Falmouth Enterprise – LTE 3/29/11

Wants Article 8 Approved – Letter to Editor

Falmouth Enterprise – 3/29/11

Town Meeting has been witness to many wind turbine items dating back to 2006. Then, with great expectation and satisfaction, Falmouth stood to be a New England example. We, including myself, were eager to be host to the largest wind turbine in all the region.

Now, with the projects under- way, a review is in order. What of the project predictions versus realities?

The example set by Falmouth has inspired other Cape towns. Last November the Cape Cod Commission presented minimum performance standards for industrial wind turbines to the County Assembly of Delegates. The delegates rejected them. The assembly wanted more public protection. Wind 1 has been in operation for over a year, and the Webb-Notus Clean Energy turbine for nine months. The meeting members are being asked to mandate a time-out, because predictions have not been accurate. Falmouth may have been sold a bad bill of goods? Article 8 allows the town time to investigate unanticipated defects and to devise assurances for their correction.

Not everyone in town is in agreement. There are those in town fixated on the prediction and the reality that these turbines are “cash cows.” I don’t debate that.

Here’s an analogy. Even if a new car you bought got better than expected MPG, you’d definitely bring it back to the dealer, under warranty, if the A/C, the radio, the CD changer, the electric seats and side mirrors didn’t work. The car was bought expecting good gas mileage as well as properly operating creature comforts.

The health and well-being accessories of wind energy generation are essential parts of the deal too. The controversy extends beyond Falmouth, into the halls of experts and researchers in the wind industry. They, too, are in disagreement as to health effects and impact.

I, as a taxpayer, am trying to see the bigger picture. I can’t seem to equate a financial gain with seeing my wife and our lives being slowly destroyed. I can’t get past the thought of an amount of money that could make hurting people acceptable. The adoption of Article 8 provides a needed layer of regulatory investigation and oversight for any wind turbine installation in Falmouth.

The current bylaws are obviously fl awed. Time is necessary to sort through health effects and to eliminate current conflict of interest. Falmouth must allow time to evaluate these huge projects from a safety, rather than a monetary, perspective. Falmouth

needs to evaluate the turbine predictions, the whole deal.

The adoption of Article 8 will provide public debate and input, a discovery process and hopefully a package of provisions aimed at preventing harm that currently does not exist. We need time to get some rationality, and bring some integrity back into the process of siting wind turbines in Falmouth.

I can honestly say that there is too much scientific uncertainty and not enough researchable proof not to impose a moratorium. Wind 1 and the Webb turbine have caused compromises in health and quality of life for your neighbors.

The bottom line to all of this: Public safety is non-negotiable and is the primary requirement which guides all (and all means all) projects. Arguments to oppose the adoption of Article 8 serve only to reduce this principle of society.

I urge the members, don’t dilute the priority due public safety. Adopt Article 8 as written.

Mark J. Cool