Response #3 to Chapman’s “study”

Melissa Ware

Cape Bridgewater


Had the chance last night and this morning to have a quick look at the 15th March 2013 report titled; ‘Spatio temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms’ etc.  Just can’t stop the tears and I rarely cry.  To appreciate this beautiful place, and get over a sense of betrayal I walked this morning along the Cape, photographing and thinking and escaping for awhile, it helped for an hour.

But I’m back at my vibrating house, and I’m crying.

Built up grief and anger, disbelief that this report and the ‘we’ behind it, had access to submissions to three Parliamentary Inquiries related to wind farms.  Submission/s Confidential or not, became the property of Parliament.  Who in Parliament is responsible for forwarding my confidential information to a biased Sydney University school and is that okay? How does confidentiality work again? Okay,’they’ve’ not named me, but again my personal information is misused in a baseless, misinformed and misrepresentative way. Again I am just collateral damage, a number.

Heaven alone will help us if a pandemic of any sort erupts in Australia because with professors of public health like this influencing our Minister of Health, Health Departments, GP’s and decisions on health issues; then we’ll be a very sick country being manipulated by sick industries and one-sided poorly educated Academics.

The facts cited regarding my circumstances living next to a wind farm in this report are incorrect.  Pacific Hydro continues to lie about the number and dates of complaints about the Cape Bridgewater wind facility. If Pacific Hydro are so open with the public about their communications and consultations with communities as they claim, then please forward the file/s compiled on receptor locator (number 57?), myself.  (And someone please grant me the same access to and right to misuse confidential Parliamentary documents).

Thug-like people have an utterly cowardly and negative approach to my health complaints.  Would Freedom of Information grant me access to source information Sydney University is using to base conclusions about myself and others like me.  I noticed no inclusion of records of complaints made to the Victorian EPA, local government, the planning department, GP’s or specialists or Parliamentarians in this report.  Statistics were based on information supplied from the Clean Energy Council and the likes of Pacific Hydro and certain media reports.

Few complaints to the company or wind facility host about experiences of exposure to wind turbines doesn’t mean that all those other houses of people within a 5km radius aren’t being negatively impacted on.  People don’t speak out for many reasons. I didn’t speak out sooner to avoid family conflict, being labelled a whinger or hypochondriac or ‘negative personality type’ prone to mass-hysteria.  To avoid land devaluing. I denied my health status and didn’t know how to begin to talk about what I was experiencing.  From my isolated farm, I supported a nearby town hungry for jobs and the (no longer) wonderful idea of alternate energy. I don’t have a negative personality type, am not easily influenced and these judgmental people backed by Sydney Uni. have no clue of who I am or my story.   I’m just a statistical number.

We neighbours of wind facilities need support in the same way that any community member is helped when dealing with environmental crisis such as floods or fires.  We need our local council to listen and act, our doctors to listen and act, our politicians to listen and act.  I have been fortunate to have met or corresponded with some very brave and powerful people whom have stepped up and battled on our behalf.  Thus, my tears have well dried and I’m hopeful that someone somewhere is supportive in denouncing this report and ensures it’s substandard biased methodology is not repeated.

STT comment: For how much longer will the University of Sydney continue to allow and therefore endorse the damage being done by its errant, reckless and publicity-seeking Professor for Public Health? And Ms Ware raises very real questions about the university’s access to confidential parliamentary submissions. How did this happen? Is this a breach of Parliamentary privilege?

For how much longer will Federal and state governments remain complicit in what is undoubtedly one of the largest preventable public health disasters to impact rural and regional Australia?

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Luann Therrien says:

    My name is Luann, with my husband and 2 preschool aged children live in the USA in Sheffield, Vermont near a 16 turbine Industrial Wind Project. We feel your pain. The turbine nearest us is not 3/4 of a mile away, 5 are within 1 mile and a all 16 are within 2 miles.
    These ‘studies’ that tell us that getting increasingly ill is all in our heads, insulting doesn’t even cover it.

  2. Charley Barber says:

    Let’s all get together with one another and invite Simon Chapman to spend a few months in the country in close proximity to a wind farm, especially with those adversely affected by the turbines. I’m sure someone associated with this site could nudge him to within a kilometre or so, maybe even closer. He could work remotely, wirelessly or whatever. After all, he’s pretty technologically hip. We could all sing around the camp fire at night and sing “Kumbaya” while he cures us of the nocebo effect. I’m sure just his sociological acumen and common sense will win the day for wind and we’ll see the error of our ways.

