Reasonable’ people don’t want turbines in our area

To the editor:

Thanks to The Sentinel for printing several letters to the editor responding to a “Wind farm developer’s request for the public to let ‘reason’ be your guide.” The same day that the aforementioned letter to the editor appeared, Charles Deibert “reasonably” warned, in his letter to the editor, about long-term exposure to infra-sound which causes sleep disturbances for some who live too close to operating wind turbines.

Later, Randy Sheaffer’s letter to the editor contained detailed specifics about wind turbine syndrome that should cause concern for “reasonable” people who might one day find themselves living too close to wind turbines. In Mr. Sheaffer’s letter, many authorities who have studied the effects of low frequency noise on people were named and quoted. A lengthy list of symptoms was given that can result when the inner ear or other delicate sensors of balance, motion and direction throughout the body are traumatized by low frequency noise or vibrations.

After reading these and other responses to the wind developer, the “reasonable” conclusion for community planners should be to institute local ordinances that have suitable setbacks or separations of turbines from people. Dr. Nina Pierpont, who has studied wind turbine syndrome for years, recommends 2- to 3-mile setbacks for a mountainous terrain like Big Valley.

Dr. Pierpont observes that, for years, the wind industry has been using people who live too close to wind turbines as “guinea pigs.” First, the wind developer downplays any ill health effects from the noise and vibration of the turbines. Then, anyone who has signed any sort of contract with the wind company is legally prohibited from complaining or suing, even if they experience health or other negative effects from the turbine noise and vibration. No “reasonable” person likes to see animals used as “guinea pigs”, much less human beings.

For almost 35 years U.S. taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on wind energy; however, as of 2013, the wind industry claims to have produced only 4.3 percent of U.S. electricity. That means the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries produced 95.7 percent of our electric energy supply. In his letter to the editor, the wind developer tried to defend receiving taxpayer money for each unit of electricity that wind produces. He called wind an “emerging industry” – even after 35 years of taxpayer subsidies and so little electricity production?

In contrast, the negative impact of industrial wind turbines is well documented. One can “reasonably” conclude that our proven energy producers (the 95.7 percent) should be encouraged by our government and not threatened as the coal industry has been. Also, if our proven energy producers diminish, we are “reasonably” guaranteed, not only higher electricity prices, but we will also have less electricity available than we currently have. In countries around the world that use wind energy to produce electricity, extremely high utility rates and frequent power outages are not uncommon. Do “reasonable” Americans want that?

After reading all the letters to the editor on wind turbines, before and since the wind developer’s letter, readers can “reasonably” conclude that the wind developer’s letter makes little or no sense to “reasonable” people.

Nancy Wert


Editor’s note: A Google search for “Dr. Nina Pierpont Wind Turbine Syndrome Report” reveals a wealth of information, both from sources that support her views and from others that say her credibility on the matter is questionable. We encourage our readers to conduct a similar online search to become more informed on the issue and draw their own conclusions.