Bullies' Hearing Officer, Ms. Remington, countered that the DPS had not had an opportunity to review SMW's response and therefore, “Is unable to comment on whether SMW has met its notice obligations.” I believe the Hearing Officer for Pete's  Bullies is belittling the DPS's Special Counsel by treating him like a child who didn't do all his assigned reading and therefore misspoke about the issue at hand, when in fact it sounds more like she's implying that her mind is made up, don't confuse her with the facts.
News of the PSB's decision was broadcast on the radio before Thanksgiving. Did Jack Kenworthy, CEO of Eolian, let it slip that the 'Fix Is In' with the PSB when he was asked for his comments about the PSB's latest attacks on the town of Newark, its residents, and their town plan? One of Jack's statements concluded that this delay would push the PSB's decision on the application into mid-winter, thereby causing SMW to have to wait until spring to erect the MET towers.
Now I read that an expert witness for a Newark citizens group, an 'intervener', was denied access to the proposed wind site. The request was for the purpose of gathering evidence for testimony.   SMW's attorney attacked the group for asking for the visit at the wrong time in the PSB's scheduling orders and said the PSB should require them to pay any of SMW's attorney fees and costs pertaining to the request. Pete's Bullies responded that the request for access is not a motion, “so they will take no action in response to it”. Apparently the group didn't “substantially comply.” I think, had the shoe been on the other foot and SMW had made a request (demand?), the outcome would have been different.
Everybody in the state should come to Seneca Mountain Wind's proposed wind factory site in Newark, Brighton, and Ferdinand, to see for themselves, the wanton destruction taking place on the ridgelines, with no approvals or permits being issued (I'm sorry, I forgot, access would be denied). When the developer is asked about it, they deny knowledge of any work being done for their project. I guess it's just a coincidence that the clearings and roads, on lands that they hold leases, happen to be in areas that benefit them. Shumlin's Bullies, along with some other state agencies, must fit into one of four categories. They're: 1)naive enough; 2)corrupt enough; or 3)stupid enough to believe the half-truths and outright lies of the developers, or 4)they believe that the citizens of Vermont are naive enough or stupid enough to believe them and give them the authority to destroy the well-being and beauty of the state.
Why is it that the developers with almost unlimited resources and funding, who blatantly disregard procedures are told that it's okay, or they have “substantially complied”? Then, the small towns with very limited resources and funding and part-time officials who follow procedures to the letter, crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's, are told the town doesn't have much say in the decision. It's extremely fortunate for developers to have their very own PSB. In fairness though, I strongly believe that the citizens of Vermont (the 'public') should be afforded the same courtesy of having a 'Public Service Board' representing them!! 
John M. Lewandowski
Newark, VT

Letter to the Editor
by John M. Lewandowski


The Honorable Peter Shumlin
Office of the Governor
109 State Street, Pavilion Montpelier, VT 05609

September 27, 2012

Dear Governor Shumlin,

I was delighted to meet you today at Burke Mountain and to hear that you received Newark Selectboard Chairman Michael Channon’s September 18th letter regarding Newark’s town-wide vote in which citizens overwhelmingly declared that industrial wind turbines and MET towers are unwanted in our town. 

I was further delighted to hear you repeat your campaign promise, relating it specifically to Newark.  To paraphrase, I heard you say:  “If towns do as Newark has done, and vote against industrial wind projects, I will support them in that vote.”  Thank you!

When I asked if you responded to Mr. Channon’s letter, I understood you to say that you had already instructed Commissioner Miller to notify the Public Service Board of your administration’s opposition to an industrial wind project in Newark.

We citizens of Newark have been deeply engaged, for some time, in protecting our town from being industrialized. We would benefit greatly from having written confirmation that you have instructed Commissioner Miller to inform the PSB that your administration will oppose Seneca Mountain Wind LLC’s application to construct a MET tower in Newark.

Toward the end of our conversation, I told you that we in Newark do not consider ourselves to be a “host” community; that we view ourselves as a target.  Because I live in what you today referred to as “the most beautiful part of Vermont” I am blessed with many guests.  To me, being a host is an honor.  I know I’m a host when my guests are well fed, well rested, and they leave after two or three days. I know I’m a target when folks show up uninvited with dynamite and I need a lawyer to get rid of them.

We all look forward to receiving confirmation from you, so that we can go back to enjoying autumn in the most beautiful part of Vermont.

Thank you again for your help in this matter and warm regards,

Noreen Hession
Newark, VT
THE “NON-FICTION” TRUTH ABOUT WIND POWER by John Lewandowski https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByU2Ps6TazSpMFdMeUZvZVdDalU

