To the editor:

I am extremely opposed to the location of the 300-foot, high wind turbine at the Mark Richey property, 49 Parker St. I am not opposed to alternative energy but, just as the discovery of X-rays had everyone getting new "pictures" taken, to later discover the ramifications of incorrect use of this technology, we cannot build enormous hazardous turbines in such close vicinity to habitable structures industrial and residential.

The lack of public information and education regarding the potential installation of turbine structures in our community is alarming. We must have the opportunity to educate ourselves regarding this alternative energy and learn from communities that are living with the results of these structures every day. Turbine structures are not sedentary like cell towers, but have large moving propeller blades, are an additional 100 feet taller than cell towers, have a "nacelle" (unit on top containing mechanics and hydraulic fluid), and have enormous propellers rotating around. There is much evidence of failure; propellers sheering off, nacelles catching fire (which can contain up to 200 gallons of hydraulic oil), towers falling over, ice thrown from propeller blades and a documented case a structure "blew apart" and sent pieces flying.

People I have talked to are not aware that a turbine may be installed in their community. As I discuss the subject further, the response is, "Oh, like the ones on Cider Hill Farm." This is evidence of the misconception and lack of information regarding turbines. The windmills at Cider Hill are 85 feet (less than one-third the size of a turbine), windmills do not have a strobe as required for the turbine for FAA requirements, and Cider Hill has "windmills," not "propeller-driven turbines," propellers alone measuring 78 feet (nearly the height of a windmill).

The ordinance amended on April 28 (http://www.cityofnewburyport.com/Planning/) "to accommodate commercial distributed generation, wind energy conversion facilities" needs to allow for public input regarding the setbacks be reconsidered for public safety. Currently the setbacks require the structure to be 150 feet from any property line and three times the "hub" height from a "residential" structure. Specifying "residential" structure allows the structure to be within the blade length (78 feet) to an "industrial" structure. The MetroRock facility is next to the turbine location. What about the ramifications should failure occur during a child's birthday party? The ordinance needs to have the setbacks reconsidered for public safety.

I encourage everyone to understand the impact of a wind turbine structure so close to industrial and residential structures; http://www.windaction.org/. http://www.windwise.org. Also the more subtle effects of noise (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5978741) and shadows and flicker cast by the enormous propellers. Quoted in a letter from Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, Jan. 15, Ken and Janet Tacy: "Based on my 31âÑ2 years of research it is my strong clinical recommendation (that industrial wind turbines be sited a minimum of 11âÑ2 miles away from homes, schools, hospitals, places of business and anywhere else people regularly congregate."

Please contact your local official and express your concern about the size and location of such structures in our community.

Jacky Kieras

Newburyport