Wind supporters must deal ‘real’ facts

To the editor:
    A guest column pertaining to wind development was recently provided to the Bangor Daily News (March 2, “Wind power has already created new jobs, revenues”) by Paul Williamson, coordinator for the Maine Wind Industry Initiative. He cited “misinformation” put forth by critics, offering the “facts” to the Maine people. Unfortunately, his submission represents an opinion-based article, largely devoid of indisputable facts, written by a highly biased voice with vested interests.
    Propaganda, more resembling paid advertising than public information, is the modus operandi of this industry. Cursory dismissal of any opposition is followed by talking points. Critical dialogue is avoided, instead discussion is centered around a public relations campaign with no acknowledgement of adverse impact to those in proximity.
    Williamson writes, “… opponents cite adverse health effect studies which have absolutely no acceptance in the medical field in Maine.” He references a link to the Maine CDC as verification. The Maine CDC has repeatedly ignored pleas from within the “medical field in Maine”, as well as numerous international studies demonstrating adverse impact, instead relying solely on outdated, and industry sponsored, data.
    Stetson I is credited with adding $50 million to Maine’s economy through direct spending and job creation — jobs almost entirely funded by the government — your taxes. Stetson I received $40.4 million in federal grant money, simply for completion.
    He cites the need for wind development to lure turbine manufacturing jobs. His rationale, as stated, is that “regional demand” must be created to attract these industries. Manufacturing jobs migrate to industry-friendly locations, a reputation Maine has not attained. Turbine installations will not create that atmosphere. Yet another red herring.
    Williamson, and other proponents of wind development, need to abandon obfuscation and address the “real” facts, including those that prove inconvenient to their agendas. While there is a need to update our energy policies, a rush to embrace wind as the answer has disregarded sound public policy and legitimate debate. The most vociferous supporters are often those benefiting directly. Every citizen of this state should become familiar with not just the issue, but the interests of those promoting it.
Brian Raynes
Oakfield