WITH reference to the article (April 28) quoting West Coast Energy, several thoughts come to mind. The first is that we must keep a strong sense of perspective when hearing or reading quotes from what are, after all, professional protagonists. It is the companies? main, some would argue, only objective, to make as much money for themselves and their shareholders as possible. Likewise, there are some landowners who would like to put their own snouts in this particular trough. Why, therefore, should either be expected to give a fair appraisal of, for instance, likely effects on the environment, local communities, trade or property values? A reasonably alert, intelligent onlooker could expect quite the reverse, where black is white and white becomes black. And so it is in this case, where one of these spin artists, and artists they are, states ?the survey found 45% of people . . . felt the overall impact on the area had been positive . . . ? This obviously wasn?t the survey conducted by the Scottish Tourist Board in 2002, ?Investigation Into The Potential Impact Of Wind Farms On Tourism In Scotland?, which, inter alia, states: ?Their visual impact was generally felt to be sufficiently negative, that as far as possible wind farms should be sited in areas away from those popular with tourists ? ideally, there was a preference to avoid having to see them at all on their visit.? And to further give the lie to assertions that tourists found them ?popular?, the Gaia Centre had such an underwhelming response that it is now closed down. I do not blame the companies going for gold ? that is their seamy function ? I can even understand, if not forgive, the naked greed of particular landowners. But let?s not pretend that it has anything to do with social, environmental or ecological conscience. It is quite simply rape of our land with cash supplied by ourselves by a totally unscrupulous government. The only facts available that can be reasonably trusted are from those with precious little to gain ? and thank the Lord that there are people principled and caring enough to put the effort into digging out the ?other side of the mucky coin?, people who, before they give an opinion, take the trouble to question what we are all being spoon-fed like some futuristic brainwashed society. Or are renowned environmentalists like Bellamy and Lovelock to be belittled and ignored? How very handy for the profiteers. Ray Quirke Chairman Okehampton and Dartmoor Against Wind Turbines WE have learned that subsidies have been given to nuclear power plants and to promote ?green? energy and smaller amounts towards insulating houses. So why no subsidies for solar panels and domestic wind turbines, the latter being suitable for country dwellings? Probably because a self-sufficient customer would not only reduce his electricity bill but might actually have surplus power to sell back to the national grid. Would not this reduce the need for so many wind farms, and, how many are needed to equal the output of the redundant power stations? The only ways to reduce the hole in the upper atmosphere are (a) by cutting out industrial CO2 emissions, (b) reducing motor fuel emissions by using less. Commerce naturally could not be in favour of this latter fact, it would prefer to raise the price of fuels and services and carry on as at present, selling ever more oil and new motor cars. Noting how the mountain tops are losing snow and how the ice cap is shrinking, how long, using the worst scenario, before Dartmoor dries out, loses the rivers and consequently empties the reservoirs which all take water from the moor? Anne Crampton 2 Oaklands Park Okehampton THE Wilderness Foundation, like many of us, has been grappling with the dilemma of wind farms/factories. It points out that effective steps are urgently needed to mitigate global warming and that wind power is here to stay. It also points out, however, that the ?headlong rush to build new turbines appears fuelled more by heavy subsidies than clear thinking, threatening tourism and with little effect on global warming?. May I recommend to your readers the considered position which the Wilderness Foundation now takes: Turbines wherever possible should be located either in landscapes already containing a substantial built element or in offshore areas out of sight of unspoilt coastlines. In all cases they should be preceded by a full environmental impact assessment?. http://www.wildernessfoundation.org.uk">www.wildernessfoundation.org.uk Rona Gundry Perryman?s Farm Belstone