    Any takers to have a house guest for a while? He’s probably splendid company – knowledgeable, witty, well-read and, I bet, a great raconteur.

    How about it, Simon, old friend? Fancy some time in the bush?

  3. Harry Makris says:

    …I Agree …..

    Mr Chapman clearly wants to be a “rock star” and the “darling” of Big Wind…a severe case of “Turbine-filia”…..and as Jackie said in a previous post….he urgent need of help…..but as often is the case these days……The line may be busy……

  4. Jackie Rovensky says:

    Melissa, you are a wonderfully strong person, with a loving family. Chapman is nothing but a worm slithering under cover and out when it suits him. He is no match for your strength and ability to stand up to his banal ranting’s.
    The University he works for – or do they work for him – will not take the moral ground and sensor him. Below is a quote from a letter I received from the Vice Chancellor of The University of Sydney, after I wrote to complain about Professor Chapman’s behaviour, with respect to his continual denigration of qualified professionals in areas such as medicine and acoustics, as well people such as yourself who are reporting adverse health effects:

    ‘…the University’s Public Comment Policy expressly acknowledges that members of its academic community may engage in public discussion about matters in which they have expertise subject, of course, to behaving ethically and observing the usual civilities. This is a matter about which Professor
    Chapman has expertise.

    Regarding the Crikey cartoon, it was clearly not sent to you by Professor Chapman and his
    forwarded email was originally sent to staff who would understand the context. I am sorry that
    you feel offended by it although the level of abuse targeted at Professor Chapman by people
    who disagree with him may go some way to excusing his insensitivity.’

    As can be seen Professor Chapman seems to be working for a University which shares and or condones his ‘standard’ of ethical, moral and professional behaviour, that they accept the standard of research evident in this latest paper as well as others then you have to wonder how they have any credence.

    In saying this I have no doubt there are MANY other Professors and other academic and administrative staff who completely disagree with support the University gives to anyone who is so blinded by a personal cause and ‘theory’ that they cannot see the truth when its placed in front of them, let alone search it out.

    With reference to Professor Chapman having expertise – well yes he does in Sociology BUT NOT in Medicine or Acoustics , as far as ethics and observing usual civilities – he has expertise in avoiding.

  5. The wind industry claims that industrial wind turbines turn intelligent, sensible, honest, citizens, into liars, hypochondriacs and enemies of the environment. Surprisingly enough, they also claim that it turns dishonest, greedy corrupt politicians and windpushers, into “Doctors”, specializing in the mental and physical anomalies surrounding people exposed to turbines. Hmmm….I find it all very hard to believe!

  6. Chapman obviously hasn’t read ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD ….. migraine, motion sickness, vertigo, noise & visual and gastrointestinal sensitivity, anxiety … the list of afflictions due to these useless monstrosities is endless

  7. We so-called political ‘road kill’ nimbys and any other name we are called seem to have no say whatsoever. Anyone vulnerable like Dr.Laurie, Steve Cooper, Mary Morris (see Dave Clarke’s notes on her) and his staying near turbines for a few nights saying he was not ill. Apparently he does not realise that not everyone becomes ill and not always after a few days. He needs to realise that nat least 76% do become ill over time. Professor Chapman seems hell bent on getting everyone’s info by fair or foul means. I do not know what his agenda is but should not be in the chair at Sydney Uni. He should be in the chair for wind turbine advocates for plastering the country with these mechanical monsters.

  8. Grant Winberg says:

    Can I suggest that Sydney University sponsor Pr Chapman to do a pre and post study on some PUBLICLY available information and assess and report on the impacts of inappropriately placed IWT’s currently with the Planning Commission for approval after having been recently on exhibition. Why not interview related families who respectively will be hosts, non hosts within 2 kms who have lodged objections and non hosts who will be completely surrounded (having not objected and perhaps hoping for some negotiated special treatment from the developer).
    If Pr Chapman has any difficulty in choosing the described before and after research population, can I suggest Crookwell 3 North (Union Fenosa). And can I suggest the names – Bolton, Rabjohn & Dooley (in no specific order). There would be many other such examples if Pr Chapman were to work his way through other EI exhibition material.
    All of this with a view to determining the factors before and after driving residents’ thought processes about why, whether and how to defend their homes, and whether to complain or keep quiet.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: