It’s Wrong to Characterize Solar Arrays and Cell Towers as Power Plants
Recently two letters have appeared in The Examiner that are anti-solar panel/cell tower missives. The first used the description “power plant” for the solar array while the second used “potentially carcinogenic.”
I can certainly understand property owners concerned that their property values may be affected by new construction, but to label a solar array a “power plant” is a bit of a stretch, as is using the cancer scare tactic. If these characterizations were true, why aren’t neighbors suing their neighbors when they install panels on their homes’ roofs right next door to them? Why aren’t neighbors suing neighbors over the “possible carcinogenic” exposure that their children are subject to? Even the description “dominating the Mount Kisco skyline” is a bit of a stretch.
I live within a few hundred yards of the cell tower built next to I-684 and Byram Lake and one hardly notices it anymore. As a matter of fact, it has become the yearly nesting place for a family of ospreys that return every spring to hatch their chicks. I have also spent time in Vermont, a state that enjoys the lowest electrical rates in the U.S. There are solar arrays there that cover acres of land, not industrial land, but former farmland. These installations do not emit fumes, the grass grows right up to their bases and livestock can be seen grazing close by.
I can understand people being concerned over their property values when progress comes. But to dismiss the installations using language as a scare tactic is not right. Cell phones were said to cause brain cancer. Has that stopped the letter writers from using them?
This area where the tower is proposed is a “dead zone” for cell service. I, for one, would rest easier knowing that police, fire and medical responders would have consistent service throughout the area.
Robert Cappio
Armonk
