Farmers Fightback: Investigator’s Noise Nuisance Finding Leaves Australian Wind Industry Furious

For too long the wind industry has ‘owned the game’. Thanks to a determined lawyer and her equally determined clients, they’ve just lost it.

Following on from Saturday’s post – Victorian Vengeance: Neighbours Launch $Multi-Million Noise Nuisance Law Suit Against Wind Farm Operator & Local Council – STT takes another look at the case that’s left the wind industry and its worshippers fuming.

Until now, the wind industry has used a gullible and pliant media (see below) to run the line that anyone complaining about wind turbine noise is clearly a climate-denying crank who should be detained under the Mental Health Act.

Closer to the coal-face, the industry has infiltrated every institution – be it Federal or State government energy, planning or environment departments, or local Councils – to ensure that the thousands of complaints received from neighbours about the grinding and soul-destroying noise generated by these things never see the light of day.

At the Bald Hills in South Gippsland, Victoria, the wind industry’s stock-standard strategy came unstuck.

Neighbours surrounding the Bald Hills wind farm have been tortured by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound from the moment 52, 2 MW Senvion MM92 turbines – slung up by Japanese outfit Mitsui and Co – started operating in March 2015.

Now, a group of 10 plaintiffs are pursuing a Supreme Court action to force the South Gippsland Council to remedy the nuisance caused by Mitsui’s turbines.

In addition, the plaintiffs are chasing very substantial damages for the loss of the use and enjoyment of their homes, and aggravated damages for the contemptuous manner in which their tormentors have treated them.

The ABC is wind cult central and a place where you’ll never hear an ill word spoken about their beloveds, but at least David Bevan had the temerity to interview one of the plaintiffs, John Zakula and his solicitor, the dogged Dominica Tannock. True to form though, Bevan gives a right of reply to the South Australian wind cult’s High Priest, Mark Parnell (we’ll deal with him a little later).

Here’s the podcast, transcript follows below.

Mornings – ABC Radio Adelaide
David Bevan
14 September 2018



David Bevan: I know that many of you are interested in wind farms. Some of you because you believe it’s the way of the future. It’s going to save the world. Others because you live close to the things and you hate them because they’re keeping you awake at night. Here’s the latest development on this clash between the two. The Australian reports today that a class action lawsuit is being planned against the local council, the Victorian government, and a wind farm operator. Basically, it’s about noise. John Zakula is a local resident and his property is just over one kilometre away from the wind farm in Gippsland, Victoria. He joins us now. Good morning, John.

John Zakula: Yeah, good day. How are you doing?

David Bevan:  Very well, John. John are you one of those residents who are complaining about these wind farms?

John Zakula: Yeah, that’s right. Yes.

David Bevan: And what’s the problem?

John Zakula: Basically, the noise that’s being produced by these wind farms. It’s continually disturbing and it’s causing us sleep deprivation. Basically, it’s just affecting our health.

David Bevan: What does it sound like, John?

John Zakula: It’s basically like a train. It’s like the arrival of a train, but it never leaves. The noise that’s just a continuous roaring, thumping sound. It’s continuous and it’s basically there all day and all night. It can be heard inside the house. It can be heard outside the house, as well. And it’s there all the time.

David Bevan: What are those noises? Because noise is a funny thing, isn’t it? Noise affects different people in different ways. Somebody can be walking along next to these things and can’t hear what you’re hearing. Can everybody hear it or does it affect some people differently?

John Zakula: Well, the people that are living down here with me, my neighbours. The neighbours and myself, we are basically hearing the same thing. We’re hearing them at different times of the day, but we’re hearing the noise and the emissions from these turbines. The roaring and the thumping sound during the day and we’re hearing them at nighttime. So effectively we’re all hearing the same things and it is occurring at different times of the day and nighttime.

David Bevan: In a moment we’re going to talk to, I think she’s your lawyer, Dominica Tannock. Basically, you and a bunch of other residents complained to the council or what? Who did you go to with your concerns?

John Zakula: Well, I originally started complaining about this in 2015. I started writing letters in 2015, writing complaints. The wind farm started in March of that year and I started writing complaints in writing with the South Gipplands Shire Council. I’ve written to the Minister of Planning. I’ve written to the wind farm operator, the ombudsman, the local Senator at the time, John Madigan, the Victorian Premier, Worksafe. I’ve written to all the institutions, organisations, that I possibly could raising these concerns.

David Bevan: Let’s go to your lawyer. Dominica Tannock, I hope I’ve pronounced your name correctly.

John Zakula: It’s Dominica.

David Bevan: Dominica Tannock, now you represent John and other residents in the area. Is that right?

