Gordon Mason and Peter Shearer have written damning letters about the environmental impacts of wind farms in the June issue. One needs to note the following facts:

a) There have been no official complaints about noise from the
Wairarapa wind farm

b) Public acceptance of wind farms is high in the UK and Europe, based on opinion surveys of residents living near them. See the surveys reported in the following web-site, http://www.bwea.com/26survey.htm. A typical example is the case of Delabole wind farm over the period 1990/92 (before and after development): "the attitudes
of residents living in the area of the wind farm changed significantly in the period between the two surveys, becoming more favourable towards the use of wind energy (e.g. 90% of those who changed their minds did so in favour of wind energy). The response to the question 'In general do you disapprove or approve of wind power?' was 84.6% approve (40.1% approve strongly, 44.5% approve), 11.4% were not sure and 4% disapprove (3.3% disapprove, 0.7% disapprove strongly)." More recent surveys confirm the same sort of trend.

c) 5-6000 turbines spread throughout NZ would generate about 25-30% of NZ power needs, not 10%. For comparison there are about 5,000 turbines in a 15 km square, 80 km east of San Francisco. There are 1,000,000 houses in NZ, 20,000 power pylons, etc.

d) As a member of the relevant Standards committee I can assure readers that the new wind turbine sound standard is no longer a draft and is absolutely not a clone of foreign standards, far from it - NZS 6808 is a one-off drafted especially for NZ circumstances.

With respect to noise, it really should be a non-issue as one is unlikely to hear a wind farm above the background sound at distances above 300 m. And if the windmills do happen to be audible, this does not mean that the sound is necessarily objectionable. Wellingtonians only have to visit the Brooklyn turbine when it is running and stand beneath it to appreciate this. In the case of the Wairarapa farmer who can hear the turbines 2.4 km away, there are special acoustic circumstances, both with respect to the electro-mechanical source of the sound and its transmission downwind to his house in marginal wind conditions when the windmills are still running on their hilltop site but it is almost calm at his house. The important thing to remember is that he has not found it sufficiently objectionable to complain about it.

With respect to visual impact, this is undoubtedly a real and unavoidable environmental issue. Being such a subjective matter, the only objective statements one can make must be based on opinion surveys, as mentioned above. The fact is, most people like the look of them and are happy to have more development once they have got used to them in their area. Can one say the same of power pylons or casinos? I think not. Now, I am not saying that wind farms should be put up everywhere. Pristine wilderness should be left unmodified as far as possible, national parks being an obvious example.

Is Quartz Hill, historically a site for radio masts, such a valuable landscape? It is certainly not a "natural wilderness area". Of course the opinion of the locals is what matters. But the debate, which should really be held in front of the local planning authority, needs to be in terms of the aesthetic impact of the windmills and the inherent values of the existing landscape. Peter Shearer's emotive language "...desecrating skylines ..." is totally foreign to my own experience of modern windmills in a modified rural landscape, and would hopefully get short shrift in a planning hearing.

I would question whether Gordon Mason and Peter Shearer represent the majority of Makara residents. If the majority of the locals are well-informed about the real impacts and still want to halt this environmentally beneficial project, then fair enough, I am not for "progress at all costs". But, based on overseas experience, I believe that the silent majority of Makara residents would actually approve of the project, if it is ever built.

Geoff Henderson, Christchurch

Genetic engineering article amusing

With regards to "Politics & Science - Genetic Engineering" in the April issue, I find a number of items amusing.