Money ain’t no “cure”

Guest writer, Jackie Rovensky, is renowned on STT for her comments, which stand out for their erudition, composition and unassailable logic.

Here’s Jackie in response to our favourite tobacco advertising guru who – once again – has elected to step well out of his limited area of “expertise”.

Jackie pops him neatly back into his little box in this fine piece.

A response to Simon Chapman’s comment “Money: the ‘cure’ for wind turbine syndrome’.

The Australian film maker he referred to, Neil Barrett is a former energy economist with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, CEO of Video Education Australasia (VEA) and founding chair of the Mount Alexander Sustainability Group.

It’s important readers are careful not to mistake him for the Fashion Designer nor indeed Neil Barrett the British director of photography and visual anthropologist, who has worked for among others National Geographic, BBC, NBC, ABC and CNN.

I have not had an opportunity to view the film, so I cannot comment on it only on Simon Chapman’s comments, which due to numerous previous comments can be taken as limited in their thoroughness and coloured by his bias.

Money does not cure anything, research and commitment to finding the truth can be aided by the access to funding. Money cannot ‘drought-proof’ a farm only rain can do that.

While he states the interviewees say they are not ‘bothered by the turbines and do not suffer from any health problems they attribute to the turbines’ does this mean they do have problems but their doctors have found no contributing factor and/or have diagnosed that their symptoms definitely cannot be attributed to the Industrial Wind Turbines located near their homes?

With respect to contracts, firstly if these contracts do not have the capacity to prevent people speaking out, if they wished to, why is it they cannot provide copies of the signed contracts, with of course any names and financial arrangements deleted to prove this.  It should be noted that some contracts are available which definitely show what is commonly termed ‘gag’ clauses do exist.

Comments about ‘wealthy landowners’ establishing the Waubra Foundation is a common theme in his and other’s writings.

Does he have a problem with people assisting others, if they believe a wrong has/is being done?  Does it make any difference whether they are in a better financial situation than others?  Isn’t it true the Wind Industry has people with more than adequate financial capacity in their pockets supporting the industry? Does distance have anything to do with it, after all Greenpeace travels the world, so to do Doctors Without Borders and others.

Chapman’s constant attacks on Dr Sarah Laurie, could be seen as something of professional jealousy, after all Dr Laurie is a trained medical practitioner whether she is currently practicing or not, he is a Sociologist, who people appear to confuse with a medically trained person as he works in the area of ‘Public Health’, not as a medical person but as someone who judges what you and I do then decides which ‘box’ to put us in.

Moving on, so none of the residents spoken to say Dr Laurie has contacted them, well that perhaps is because she is not out ‘touting’ for clients.

It’s worth noting in the past Chapman and others have condemned her for not going out and speaking to everyone.  Mr Chapman please make up your mind.

Did they actually speak with all the residents of the district or just landowners signed up to host turbines, and did they speak to all of those including extended family members, and what about those who have moved out of the district?

Ah yes, he mentions a former Waubra resident who is speaking out, but he derides him as if he is doing something wrong, but it’s OK for the ones they interviewed to say all is well, but not for anyone who’s life and family have been so drastically affected to do the same.

Was he interviewed for this ‘documentary’?

Is it ALL residents of the Waubra district who feel resentment?

In his waffle about the number of people leaving their homes as reported by Dr Laurie and others he neglects to mention the number of turbines has increased substantially over recent years and some projects such as MacArthur and Waterloo have had extensive adverse effects on people, so of course the numbers are rising in conjunction with the number of turbines.

Mr Chapman commented that no one has reported adverse effects in Tasmania and Western Australia, I am not privy to all those who have reported adverse effects so I cannot say if they have or have not, what I can say is to Mr Chapman and others, take a look at where the turbines are located in Tasmania and WA, how many homes can you find within say 5 – 10km of turbines, and how many of those are turbine hosts, and how many live on the property?

I have also noted when reading his ‘comment’ Mr Chapman appears to be something of an ageist, pain is pain and no matter what your age you have a right to live a healthy life in a place of your choice.