August 29,2012
Editor, Newport Daily Express
I am a log home dealer/builder from Newark and I am trying to save my home, my family and my business from the foul destruction proposed by a bunch of conniving wannabe wind developers from New Hampshire.
I am writing to you today to express my concerns about a reporter who writes for your paper, Jenn Hanlon. There have been a couple of articles published in your paper written by her that are full of lies and misinformation. One article published in the August 16th edition, Jenn relates to a wind power meeting in Newark (which was our Planning Board Meeting) as “raucous and out of control”. That is SO far from the truth! I was at that meeting from beginning to end with at least another sixty plus people and witnessed no such thing, not even an argument! Another article written by Jenn which was published in the August 28th edition titled, “Brighton Board schedules panel discussion on Seneca Wind Project” she submitted a photo. In that photo was myself, my neighbor (Carol Cross, whom she did not even ask her name) and a few others. She listed my neighbor Carol as my wife, Karen Santo - who was not even there.
At the Brighton Select board meeting I was given the opportunity, like anyone, to
address the Select board during the public comments portion of the agenda.The
Select board was respectful to me and willing to hear that my three building contracts had been put on hold pending the outcome of the potential industrial wind turbines. I have letters from these clients to validate this.
Jenn Hanlon was NOT even there at the start of the meeting but managed to disrupt
the whole proceeding when she arrogantly strutted into the room and demanded to be heard while she advocated for John Soininen (a rep from Eolian, the boys who have never put up any wind towers).
A pro-wind Brighton resident was referenced as complaining that a person from Newark was there trying to influence the Select board, however, let it be known that Bull Mountain and Brighton are right in my backyard. And the article fails to mention that this same pro-wind resident said nothing when Soininen, from NH started spouting lies.  Soinien came to the Select board meeting to demand that they change the date of the proposed panel discussion, even though all parties had equal time to respond, in a blatant attempt to delay the completion of the Brighton town plan. He then lied to the Select board when he stated that Newark Neighbors United had filed an injunction in Superior court demanding that information on aesthetics be admitted into the intervention process, something that the PSB is required to do but refused to do. This had NOTHING to do with the stay (permit delay). The permit was delayed because Soininen and his Eolian buddies failed to properly notify adjoining landowners of their intention to put up Met Towers prior to blowing up the ridges for their useless industrial wind turbines.
I do not mind a reporter coming to these meetings IF they are there to report the truth and facts of the subject matter. However, IF they are there because they are not happy that people do not share the same views then maybe the NDE should re-evaluate who they have write for their paper?!
Charles (Bud) Santo
Newark, VT
Dear Ms. Markowitz,

I am writing to urge you, please do *not*  issue a take (KILL) permit to First Wind which would allow them to kill little brown bats, a species endangered and threatened to near extinction by white nose syndrome (WNS).

As the director of Vermont’s Natural Resource Agency I urge you to lead ANR to advocate for our precious (and near extinct) natural resources over the short sighted goals of utility companies & industrial wind corporations.  The ANR site explains that with the WNS threat populations of Vermont’s two most common bat species – the little brown bat and the northern long-eared bat (northern myotis) – have declined over 90% in three years and are now state endangered. 

Why would we consider adding a further man-made threat to such a severely weakened population?  I'm sure you're aware the ANR mission is responsible stewardship of the natural environment for this & future generations, not to ease the path for increased profits for industry.  In fact, your web site actually asks and answers the question "How can you help Vermont's endangered bats"?  

I know one way you can help bats that should be listed on the ANR web site (and isn't): don't even consider issuing a permit which allows industry to kill them. 

If allowed this would be the first-ever "Endangered and Threatened Species Taking Permit" in Vermont  I find it amazing that First Wind has the shameless audacity to request permission to kill an endangered species.  What is the relationship between industrial wind corporations & our state agencies which would encourage such boldness?  Issuing the "take" (KILL) permit would be a dangerous & sickening precedent set by the agency entrusted to protect our natural resources. 

I am 100% aligned with the position of VCE (Vermonters for a Clean Environment) on this issue. I object to the killing of any and all bats. I do not support the issuance of a permit to "take" or KILL them. I support a zero mortality goal by shutting down the industrial wind turbines when the threat exists.  I support a zero tolerance for killing bats given the critical condition of their very existence. The state of Vermont and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources should support the same zero tolerance position.

Please deny the take permit.

Noreen Hession
Newark, VT

Destroying the Environment to Save the Environment?

Vermont has been invaded by industrial wind developers! Reporting your concerns to our elected federal officials will result in your being referred to our elected state and local officials, who will refer you to the Agency of Natural Resources, who will refer you to the Public Service Board, who will inform you that your testimony will not be considered valid unless you are a lawyer, or have a college degree in environmental science. Section 246 and 248 were obviously created to permit the developers to circumvent Act 250.

The strategy of the developers is to identify and infiltrate towns that they determine to be vulnerable to attack, because they don’t have zoning restrictions. Once they encroach on the territory, they proceed to deceive folks by convincing them that scientifically proven and documented facts regarding the negative impacts of industrial wind energy are merely misinformation, or propaganda. They dangle the carrot in front of folks who are economically desperate, with empty promises of giving them back their own money, in the form of revenue acquired from government tax credits, subsidized by taxpayers.

Their most catastrophic tactical maneuver is the execution of irreparable destruction to our irreplaceable environment, and exposing our citizens to the detrimental health effects of Wind Turbine Syndrome.

We the people of Vermont, as well as our treasured mountains, have become victims of collateral damage caused by the deceptive manipulation of corporate greed. The only thing green about industrial wind energy is what’s in the industrialist’s and developer’s bank accounts!

