Simon Chapman, the denialist


Simon Chapman
Professor Simon Chapman

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:
(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 [32]. ”    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!).


8 thoughts on “Simon Chapman, the denialist

  1. Pingback: Simon Chapman, the denialist | ajmarciniak

  2. The wind industry is being cornered in Australia by the angry victims of their monster wind turbines. Hence the new campaign of lies launched by this evil industry.

    People may be interested to know that, apparently, Chapman’s PhD was in cigarette advertising. If true, it would explain why he is so knowledgeable about how to twist the truth.

  3. How do you explain away the fact that infrasound is higher at beaches and in cities yet nobody gets affected? Maybe if you stop regurgitating pseudoscience, people wouldn’t be misled into believing infrasound can make them ill?

    • Pseudo science, you say? Acousticians and physicians who study low frequency sound emitted by wind turbines, and especially infrasound, are more knowledgeable of these things than Simon Chapman. Yet this denialist gets far more prime time exposure than all the real scientists combined. Mark Duchamp, who just posted a comment, says Chapman’s PhD is in tobacco marketing. Chapman is a bad joke, and TV producers should wise up.

      To answer your first question, the difference between infrasound from the sea or from cities, and infrasound from wind turbines, is that the latter is pulsating. Here is a video that explains it:

  4. Chapman is a publicly funded propagandist. Nothing more.
    His first foray into this field was a couple of years ago in a piece he wrote for

    It showed his utter ignorance of wind turbines. His piece is a classic of pseudo-academic fatuity. He told us the Dutch had lived with windmills for centuries…

  5. “If you can’t hear a sound, there is no known way it can affect your health.” [Chapman said – ed.]
    Presumably if you can hear a sound, it may be such that CAN harm your health. I am but a a lowly sound engineer by necessity in recording capabilty, but even I know that beyond the human aural range are sound frequencies that resonate with or otherwise affect the sounds we do hear. These are loosely termed, enharmonics. Sound is specifically the movement of air – whether we hear it or not. I do not want a pulse of air pumped at me at any frequency unless it’s voices, instruments or Nature, and within my aural range. I don’t think Mr. Chapman understands very much of the subject of sound frequencies, audible or not.

  6. Simon Chapman would be the first one to complain about his headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, high tension, vertigo, shadow flicker, stray voltage, dead bats and birds, and loss of property value if he lived near a wind turbine.

  7. Mr. Chapman, As far as I know has never been near wind turbines for any length of time nor has he interviewed anyone living near them. He says people are suffering the ‘nocebo’ effect or are suffering some form of mental problems. It seems that he is a real problem causing people to think that wind turbines are fine. He never once cites world experts like Prof.Dr.M Swinbanks an acoustician (formerly work for NASA) along with Dr. Ray Hartman(n?) nor others who have pee-reviewed studies. His mate Tim Flannery who addressed a nurses forum with having rung one host of turbines (denied problems money obviously blinded) and told the nurses no issues with wind turbines. Since complaining about him I note he seems to have remain in the background. When will these dills wake up. Why is there little complaints about other forms of renewables but loads about wind? Because there are coverups about turbines because the industry ill sites turbines. Heaven help all the offshore ones that cause problems for sea life. Will we still have fish soon?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s