Mayflower Wind –Letter to the Editor and FHMNA Rebuttal

On Friday, 1/21/2022, the following letter entitled “EMF Hazards Well Studied” written by Andrew Mattox of Two Ponds Road was published in The Falmouth Enterprise on page 4. 

Below his letter is a rebuttal from FHMNA President Dave Buzanoski, as approved by the FHMNA Board of Directors, published in the Falmouth Enterprise on Friday 2/4/2022, page 5. Read the online version here.

EMF Hazards Well Studied (Mattox):  

I would encourage anyone with an interest in the hazards of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) to research the subject on the American Cancer Society website and/or the sites of the two authorities cited by the ACS, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and our own National Toxicology Program. EMFs continue to be studied but are not known to cause leukemia or any other human cancers. The internet is not otherwise a helpful source for EMF information.

Certainly cost is part of every decision made by Mayflower Wind. We should be aggressively supporting their project’s not imposing extra costs because of imagined health concerns.

Mr. Buzanoski’s concerns are presented well but the 2016 WHO document he cited states very clearly, “Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.” EMF hazards have already been studied for over 50 years.

Mayflower should be required to provide information on the strength of EMFs along their proposed routes. If the exposures are minimal, health concerns should not be a factor in the choice of routes.

Andrew Mattox
Two Ponds Road
Falmouth

Mayflower Wind Cables – Not Don Quixote (FHMNA President Buzanoski)

Allow me to respond to Mr. Mattox’s ‘EMF Hazards Well Studied’ letter of 1/21/22.

In my initial letter, I chose to quote the WHO expressing the debate over EMF exposures. Mr. Mattox responded in the aforementioned letter with a quote of the WHO findings on this matter; HOWEVER, he then disingenuously and intentionally chose to omit the final sentence of their finding: “However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further study.” I guess it just didn’t fit his narrative.

We are not jousting with windmills, but we do oppose and dispute the Town of Falmouth’s lack of wisdom in even considering allowing Mayflower to bring their 1200MW cables ashore in a historic, densely populated, residential community.

Mayflower seems to think that if they can bring a large enough bundle of money (hosting fee), endear themselves to local organizations, and promise electric consumers a few cents/kilowatt hour savings on their monthly electric bill, then, local ordinances should be put aside and this invasive commercial endeavor should be welcomed by the town with open arms. Falmouth Heights is not the right place for these cables; surely there must be a less intrusive location impacting fewer residents elsewhere.

Mayflower is not a locally needed utility. It is a large, for profit, commercial/industrial enterprise which has approached the town seeking to use our land and open space for its economic convenience. Making money at the risk of our residents’ long-term health, at the expense of our property values, violating our inherent rights to quiet enjoyment as well as deeded rights, and taking advantage of our local community is completely wrong.

Like everything in life these days, the devil is in the details. Local zoning ordinances are put in place to protect the town as well as its citizens. Current Falmouth zoning bylaws do not allow a project of this size and scope, so Mayflower has petitioned the Mass DPU to exempt them from local zoning bylaws.

Many of the zoning variances required for this project would normally be dealt with at the local ZBA, such as lot coverage, height, setbacks etc. However, due to the need for ALL the variances to be approved for this project, Mayflower is seeking a broad exemption. Furthermore, the proposed and alternate routes for this project cross various zoning districts: public use, single residence C, business 2+3, general residence, agricultural B, Light industrial A, coastal pond overlay. Public utility uses are not allowed in any of these districts and the ZBA is prohibited from granting a variance. Therefore, Mayflower must seek a Comprehensive Zoning Exemption from DPU.

There are various levels of approval required for this project, and sadly, I am not confident that the State will have our best interest in mind when they deliberate on this issue. The matter of unknown health risks is only a part of this issue. The level of destruction and reconstruction to pristine open public park lands in Falmouth Heights is simply not acceptable. We therefore look to the Falmouth Select Board, and the Town Meeting Members to do what is right for the people of Falmouth.

Dealing with the details is one thing, but selling our soul is another story altogether.

Dave Buzanoski,
President, FHMNA