Letter: Peru turbines pose too high a risk
To the editor of THE EAGLE:
I’ve worked in the biopharmaceutical industry for 30-plus years and have had the good fortune to bring a number of significant new drugs to the marketplace. During that time, I’ve engaged in research and business development activities but have spent the majority of my career in R&D project management using principles of risk management to advance new drugs from the bench to the clinic and eventually to the pharmacy and patient. I’ve instructed on principles of risk management and delivered lectures on this topic at professional conferences.
Risk assessment and risk mitigation are issues that need to be seriously weighed before a decision is made on the pending Lightship Energy application. In my opinion, the risks to the health of families and individuals in proximity to the proposed turbines have not been adequately or well studied. The degree of controversy is acknowledged and should be cause enough to deny Lightship’s application by Peru’s Zoning Board of Appeals. The potential downside to allowing the installation of turbines of this magnitude far exceeds the benefits.
Recent reports of fines assessed to wind energy companies for the deaths of protected birds have appeared in the New York Times. The Boston Globe reported that Falmouth’s turbines need to limit operation because of the reported health effects to individuals located near the turbines. These issues concern me, my family and neighbors.
The writer is development director at Pfizer Inc.
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.