Recently our Governor stated that he was a big believer in local control. Local control doesn't exist under Dillon's Rule and Vermont operates under Dillon's Rule, not Home Rule, which is why the PSB operates as if it's a sovereign entity regarding decisions involving industrial wind development in our state; with no accountability to the people it’s supposed to serve.

Our governor also made a comment that: "If Vermonters feel that I made the wrong decisions, the beauty of Vermont is that every two years we get to throw the rascal out if we think they really messed this one up." With all due respect governor, Vermonters have clearly, persistently and unanimously, expressed our opposition to your decisions regarding the destruction of our ridgelines; therefore we will convey our disapproval this election year, by "throwing the rascal out."

Joan C. King
Newark, VT

Wind Developers and Politicians

I've written many "letters to the editor," never sending any, until recently. The invasion of industrial wind developers on the unspoiled ridgelines of Vermont has compelled me to follow through. This is my second letter to the editor in as many weeks.

Like 'Snake Oil Salesmen' of yore, wind developers are modern day hi-tech 'Snake Oil Businessmen'(SOB). Instead of 'Elixir', they pedal phony cure-alls for climate change and energy independence. These SOB's use half-truths and lies. The SOB says the carbon footprint is being reduced in states with 'industrial wind turbines'(IWT). They conveniently forget it's dropping in other states as well, and for the same reason, they're converting from coal to, a much cleaner burning, natural gas (sort of an 'inconvenient truth). SOB's won't tell you that power from IWTs is considered unreliable and unpredictable, and so intermittent, it's treated on the grid, more like a user than a supplier. The System Operators of the grid have to constantly 'adjust' reliable power sources to compensate for IWTs dips and surges. If the SOB's continue building IWTs, the system can run out of capacity to accommodate the variations of wind power. When this happens, more reliable power sources must be built.
I am not against renewable energy. To the contrary, I believe it will be an integral part of electric generation from now on. Each type of renewable though, needs to be sited where it will be most efficient with the least impact. Nobody would clear-cut a rain forest to install solar panel fields. Using the same reasoning and logic, the mountains of Vermont should not be destroyed for IWTs.I refer to a driving force behind SOB's bringing wind projects here as, 'Committed Renewable Energy Embracing Politicians'(CREEP). It seems that some politicians can see this wind scam for what it is, and try to slow it down, or suspend (moratorium) new projects until we can analyze the effects from the ones we already have. The CREEP's, occupying seats to the highest levels of state government, want to blindly push forward, no matter what the costs to health, environment, and the economy of Vermont. The destruction of the ridgelines is nothing short of criminal. I myself, not a native Vermonter, mistakenly cherished all of Vermont's mountains. It was brought to my attention recently that Camel's Hump and Mt. Mansfield are two of the Great Treasures of the state. I'm wondering if Gov. Shumlin, when he has time, would publish a list of our Great Treasures. This way, ignorant people like myself, would know which mountains can be destroyed and which ones must be saved. Some SOB's have suggested destroying 200 miles of our ridgelines. I sure hope the CREEP gives them a map of the ones to save.
Vermont also has three CREEPs at the federal level. Without them supporting and pushing to extend the subsidies, the SOB's wouldn't even be here. Take away the subsidies and the Accelerated Depreciation for capital investments for renewables, and the projects are no longer financially viable. An SOB told me they only get 2.2 cents/kilowatt hour(kwh) in subsidies (another half-truth). Most people look at their electric bill and see they're paying about 17 cents/kwh. This includes transmission and distribution along with generation. The IWTs are only the generation part. This summer, generation in Vermont has been as low as 3.4 cents/kwh. So 2.2 cents is about 65% of this. In comparison, nat. gas gets 0.025 cents/kwh. In simpler terms, gas gets 25 cents/megawatt hour (mwh), whereas wind gets > $22.00/mwh.

Vermont already is, and has been, the leader of clean energy in the U.S. In 2003, Vermont had the lowest CO2 emission ratio (metric tons/mwh),from generation, at 0.14. Not satisfied, in 2007, their CO2 emission ratio dropped to 0.09, the largest percentage decrease (37 percent) of any state (further distancing itself from #2 Washington state).
Maybe it's time to tell the SOBs they're not wanted or needed here. In November, we can use the voting booths to tell the CREEPs what we think of their energy agendas.

John M. Lewandowski
Newark, VT
Join the Fight

Thank you for your coverage of the Vermont Public Service Board hearing in Newark and the surrounding community’s strength and solidarity in standing up to this industrial wind project.
I note that you refer to the turbines as a wind “farm”. This is a term used by the developers to evoke a bucolic image of small turbines dotting the landscape, contributing to the essence of rural, agricultural Vermont.The reality is that the developers (not environmentalists, not farmers) have proposed 35 turbines, 400’ tall, each of which will require 500 cubic yards of cement and blasting into ledges; pristine mountaintops that are a habitat for bear, peregrine falcon, and other species will be destroyed.These are not the turbines you see on the top of Burke Mountain, on some area farms and homes, or on I-89 as you head into Burlington. The project is, in effect, an industrial power plant. And it is driven solely by greed.

