Sir - As predicted, the Chelker wind turbine saga blows on; there is, however, a very real human side to this which needs to be addressed in terms of the effect these turbines have on the health of the closest residents.

There are now several serious studies which show quite clearly that placing turbines too close to homes can have a severe detrimental effect on the health of these residents. These turbines are huge industrial structures with high voltage electrical components and moving parts. The rotor size at Chelker is going to be 90 meters in diameter, larger than the length of a jumbo jet, placed virtually on top of homes. The potential consequences are all too frightening.

The danger to health comes from both audible and low frequency noise, both denied by the developers. The low frequency noise has the capacity to travel large distances and to permeate buildings quite easily, thus affecting the lives of the people living and working in these buildings.

Both audible and low frequency noise produce symptoms including migraines, dizziness, nausea, tinnitus, stress and sleeplessness; these symptoms have a knock-on effect on daily lives, causing poor concentration and inability to cope. If subjected to this unwanted noise over a long period of time the consequences can become extremely serious.

Children and old people, as always, are the most vulnerable. No child should be deliberately deprived of the right to a healthy childhood. We believe these turbines take away that right and place them, and other residents who are too close to them, in danger.

The guidelines on the distance from homes have still not caught up with the size of these industrial turbines, therefore there is no buffer zone set down to protect anyone living close by.

Many countries are aware of these problems and recommend buffer zones of 1-2km. The closest home at Chelker will be 318 meters distance, the garden 260 meters – five times less than these recommended distances.

Most of us here at Chelker have lived with the existing turbines for the last 17 years so we can hardly be regarded as “nimbys”, but the prospect of having these industrial-sized monsters placed over our heads with the unrelenting noise and health consequences quite simply terrifies us.

Place turbines away from people and dwellings and there is no problem, place them too close and we replace one environmental problem with another.

C Leigh (and the Residents of East Berwick), East Berwick Farm, Draughton

Object, please

Sir - There are many arguments for and against industrial-sized wind turbines, those who argue for usually having a significant financial or political commitment such as power companies, the BWEA (British Wind Energy Authority), the Government and some extreme “greens”.

One argument for is often the number of homes supplied with electricity. Indeed, Sandy Tod (Letters, September 12) suggests the proposed turbines for Brightenber Hill will supply the needs of all Settle and Skipton.

The average output from Brightenber will be about 3 Mw; the number of homes supplied 7,000 – so about half a kilowatt per home on average. Now, that may be the average consumption of a typical UK home over a year, but note that your average single bar electric fire uses 1Kw, kettle 3Kw, cooker ring 3Kw, water heater another 3Kw. So, when you come home for your tea you could well be trying to use well in excess of 10Kw!

If the wind is blowing at the right speed, you may just get that out of Brightenber. More likely, the available power will be near the average or less. So, will you do without power for those long, cold, calm, winter days? I doubt it. And where will your power come from? Drax or similar, of course, which will have been “sat” there, powered up, spewing out CO2, just waiting for the wind to drop. (Such power stations cannot be just “switched on”.) On the other hand, if the money squandered on wind power had been spent on developing CO2 capture and other means of reducing CO2 production, far less greenhouse gas would now be being produced.

To supply power on demand, every wind turbine has to be backed up, virtually fully, by conventional power stations. With current designs (except for nuclear power) that means they are producing near the same level of CO2 that would be produced were there no wind turbines!

Mr Tod also refers to the costs on our bills and makes the profound implication that wind power adds nothing to them.

Admittedly, the means of subsidy (mainly ROCs) is exceedingly complicated and there are widely differing estimates as to how much is being added to our bills. Best estimates seem to be £40 to £100 a year per household, increasing – possibly significantly – year on year. I have never before seen a figure of zero, even from staunch supporters such as BWEA. (Of course, the Government does not see the money as tax or subsidy but, whatever it is called, power companies are “obliged” to add the money to our bills). Whatever the charge, to imply turbines add nothing to our bills is profoundly misleading.

There is much, much more in the many arguments against wind turbines – please do your own research and then object, specifically against Brightenber which is, when all said and done, in our own back yard! The deadline for objection is September 30 and there is no right of appeal if passed.

Liz and Terry Goodison, Crosshills Road, Lothersdale

Call this a farm?

Sir - Re the application for a wind farm at Brightenber Hill, near Bank Newton, Skipton.

The word “farm” is somewhat of a misnomer, suggesting something in affinity with the countryside in which it stands.

This is anything but, and constitutes the industrialisation of the landscape, with five huge wind turbines at a height of 100 metres each, placed in the beautiful landscape at the very heart of the unique Gargrave drumlin field.