I might add here Mr Chapman apparently lives close to Sydney Airport, by choice, and he doesn’t have a problem with it, then he doesn’t mention there is a night curfew at Sydney Airport.

Now we come to what could be the crux of this ‘comment’ by Simon Chapman, he needs to publicise his ‘research’.

This work has been known of for a while and what must have been the rough draft has been around for some time, with much comment by many qualified people and others.  Maybe their comments have enabled him to put together something which could be called academically acceptable; we will have to wait to see.

In the meantime, his constant referencing of the number of symptoms being reported as showing everyone who is suffering is stupid.  Are they though? No, of course not.

It is an accepted known that people experience pain differently; some are more sensitive to pain than others. Also don’t let’s forget dogs have more acute hearing than humans and wild dog’s, wolves etc are more likely to have more sensitive hearing than domestic dogs.

So too with humans, we are also able to express our feelings in a vast number of ways, if I have not heard a jet plane take-off or land I am not likely to express a noise I hear as that, I will find another way to explain it from my own experience.  I will also use expressions common from my broader life’s environment. So will those suffering in different countries and different environments and from different backgrounds and experiences. So there is no surprise that simply looking at a list of expressive terms used provides a large range of descriptions of what will actually be a narrow list of effects.

When taking these effects and asking what has changed in lives and there is a common denominator from around the world you can only come to one conclusion this one common denominator has to be researched.

As I said at the beginning I have not seen the film so I cannot comment on its content, or whether as proffered by Mr Chapman it ‘brings a fresh and important perspective to the debate’, this is to be seen.

Unless it is a comprehensive documentary utilising independent accounts from all viewpoints it is likely to be seen as an industry promotion, an attempt to explain what is unexplainable – how a situation where there are so many people reporting adverse health effects has been allowed to continue without serious fully independent research being funded by Governments and a Precautionary Approach taken by Governments to this international health disaster.
JA Rovensky

STT says: “hats off, Jackie!”

martin-luther-king

A very good question – lost on those who profit from the misery of others.

About stopthesethings

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

Comments

  1. So this is the Mr.Chapman I have heard about.

    I am affected by the infrasound and low frequency noise of Industry, and I suffer similar problems to the Wind Farm victims.

    So Mr Chapman, come and talk to me. I will record the conversation so there will be no doubt of my pain and SUFFERING and there will be a copy of this so that no one can twist what I have said.

    I have no reason for lies only truth of the Torture that living in infrasound and low frequency noise and electromagnetic fields Has caused.

    Please note again I don’t have any WIND FARM here at Maitland – I challenge you to tell me that I am not suffering or in pain.

  2. cure or disease? says:

    “Money does not cure anything, research and commitment to finding the truth can be aided by the access to funding”. Spot on Jackie.

    It remains a mystery that psychopathic professors and academics seem unable to comprehend this truth, but choose instead to pillory victims of an environmental and public health travesty rather than advocating for independent medical/acoustic research of impacted populations.

    The science is in fact emerging, slowly but surely, of the cause effect /dose response mechanisms of the acoustic pollution from industrial wind factories and their impact on human health and well-being. That a Senate committee chaired by Green Siewert recommended ‘urgent’ research over 2 years ago, and which the previous Government refused to action, itself raises a more significant question as to the effects of money on those in positions of power.

    Does Wind money/funding affect the critical thinking and analysis of selected politicians, academics, universities, NHMRC, EPAs, film makers or the Mafia? No, of course not, they are above bribery and corruption, aren’t they? Travel claim anyone? But there is a deathly silence from many of the above when it comes to advocating or funding independent scientific investigation of acoustic impacts of industrial wind factories.

    No, money is not the cure, rather it is the disease strategically manipulated by the wind industry to infect those susceptible (eg Greens, psycopaths, universities, EPAs) who believe wind turbines will save us and the planet, because the wind is ‘free’. Like the distribution of pox-infected blankets to conquered tribes, the ’donations’ intentional effects are insidious, silent, and deadly. They suspend objectivity and disable critical faculties, and eat at the ethics and integrity (where present) of those so affected. Empathy and compassion disappear.