Many Vermonters and others have been fooled into believing these things will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, benefit the region economically, and benefit the environment: all lies; picking out the craziest one is a tough call but perhaps  it is the lie that  they will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.There is absolutely no connection.  As a Vermonter who remembers picking up trash as a little girl on our first Green Up Day in 1970 and has since been proud of the wisdom and foresight that defines my home state, I can assure you, their environmental and economic claims are all lies.

Radio ads by Seneca Wind said those opposed to the turbines care more about their views than about their children’s future. This isn’t about “views”: this is about leaving our children either a legacy of shortsighted, money-grubbing industrial developers speeding through a process in order to cash in on government subsidies (at your expense) or leaving our children a legacy of true stewardship of the Vermont we love.

But don’t let them drive us to the point where there is some sort of embarrassment in decrying these towers as scars on the landscape of Vermont where the views are not a luxury but inherently important to our state’s heart and soul. 

You might not be all that offended by your long-distance view of  the Sheffield turbines. But imagine a roaring, humming 400’ tower with a strobe light in a place you love: Lyndonville’s bandstand park? Out your kitchen window? On the beach at Willoughby? On the Danville green? On Shelburne Bay? Crazy, right? These other proposed and ongoing projects are just as crazy. If they were good for the environment and the economy, the good folks of Shelburne would be rolling out the welcome mat:  they have the strong winds right off the lake, they have the vast expanses of flat open land…. No: the developers purposely target modest income, low population areas because they think we are pushovers.

They are learning: we are not.

It is with shame I admit to standing by and watching the Sheffield turbines go up in the misguided belief that it was a town issue and none of my business; this is in fact a statewide crisis. It is with shame I admit I did not fully educate myself on this topic until my little town was targeted. Please don’t wait until you are targeted to get involved.

Please join us in our fight to protect our region and Vermont. We will be able to look back on history, and look our children in the eyes, and know we were on the side of what is right and good.

Patricia Turner-Gill  
Newark, VT
Dear Secretary Markowitz:

I was disturbed to read the Vermont Digger article regarding the request from First Wind to obtain a bat TAKE permit for two endangered bat species and that further wind developers may also request the same.

I am a resident of the town of Newark and have experienced firsthand the accelerated decline of these critical species in our area. I have spoken with many other neighbors within my own town and other towns like Kirby that have also seen significant decreases in once thriving populations. We have already noticed increases in the insect population over the last couple of years. Bats are such an important part of the ecosystem web. We have an obligation to help defend what is left of the population then further add to their decline.

I strongly urge you to consider this as you review this permit request and also to understand the implications of approving such a request has.

To me this is no different than the responsibility we have to understand colony collapse disorder in honey bees. This is not about emotion its but what's morally right.

Allison M. Cassavechia
Newark, VT

Back moratorium for industrial wind - Noreen Hession

Irreversible harm - Elizabeth Grout

How green is it really? - Sarah Naylor

Letter sent to legislators:

I am writing to request that you reconsider your position for the 3 year moratorium on the industrial wind project.  My priority is to save one of America’s treasures.  Our land is disappearing.

I am fortunate to have my primary residence in Ipswich, Ma with a beautiful coastline and well known Cranes beach.  For our retirement, after a thorough search, we settled on the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont and found our log cabin nestled alongside a river in Newark.   I came across an article in a Yankee Magazine about the few most beautiful places of the Northeast.  One was our very own Cranes beach in Ipswich, Ma and another was also Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom. It cited Island Pond and the boreal forest where native plants, insects and butterflies have existed untouched.

Here in Ipswich our fragile acres of sand dunes, where piping plovers nest, take priority over people and development.  We realize we must preserve our treasure and do not venture onto these protected areas. We are a proud community with reverence and respect of our beautiful open spaces and coastline.   
I cannot imagine that some of the communities in Vermont, and those who represent them, would allow the destruction of this jewel of the Northeast Kingdom.  The character and majestic glory of our mountains and pristine lake areas will be gone forever.  Would it ever be considered to put wind turbines on Mt. Rushmore or along the Grand Canyon?

The Northeast Kingdom, as recognized in Yankee Magazine years ago, should be included as one of our last treasures to be protected.  Once these areas are altered they along with the birds and wildlife that exist here undisturbed, will be gone forever. Is that really acceptable to the majority of Vermonters, tourists who love and come to our area from around the world and our own representatives who could prevent this from happening to this magnificent natural last frontier known as the Northeast Kingdom?

Marilyn and Francis Healey,

Newark, VT

Dr. Irwin,
I am an RN  and have practiced nursing for many years
treating patients for respiratory ailments from exposure to materials
once thought to be of no harm. Now we are into a new frontier with
installation of inefficient wind turbines. There is documentation not
only here but in Europe of the definite ill effects. My husband is a
veteran of the Vietnam war where defoliants were used to clear the
jungle. He was diagnosed with dioxin exposure requiring extensive
treatment and both our children were born with congenital defects which
were also investigated by a group linking exposure to this chemical. In
addition to the massive destruction of one of our national treasures:
Vermont's Green Mountains, how will the foliage be kept away from these
massive roads and mountain ridges to maintain these? As our young men were 
exposed to destructive chemicals with no thought given to their future health
or generations to come, we now know the effects. 
I feel it is our duty in the medical community to protect every one of our
citizens from any harm especially when we are in a position to prevent it.           