I understand that there are now well in excess of 1,100 objections to this application, including all the local parish councils and the West Craven Committee of Pendle Borough Council. If the word “democracy” means anything, then the Craven District Council planning committee should accept the views of the people they represent and reject this application when it comes before them.

The electorate in this and surrounding areas is emphatically opposed to the potential monstrous intrusion into this special landscape, which the planning system has always protected.

More countryside such as this in Craven cannot be created ever again – this is all we have. It is a privilege to be able to enjoy its unspoilt beauty and we should make sure it is preserved and protected from such an unwelcome development. It is indeed ironic that the planners should be put into the position of having to decide on an application to destroy the scene which Craven District Council uses as its logo on road signs, letter headings, wheelie bins and advertising literature to attract tourism!

Jennifer B Bryan, Croft House, West Marton

Green blinkers

Sir - Sandy Tod of Malhamdale Renewable Energy Group (Letters, September 12) seems to have a rather strange view of going green in suggesting that if local walkers, riders, cyclists and others find their local countryside blighted by the Brightenber wind farm they have four national parks they can visit “within an hour’s drive”.

How exactly does driving well over 100 miles on a round trip to the Lakes or North York Moors every time they fancy a stroll, instead of walking locally, help the environment? And especially at the speeds required to get there within an hour?

Environmentalists are often accused of viewing the world through green-tinted spectacles, but this seems to be more a case of green blinkers.

Terry Fletcher, The Old Corn Mill, Glusburn

Beating the system

Sir - I see from the article last Friday that the would-be windfarm developer, EnergieKontor, has pledged to donate £20,000 a year to the local community – if it gets planning permission. So that’s how the system works is it ?

John Henderson, Kelber Farm, Coniston Cold

Sitting on funds

Sir - Re your article on September 12 regarding the £1m fund that Airedale NHS trust has in the hospital’s charitable trust, we find it disgraceful that they are sat on so much money and yet are still sending people to Bradford for out-of-hours oncology care.

People who raise money and donate money to the hospital want it spending for the good of the patients. Not sat in some bank somewhere.

Do the people who sit on this fund’s sub-committee get paid a wage or allowances?

We note that Sally Houghton, who chairs the sub-committee, is asking people to submit ideas on how to spend the money. I suggest she talks to patients, talks to groups like ours, looks at the minutes of the hospital user group to see where the hospital has shortfalls.

It beggars belief that we are campaigning to keep cancer patients at Airedale and not send them to Bradford. We want Airedale to continue improving services for cancer patients. Spend some of this money!

Where is the sense of decency in all this?

Sally Lambert, Chairman of Barnoldswick and Earby Bosom Friends, East View Terrace, Barnoldswick

Staying near home

Sir - For some time now, the Oncology Unit at Airedale General Hospital has been delivering an excellent service to the people of Craven and East Lancashire.

Anyone receiving chemotherapy who has a raised temperature or other health worries must contact the unit and, if necessary, be examined and admitted to the ward. This situation has been in place irrespective of the time or day.

I now understand that if this occurs “out of hours”, ie at weekends or after 4pm, then a patient may be assessed at Airedale and be told to go to hospital in Bradford.

Cancer is a devastating illness, both for the sufferer and their families and carers. Is it really too much to ask that when sufferers are at their lowest ebb they can receive treatment as near to home as possible? Is it a case of gradually moving services to Bradford then declaring that there is no call for a local service?

Do the people who make penny-pinching decisions consider the impact they have on people’s lives?

Andy Hill, Barnoldswick and Earby Bosom Friends, Birch Hall Lane, Earby

Blockade of peace

Sir - As one of the local residents “from the Gargrave Road end” for whom Ms Longbottom suggests she speaks (Letters, September 19), I feel I must respond. The closure of Brewery Lane has greatly improved my daily access route to the railway station and the way to school for a great many schoolchildren. Now that traffic does not have to be contended with along Brook Street and across the narrow canal bridge, any journey through this area is a much safer and much more pleasant experience.

It is widely recognised that leaving the car at home for short journeys benefits health, relieves traffic congestion and is good for the environment. The council should be encouraging local residents to travel on foot or by bicycle by improving walking routes and cycleways rather than opening up rat-runs for vehicles.

Regular trips to the market and local shops on foot or by bicycle should remove the need to use the car for a weekly supermarket shopping trip as well as supporting local businesses.

I will be campaigning for Brewery Lane to remain permanently closed to traffic.

Anne Buckley, Gainsborough Court, Skipton