Wind farm discussion

WHEN I first wrote about the proposed Linton wind farm I stated that I wanted to reopen discussion, giving my reasons for doing so, and in this certainly seem to have succeeded. I am in favour of renewable energy in general, including wind power, but I am

WHEN I first wrote about the proposed Linton wind farm I stated that I wanted to reopen discussion, giving my reasons for doing so, and in this certainly seem to have succeeded.

I am in favour of renewable energy in general, including wind power, but I am not willing to be cast in the role of apologist for Linton Wind Farm; I am happy to see what evidence emerges from the planning process and whatever follows, and if there is compelling local evidence against the proposal I will accept that.

What has become evident from the responses to my letters is that there is considerable antipathy towards and prejudice against the idea of renewable energy (which comprises more than Mr Rumble mentions, and includes energy efficiency), but I think we have smoked out the hidden agenda, viz nuclear power. For Mr Rumble's benefit, I did not mention mutation whatsoever, but I will mention that 4000 people so far have died as a result of the Chernobyl incident.

Mr Rumble further says that we should not credit something merely because "scientists say", then tells us that he is just that, a scientist! I will follow his dictum.

As the planning application seems imminent and as I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of support for my position, and hurt by the vituperative nature of the opposition, I will write no more on this subject for the time being.

George Hannah, Hyll Close, Great Chesterford