"A Second Wind for Turbines" (Feb. 2) was completely one-sided; it was nothing more than a puff piece for the wind industry.
The environmental cost of wind energy is lower than for coal and oil, but it is not free. Nowhere did you mention the effect of literally hundreds of miles of new roads cut to haul the turbines and construction equipment, many of them high up in wilderness areas where erosion of sensitive soil is easily begun and difficult to stop. You didn't mention that the proposed wind farms in the Tehachapis will require clear-cutting in some places, and the local citizens are not happy about that.
You said that surveys have yet to confirm that bird deaths are a problem. You might have added that there are no conclusive studies at all, and most of the studies are funded by the industry.
They are asking us to believe there is no significant effect on the birds with no real testing, let alone proof. Again, in the Tehachapis, a development is being studied in an area which is the most significant migratory songbird flyway in California.
But wind energy is so clean, everyone says. Should we burn more oil instead of putting up wind towers in what may be the wrong places? No. There is a simpler answer: energy conservation. Double-pane windows and fluorescent lighting would save incredible amounts of energy, just for starters.
CHARLES G. BRAGG Jr.