Marilyn Healey, 
Newark, VT

Dr. Bill Irwin is the head of Radiological and Toxicological Sciences programs at the VT Dept. of Health: william.irwin@state.vt.us

Click on image to enlarge.

Vermont currently finds itself at a crossroad, both in terms of our energy policy and our identity.   There is no real argument that energy, with its connected environmental concerns, is the pivotal issue of the time.  How we choose to address this crisis is essential to our identity and future. 

Large scale industrial wind is not a positive solution for Vermont.  Superficially, it appears to satisfy a growing demand for electricity, but the real costs to the state far outweigh any advantages posited by large corporate interests that are pushing for the most extensive industrial development of the state.

The push to develop large scale industrial wind sites in the Northeast Kingdom is motivated in part by substantive government subsidies.  Without these, the projects would not be feasible.  These enormous wind turbines are the largest structures in the state, towering approximately 500 feet above the ridgelines.  Enormous roads have already been built in the once pristine areas of Lowell and Sheffield.  Importantly,  people who live in the shadows of the monsters are experiencing health problems associated with the noise and vibrations created by these enormous turbines. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/are-wind-farms-a-health-risk-us-scientist-identifies-wind-turbine-syndrome-1766254.html

Vermont is the Green Mountains, and years ago we chose not to build a highway across our ridges.  Unfortunately, the state was not so wise when it chose to build Vermont Yankee, and today we bear the burden of that decision.  We have the opportunity, and the responsibility,  to make wise decisions today concerning windtowers and other forms of energy.

I agree with Governor Shumlin that every home and business should have solar panels, and new approaches are necessary to address our dependence on oil.  Windpower does not address our dependence on petroleum, windpower produces electricity.  Our carbon footprint is increased by large coal fired generators, but wind turbines do not replace or even decrease coal consumption.  Wind is fickle, and when the wind doesn’t blow, coal power plants must remain in operation because gearing them down is too costly.  It is much simpler to turn off a water turbine, such as those on Moore Dam, which they have currently done.

Environmentally, the construction of industrial scale wind turbines destroys pristine environments and does not significantly reduce our carbon footprint.  Other solutions are available that are much less destructive and invasive, solutions that perhaps require more of us as citizens than merely finding a corporate solution to plug into the existing power grid.  Solar power does work, as do small scale local hydro turbines, and even small community-scale wind towers. 
Vermont can be an example for the country and for the world, it can provide the leadership by respecting its environment, its independent heritage, and its sense of community.  Turning the Northeast Kingdom into our own version of Appalachia, with ridgetop removal for windtowers instead of mountain top removal for coal, is ill advised, short sighted and wrong.

Lisa Grout
Newark, VT   


Perhaps the smartest thing the Derby Selectboard could have decided, was to halt talks with a wind developer.  We get bombarded with a lot of information and opinions.  Information from a developer is coming from only one idea to get what they want.

The best interests of the towns are likely contrary to the best interests of developers.

The Public Service Board has only one job, to make positive findings to give a Certificate of Public Good to an electric generation project.  Citizens who are opposed to wind power projects can be misled into thinking the PSB are our friends - nothing could be further from the truth.  For them Public Good means public needs electricity; to you it may mean you don’t want your town ruined by a wind project.

It is encouraging to hear the town of Stanstead, Quebec state their opposition to this project.  One thing to remember is the concept of, ”previously impacted”.  What this means to Derby and surrounding areas is, if you allow these two turbines, you have opened the door to many more in your future.

We were lucky to have a voice of reason in Senator Benning recently, when he called for a moratorium on Industrial Wind Power in Vermont.

It is my hope our selectboard in Newark, will take the lesson to be learned from Derby Selectboard and apply it to our town.  Right now Newark will face the prospect of being an occupied town, in essence a hostile takeover, by a corporation.  Whether Derby, Newark, Brighton, Ferdinand or the UTG’s, we should all realize it does not get better than this.  Why should we ruin our area to send electricity to Boston or Hartford, because fellow citizens that is where it will go.

Jon Day
Newark, VT

Letter to: Congressman Welch, Senator Sanders, Senator Leahey, Governor Shumlin, Lt. Governor Scott, Vermont Legislators and the Newark Selectboard

My family and I have lived in Newark, Vermont for twenty years; my three grandchildren were born here. We were drawn to the peaceful beauty of the mountains and their environs, as well as the slow-paced way of life. Vermont promised the opportunity to live life as it should be lived, in serenity and in health. We now face a tragic threat to that way of life; the destruction of the mountains that surround us and proven and documented endangerment to our wellbeing, by the onslaught of the industrial wind energy projects, encroaching on everything that makes Vermont what it is.

Our wilderness areas will lose economic value as recreational and vacation locations and tourism supported businesses will decline. I don’t believe anyone would journey to Vermont just to view the spectacle of turbine littered mountains!

It has also been internationally verified and authenticated, that industrial wind energy has relatively high operating and maintenance costs, has no meaningful impact on carbon emissions and is only as clean and renewable as the traditional power source it supplements, research also shows that industrial wind farms may in fact, have a warming effect on local climate; wasn’t the reduction of climate warming the objective for the development of wind energy?