    The cure? No less than a police investigation and Royal Commission. And government funded independent multidisciplinary scientific investigation of the acoustic impacts of industrial wind factories on human health and well being.

    The citizens, driven from their homes or continuing to suffer, deserve no less.

  3. Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
    It is our money that the windweasels use to bribe everyone!

  4. If Chapman was a man (and he isn’t even half a man) he would go to where the people are suffering problems from turbine noise. Instead of making smart a**e comments about something he knows nothing about, he would do some actual research in the field dealing with the people he mocks and ridicules.

  5. Grant Winberg says:

    Following on from Naz’s comment, neighbour ‘compensation’ agreements appear to be de riguer. It does put the recipients in the same category as Hosts, only more so as they have made their decision with the benefit of increased public knowledge and awareness of the health, economic, etc impacts on all members of the community. But how on earth can the wind turbine developers escape criticism from the community for their role in offering bribes to people to keep quiet. Not to rent some land and air space from greedy Hosts-but to bribe people to keep quiet? Aside from bragging by developer reps about how many neighbours have signed such agreements, there may be no way of determining the extent of this disgusting practice.

  6. With reference to the differing sensitivities of people to low frequency noise I found the following story rather interesting (I can already sense that many ladies might just enjoy some of the aspects of this story):

    HI, I LIVE NEAR CORTEZ AND MANCOS COLORADO. I HEAR THE HUM. I HAVE HEARD IT FOR A FEW YEARS AND HEAR I WHEN I LEAVE THIS AREA TO GO CAMPING IN THE DESSERT. I FINALLY CONVINCED MY NON HUM HEARNG HUSBAND IT IS A REAL THING. I PLACED A LONG STEM WINE GLASS FILLED WIH WATER ON THE DINING ROOM TABLE AND THE WATER PULSED WITH THE HUM. VERY EASY TO SEE. I ALWAYS GET THE IMPRESSION THE HUM COMES FROM THE NORTH BUT THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHEN I CAN HEAR IT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE-IN CANYONLANDS UTAH. I SLEEP WITH A FAN ON BUT SOMETIMES THE HUM IS SO INTENSE IT VIBRATES UP THRU MY PILLOW. I’VE TRIED THE STETHOSCOPE THING BUT NO RESULTS. I HAVE NOWHERE TO GO WITH THIS AS I WOULD GET NO SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL UTILITIES OR GOV.
    from: http://sandaura.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/a-constant-non-stop-low-frequency-hum-heard-in-my-home/

  7. David Mortimer says:

    I saw the Barrett documentary (interviews) prior to my Bush Telegraph interview and noticed that at least one couple could not look at the camera and indeed, I thought they looked sheepish. In every case, only the blade “whoosh” noise was mentioned as not being a problem. I don’t recall any mention of ILFN.
    I am sure that if I took a camera and recorder to the Waubra area, I could just have easily produced a “film” that took the opposite point of view to Barrett’s biased BS. How he can claim to be unbiased beats me – he stated on Bush Telegraph that he has a stake in Hepburn Wind and then his “film” is posted on the Vicwind web site. Hardly impartial. Just who do these people think they are fooling?
    I will say that the Bush Telegraph approach was quite balanced and that Barrett was cut off when he started to use the Chapmanian excuses for poor sleep. I guess they had heard it all before. That was just after I had told him that my sleep away from the turbines is sound and refreshing. He can only regurgitate the same old big wind spin. Yet another Gigatwat!

  8. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
    Thank you for this post.

  9. Melissa Ware says:

    It interesting to look at http://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/27107/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf and what is considered ethical behaviour for a sociologist.

    Public trust is highly valued by sociological professional groups and respectful treatment of people seems paramount regardless of different client opinions, backgrounds or beliefs.

    Unprofessional behaviour of complete one-sidedness, personal attacks, questionable gathering of data, biased questionable conclusions and actively not protecting peoples well-being is casting a long shadow on the profession. Public trust and mine….long gone.

  10. Well done Jackie! Very well written & expressed. Regards to WA wind facilities, I know that one of them only has 6 direct neighbours & they are all being paid ‘compensation’……one wonders why?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: