THERE were two letters in the October 16 Postbag about windfarms.

One by Dr Martin Rodger asks for logic when discussing whether we should depend on capricious Mother Nature when it comes to providing the electricity that keeps lights burning, trains running, the food in our fridges safe to eat and hospitals able to function without the risk of power cuts.

The other by Philip Dewhurst berates a Mr Larive because he is in favour of a wind farm that would be visible from the greatly overhyped 95 miles of crumbling coastline commercially marketed as the Jurassic Coast.

As for it being ‘environmentally sensitive’, there is nothing sensitive in the way the sea pounds against the shore and the cliffs, destroying sections of this ‘world heritage jewel’ foot by foot, month by month.

Indeed, if it were not for millennia of natural erosion, none of the fossils would have come to light.

Both letters ignore what is behind the anti-wind farm argument: the need for a 100 per cent guaranteed supply of electricity.

Those in favour would do better in campaigning for a cut in the ever rising demand for electricity – by getting all governments to promote small families, and reducing population growth worldwide.

ERIC HAYMAN, Bradpole Road, Bournemouth