In a recent TV programme * we could hear Simon Chapman say someting like: all the symptoms described by windfarm opponents are present in any community, whether they are near wind turbines or not – headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, high tension, heart attacks, etc.
* ABC: “Blowing hot and cold on wind power”.
– Of all the silliest arguments! Yes, and deaths also occur in every community, right? But when 400 goats die in Taiwan * because a wind turbine was built 40 meters from their enclosure, we know something is dead wrong (no pun).
* taiwanese goats BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8060969.stm
(yet the BBC is nororiously, furiously pro-wind)
Chapman would be more convincing if he had bought (for a song) one of the houses vacated then demolished at Waubra (to remove the evidence), and spent his week-ends and vacations there. Put your money where your mouth is, Mr Denialist!
Chapman: If you can’t hear a sound, there is no known way that it can affect your health.
You are wrong, Mr sociologist posing as an acoustician. You should know that acoustics is a most complex science, and that there are peer-reviewed studies that show how wrong you are. Even in 1985, when NASA built several prototypes of wind turbines for testing, acousticians found they emitted infrasound at levels high enough to cause health problems. Limits not to be exceeded were then proposed:
“the joint radiation levels (expressed in terms of acoustic intensity and measured external to a structure) in the 8, 16, 31.5 and 63 Hz standard (ISO) octaves should not exceed band intensity threshold limits of 60, 50, 40 and 40 dB (re 1 pWm -2) more than 20% of the time. These figures compare favourably with a summary of low-frequency annoyance situations by Hubbard . ”
https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/acoustic-noise-associated-with-the-mod-1-wind-turbine-its-source-impact-and-control/ downlod the study, go to page 225
What happened then? The study was published, and presented at the Windpower ’87 Conference and Exposition – October 5-8, 1987, San Francisco, California. Then it was decided to never talk about wind turbines emitting infrasound ever again. This is called a cover-up, Mr know-it-all!
Saying “what you can’t hear can’t harm you” is as silly as saying that what you can’t see can’t harm you. Can you see a virus, Mr Chapman? No! So it can’t harm you, right? Tell me, do you think your fellow Australians are morons? You should show more respect.
Chapman: No peer reviewed studies to prove the point of so-called windfarm victims.
Absolutely false. There are a number of them: the field study carried out by Dr Nina Pierpont in the US, and made into a book “The Windfarm Syndrome”, was peered-reviewed. “A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin”, by Dr Paul Schomer et al., was peer-reviewed. “Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents” by Carl V. Phillips was peer reviewed, and a half dozen more. But Mr Denialist denies the obvious, in a defiant attitude well rendered by the above picture..
Conclusion: Chapman was perhaps chosen to defend wind turbines because he was, in the past, known to be an anti-tobacco activist. And indeed, this argument is now thrown at people who question his judgement. The reasoning goes like this: the man could not possibly be pro-wind if wind turbines were bad for the health of neighbours – “he was against tobacco”!
Oh yeah? What kind of logic is that? DUH!
Logic is not Mr Denialist’s forte. His particular skill is to be able to lie without blinking an eye – not like the other idiot from Vestas (watch the video on Act on Facts, and count the blinks! it’s a laugh!).