A good portion of Vermont’s economy depends on our tourism industry; it doesn’t seem prudent to jeopardize our local, established and lucrative industry, for an industry that is unreliable and economically detrimental. Removing the green from the green mountains is not green, it’s greed.

Joan C. King
Newark, VT


Lowell Visit by Joe Arborio

On Tues. , Feb. 12th I toured the Lowell Mountain Wind project with the Govenor appointed Siting Commission, Green Mountain Power officials and the press. Our GMP guides were cordial and forthright. They answered every question asked and did not appear to dodge, evade or mislead. For instance, they admitted using carbon base power (when the turbines are not producing they use a parasitic load, drawing electricity into the turbines from the grid). GMP admit they won't know if the efforts to reduce runoff and rebuild the environmental destruction will work for a few years. We saw the entire project and they even gave us the formula to figure out how much dynamite was used in blasting for pads and roads.

The tour to look at the Industrial Wind Turbine's (IWT's) and their pads took us to the top of the Lowell Mountain Range on 16' wide roads and, at one point, we were able to see down both sides of the mountain, a 100' drop. Reaching a height of 2,600 feet above sea level I was devastated to realize both headwaters and Class A streams were buried under roads and construction pads. I found the use of Level Spreaders in controlling runoff to be no more than the placement of glorified water bars. This doesn't appear to be the solution needed to replenish aquifers that should ultimately distribute water through underground channels, creating small bogs and pools to support the ecosystem and wildlife.

The PSB has decided 30 Db. is an acceptable sound level for the inside of homes with proximity to IWT projects. To me any sound, thing or person that comes into my home day and night uninvited is unacceptable. Vermonters have a right to protect our homes and sound is as much of an intruder as someone walking through your front door at 3am.

The Lowell project is a done deal. We should not be naive enough to think they're going to tear them down. The result is a project with huge impacts on headwaters, aquifers, bear habitat, the tops of Lowell ridgelines being leveled, cuts that blasted through ledge to make roads and all for the sake of producing more electricity than can be used. It just doesn't make sense.

In my opinion the PSB should have thoroughly investigated Lowell as a proposed project. It should have included financial background checks, the true ecological impacts (not allowing nearby conserved land as a trade off for the destruction of rare ecosystems and bear scarred beech groves and the destruction/covering of headwaters) and, most important, an approved application to ISO New England acknowledging power from the proposed site would be accepted on the grid. Lowell/GMP is now faced with a 10.5 million dollar upgrade being added in the hopes it will help stabilize the unreliable power inherent in Industrial Wind turbines. Of course the 10.5 million and an additional 20 million spent on larger turbines and blades will be passed on to ratepayers.

A moratorium on IWT's is needed not for 2 or 3 years but 10 years to learn from projects like Lowell. Vermont's ridgelines are one of our most precious assets. Please don't build new wind projects because you think they're "green". They destroy bear habitat, disrupt wetlands, headwaters, violate The Clean Water Act, disrupt bat and avian migration and violate the rights of abuttors. They affect area homes and neighboring towns with unwanted sound, blinking lights and lose of property values. What, for hundreds of years, was a peaceful hike to the top of a beautiful mountain is now surrounded by NO TRESPASSING, KEEP OUTand DANGER signs. Is this how Vermont wants to be viewed?

Joe Arborio, Brighton, VT

Rademacher: $$$ blowing in the wind

Holmquist: An apology to the children for the future we are handing them

Deerfield wind project would be monstrous

Times Argus Opinions: Responses to Shumlin CAVErs Remark http://energizevermont.org/2012/11/times-argus-opinions-responses-to-shumlin-cavers-remark/


Caledonian-Record: Wind Turbines: Put ‘em Where The People Are http://energizevermont.org/2012/10/caledonian-record-wind-turbines-put-em-where-the-people-are/

Private life lost to wind

Power Politics
Part IV: Wind and Hot Air


doing good or doing well?


Wind Power, Seneca Mountains and Wildlife
By Will Staats, Wildlife Biologist
August 2012, Victory, Vermont

