To the editor:
I want to thank The Salem News for its coverage of developments around the proposed wind turbine on Winter Island, and for its poll on this, where I proudly voted yes — yes, Winter Island is the right place for a wind turbine. I am confident concerns can be dealt with, and that technologies have advanced to the point that quiet, safe functioning is attainable.

To the editor:
In his Aug. 5 letter about the proposed wind turbine for Winter Island, former Mayor Salvo wrote, "many migrating birds will be killed by the blades of the turbine." This is a distressing thought, but I believe I can set Mr. Salvo's mind at ease in this regard. As a graduate student studying Environmental Management at Harvard Extension School, I learned that the myth of turbines killing birds was largely caused by the Altamont Pass wind farm, built in California in 1981. Altamont's turbines were completely different than those built today. They were shaped more like egg beaters, with vertical blades reaching close to the ground, and were spaced close together. Turbine design has improved greatly since then, and by 2006 the average turbine outside California was likely to cause only an average of 1.83 total bird deaths per year. To put this in perspective (if even one bird death sounds like too many), this is only 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent of all U.S. bird deaths caused by collisions with man-made structures—far below cell phone towers and glass buildings.

To the editor:
The recent hearing on wind power in Salem was fraught with differences. Anger was in the air. The not-in-my-backyard crowd was there in full force. While understandably they opposed unsightly whirring turbines out their windows, Salem is about to lose a substantial tax rate from a local coal-fired power plant. I hear of no alternative from the opposition. The message was just no wind power in my backyard.

If wind power is not a satisfactory replacement in the community with a diminished tax base then the question should be put to them what is their alternative that could benefit the community as a whole?

The point I make as an air breather and clean-environment seeker is to maintain a policy of possible trade-offs when up against strong obstructionists. It should be put to them what's their alternative that would benefit the community as a whole. This presses them to find a response and keeps them on the defensive repeatedly. This scheme may not always succeed but I believe it is a good policy for the long run.