I live in the tiny Northeast Kingdom town of Victory. I believe in global warming and am a strong supporter of working forests. In a former career I worked in the woods cutting timber in towns all over northern and central Vermont, New York and later acted as an operations forester for Champion International. Currently I am a professional wildlife biologist by trade and a trapper and hunter by avocation. All of my life I have explored wild places in the Northeast and Canada. I have also been a strong supporter of the camps and their unique culture in the unorganized towns. I have spent a good part of my professional career working to protect high elevation habitat for wildlife and the people who enjoy these last remote places.
I am intimately familiar with the Seneca Mountain range. For over 30 years I have worked and played on this mountain range. I have tracked bucks and followed my bear hounds across its wild ridgelines. As a forester for Champion International I supervised logging crews on or near Seneca. Working for Vermont Fish and Wildlife I reviewed Act 250 applications for portions of Seneca and conducted wildlife surveys on Seneca.  Vermont’s former bear project leader, Charles Willey, and I worked with  International Paper company foresters and reserved critical beech groves on Seneca and Bull mountain for the benefit of black bears back in the early 1980’s. 
Due to the rapid increase in wind development projects in the Northeast wildlife biologists and natural resource managers are expressing growing concerns regarding this large-scale development and its impacts to sensitive habitat and the wildlife that inhabits these areas. High elevation land (2,500 ft. and higher) is a scarce resource in the northeast and is limited to approx. 3% of Vermont’s total land area. Concerns for the sensitivity of this habitat prompted Vermont to enact the tough development law, Act 250, which requires a permit for any activity occurring above 2,500 ft. including timber harvesting.
Wildlife is impacted by industrial wind power development at both the landscape scale and the stand level. Impacts are dependent on the wildlife species, location of the ridgeline and the greater landscape context. At a stand level forest cover is removed and permanently lost for some species due to the project footprint.  Important wetlands can be compromised or lost in construction and seeps and feeder streams are directly impacted. For birds and bats turbines pose a new source of mortality in these habitats. At a landscape level habitat connectivity and resiliency across the forest landscape may be compromised depending on the scale of the project and its context within the surrounding forestland.
Terrestrial wildlife that use these habitats include those species found commonly at lower elevations but also species that are found more exclusively at these higher altitudes. The softwood and mixed wood cover with its associated complex stand structure are preferred by the American Marten, a species state listed as endangered in Vermont. High elevation forests can provide stands in older, aged condition interspersed with natural gaps. Some wildlife use mountain ridgelines as a refuge to escape the more developed areas at lower elevations. The mountain ridges may be the only undeveloped areas on a landscape and serve as critical corridors for wide ranging species including bobcat, lynx, bears, fishers and marten. These animals exist more successfully with less human contact. One of the more rare birds in the northeast, the Bicknell’s Thrush, resides exclusively in high elevation forests.
Bat mortalities due to wind turbines are particularly alarming. Some scientists consider that the impacts of wind energy will pose a chronic long-term source of mortality for bats and that this loss will equate to a significant economic loss to agriculture. With several species of bats on the verge of extinction we can ill-afford to lose any at all.  Migrating birds are killed at these sites from blade strikes, although some would argue the numbers are insignificant but that would depend on the species.
Many unanswered questions exist regarding the impacts of wind development to wildlife in these sensitive habitats that will take years to more fully understand. How does increased human presence influence the use by wildlife in these habitats? What residual impacts are there to forest vegetation
growing along roads and the project footprint over time? How do the dynamics of predator and prey change due to the edge effects of road cuts and hard-packed snow roads in the winter months. We know that wildlife have hearing far more sensitive than humans. How is the noise impacting the ability of wildlife to communicate, hunt or breed?

It will be essential for resource managers and clean energy advocates to allow on-going wildlife studies to be fully analyzed before committing to further industrial scale projects on additional ridgelines. These studies need to look more broadly. Renowned wildlife ecologist, Susan Morse, founder of the Keeping Track organization, has made the case that we need to evaluate the cumulative impacts of these projects in the broader landscape context instead of looking at each project in isolation. Biologists understand that it is critical to evaluate the importance of providing connectivity for wildlife across the greater landscape to ensure genetic exchange and access to habitat resources. Industrial scale wind projects that sprawl across miles of undeveloped ridgelines may be fragmenting important forest habitat far greater than we now realize.

Seneca is particularly vulnerable to impacts from wind turbine development. Notably the topographic configuration of the Seneca ridgeline is problematic due to its narrow profile. Additionally the upper ridgeline of Seneca is where some of the best high elevation habitat is currently found. The forest on the summit of North Seneca is older-aged spruce and fir with an abundance of logs and snags wildlife biologists would describe as a complex structure. Some of the biggest balsam fir trees I have seen in the northeast are found growing on or close to the Seneca summit. This habitat is excellent for the state-endangered American  Marten, which I have documented on the mountain numerous times. It’s important from a landscape context given that currently much of the forest at lower elevations is in a younger-aged condition.  Canada lynx have recently been identified in the Nulhegan Basin. For this pioneering lynx population to have any chance at expansion the ridgeline of the Senecas will prove to be a critical travel corridor and core habitat for these reclusive animals.

I am also seriously concerned about the fragile soils, wetlands and streams found on Seneca. When International Paper first built the logging roads on the flank of Seneca they had serious erosion issues, including a massive landslide resulting in the road collapsing into Murphy Brook. This was investigated by Vermont fish and Wildlife who had serious concerns about damage to the native brook trout population found in this pristine high mountain stream.

Any road and pad construction associated with a wind turbine project on Seneca will span most of its ridgeline and eliminate a large share of the older-aged habitat. The road and project footprints of a large- scale wind development can only be appreciated if seen firsthand. The time to look is before the project is built, to really see and understand what will be lost. Having worked, explored, trapped and hunted dozens of mountains throughout the northeast I count Seneca as one of the premier mountain ranges and consider it a centerpiece for wild lands here in the Northeast Kingdom.

As these projects, like Seneca, continue to be proposed we have to seriously question the tradeoffs. Unquestionably wildlife biologists and ecologists are alarmed about global warming and understand the need for sensible, responsible renewable power. However, given the scarcity and fragility of high elevation habitat we need to question if these limited mountain ecosystems should even be considered at all as a choice for this type of intrusive development. As our wild lands continue to disappear at an alarming rate through a “death by a thousand cuts” we have to ask ourselves where will our wildlife reside in this ever- shrinking natural landscape?

So, in my humble view, we have a clear choice. Long after the current land owner and I are gone Seneca will remain. We have to ask ourselves how we will pass this great mountain range to the next generation? Do our descendents inherit this mountain complex as an intact, functioning, healthy ecosystem that supports a unique assemblage of wildlife species and remains part of a bigger protected landscape that Vermonters worked so hard to conserve? Or do we leave behind a Seneca dominated by huge roads, massive machines and throbbing red lights where the solitude of the mountain ridgeline forest so crucial for wildlife is gone forever?

Holland: What I couldn’t say in the courtroom

Who does ridgeline wind really benefit?

Make wind a legislative issue

Big wind distraction from real solutions

Industrial wind and environment

What is lost on Lowell Mountain

Bird Genocide at wind sites

An open letter Deb Markowitz

I am writing to urge you not to issue a take permit to First Wind allowing them to kill endangered bats already threatened, to near extinction, by white-nose syndrome.

These bat species are far more important than First Wind's profits. There's presently a glut of generation in New England and First Wind's intermittent power does nothing more than add to the surplus on the grid. The MOU First Wind agreed to with the ANR was made a condition of the CPG granted by the PSB. First Wind agreed to curtailment during low wind speeds at certain temperatures and now seems to be complaining that such curtailment won't be profitable. Too bad for them.

I find it hard to believe that the Sheffield turbines have killed only three bats. How many birds and raptors have they killed already? Is the ANR simply taking First Wind's word about this? Will the public ever be told the truth about bird and bat mortality in Sheffield, Lowell, Georgia Mtn. and other sites that ANR has permitted?
We need the bats more than these useless turbines and First Wind's subsidized profits. Will the legacy of the ANR under your reign and the Shumlim administration's energy policy be the extinction of bats for the sake of unneeded, environmentally destructive industrial wind and profits for corrupt wind developers?

There are known peregrine falcon nesting sites on Wheeler Mtn., less than two miles from the Sheffield turbines, and there have been numerous sightings of raptors, including Golden and Bald eagles, kestrels, owls, hawks, etc in the area around Sheffield as well as Lowell, Newark,Brighton, Ferdinand, and Georgia Mtn. It would be shameful for the ANR to permit the inevitable slaughter of these species for the sake of profits from generation of power that we don't even need.

Please deny the take permit and enforce the MBTA as well.

Rob Pforzheimer
Sutton, VT

No free passes for industrial wind

No double standard for wind http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120516/OPINION03/705169939/1018/OPINION

Getting out of Reunion’s grip http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120718/OPINION03/707189963

Who is protecting us?

Thanks for taking a stand 

Thanks, but no thanks

Grandpa’s Knob project based on deception http://grandpasknobwind.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/grandpas-knob-project-based-on-deception/

The sound of wind towers http://www.timesargus.com/article/20120504/OPINION02/705049979/

Industrial wind is not green http://www.timesargus.com/article/20120605/OPINION02/706059957/0/BUSINESS


  1. Joan,

    Kudos to you for a very well versed letter!!! We all need to send in more like this and bombard the offices with what WE THE PEOPLE want...it's not what the PSB wants. At least that is not how it's supposed to be.

  2. I think the NEK was blessed by Jay Peak Bill Stenger buying Burke Mountain. The NEK is for tourism they come here for the BEAUTY of the NEK do you really think when you get to the top of Burke Mountain via ski's, biking, hiking they really want to see the WIND TURBINES. I think they will come up once and never come back. I bought my home in Newark for the BEAUTY of what is all around me!!!
    Michele Newark

  3. I Am a resident of Newark and think that although this may be something of importance to the long term residents of the town I can't help but wonder if this would be of such intrest to people if these wind towers were "invisible". I f we could not see them would people really care so much. There are a lot of enviornmental hazards that we surround our selves with each day ex.  Cell phones, microwaves, and computers etc... I wonder if the people claiming all these negative health effects own any of these items. And if so, what makes these wind towers different as far as the health impacts are concerned. The only conclusion I can come to is that there is a whole lot of NIMBY going through the kingdom! I think we really need to get out of the mindset that we are different or separate from the rest of the world just because we have the privilege of living in this wonderful town, and I want to caution people of this false sense  of security because in the grand scheme of things we are very much a part of the big picture! We are affected and we do affect the rest of the world. 

    1. Anonymous:
      With all due respect, they aren't "invisible", therefore folks do care.
      The difference between the health hazards that you mention and the health effects caused by the wind turbines is that the users of cell phones etc., choose to use them, whereas those who are exposed to the health impacts from the wind installations, don't.
      In reply to your statement that people are claiming to suffer from health problems caused by the wind turbines, I would point out that they have been proven and documented by scientists and qualified health care providers.
      Your opinion regarding "nimbyism" is just that, an opinion. The protests are international, national, statewide, and local; that is quite an enormous backyard! I disagree that folks who live in Newark take our "privileged" existence for granted, or suffer from a "false sense of security", and we certainly are aware of being a part of the "big picture", which is what we are visualizing when we realize that there are other alternative energy resources that are not detrimental to health, or environment. Destroying an irreplaceable environment is certainly not green.