Dominica Tannock: That’s right, yeah.

David Bevan: As it was explained to me, and stop me if I got this wrong, a court ordered the local council to bring in an independent assessor of the noise. Is that correct?

Dominica Tannock: The court ordered in August, 2017, that the council had to redo its investigation. The court did not direct to the council how it should carry out that investigation, but the court ordered the South Gippsland Shire Council to carry out an investigation to determine the disputed issue as to whether the noise really exists.

David Bevan: And what was the result of that?

Dominica Tannock: The result of that is that the council appointed an independent investigator to, using public funds, to carry out an investigation to make findings in relation to this issue on the council’s behalf. The investigator prepared a report which was released to me and my clients on Monday, making findings that upheld my clients’ complaint. But at this stage, the council has not made a decision, and that’s what we’re waiting for.

David Bevan: Specifically, what was the independent finding. You say, “It upheld my clients’ complaints.” What does that mean?

Dominica Tannock:  Well, my clients have made complaints that there exists a noise nuisance caused by the unreasonable noise emissions from the adjacent wind farm into their homes. They said that the noise nuisance was a nuisance under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act in that it was detrimental to their comfort and health. Those were the findings of the conclusions reached by the independent investigator.

David Bevan: Which is probably not what the council was looking for.

Dominica Tannock: I don’t think so. No, I agree.

David Bevan: Okay, yeah.

Dominica Tannock: The consequence of this is that we say that the council must adopt the report because this is its investigation and the consequence of this is that the council then have to remedy the nuisance.

David Bevan: Alright, now, we’re going to quickly run out of time, its five to ten, we’re talking to Dominica Tannock, the resident’s lawyer in the Gippland who have taken action against these wind farms. What are the implications for these specific wind farms? And then the next question, are there national implications?

Dominica Tannock: The specific wind farm at the moment, I think that the operators, they are considering the findings and the council has given them an opportunity to respond. Of course, they’re in a difficult position given these findings and given the stakes. I think there are enormous repercussions for wind farms around Australia and wind farms around the world.

I’m not aware of any other finding of this sort. I know that in South Australia that there are linked studies going on at Flinders University and in fact, this particular issue, there’s some unique circumstances in Victoria and South Gippland because the complaint was raised under legislation that exists only in Victoria.

So, statutory nuisance of this sort can only be explored in Victoria but the idea came to me from a barrister in South Australia, in Adelaide, a guy by the name of Peter Quinn.  I think the findings, though, have implications that there could be possible findings of common law nuisance that might arise from this particular finding because I believe people around Australia are making similar sorts of complaints about noise emissions from wind farms.

David Bevan: Are they going to have to pull them down?

Dominica Tannock: Not necessarily, but they’re going to have to make sure that they’re creating nuisance, they’re going to have to control them. I think what’s going to have to happen is they’re going to have to be properly regulated. I think there has been inadequate regulation in Victoria. And I think they’re going to have to control the emissions and maybe, if they can’t control them, then they might have to be stopped or they might have to pay compensation.

David Bevan: Thank you very much for your time.

At three minutes to ten, we asked Mark Parnell if he could listen to this. He’s a member of the Greens, but his trade is he’s an environmental lawyer. Of course, he’s taken a special interest and has been supportive of the wind energy sector. Mark Parnell, what do you make of this?

Mark Parnell: It’s interesting. I’m holding two views. One is that the Greens, I should expect, we’re strong supporters of renewable energy including wind. But as a former environmental lawyer, I’m interested in human rights and I think people are entitled to their day in court. What will be interesting is whether these cases are decided on very specific locational factors or whether they look at the broader picture. Because currently, the main authorities there at the moment, you got the National Health and Medical Research Council, which says that there’s no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans. That’s their summary. But you also have the Public Health Association, which says that people do report these and we have to take the report seriously.

David Bevan: Hang on, a lot of people from your side of politics have just been dismissing these sort of complaints as cranks. There’s something wrong with their head, frankly. That’s the treatment that they’ve been receiving. And here’s an independent report commissioned by the council that didn’t want these findings. It’s come back and said, “You know what, they are suffering.”

Mark Parnell: Absolutely. Put all this stuff into the mix. I think part of the problem was that there’s some alternative medical research which shows that if you can convince someone that wind farms are bad for your health and they hear a wind farm, then they actually can get sick as a result of this, I think psychogenics they call it. The other name they use is communicated illness.

Mark Parnell: So, yes, they had their day in court. Let’s have a look at the information. But the other thing that the Public Health Association say, which I think is really important, is they say that, while some individuals might hear it and be annoyed by it or even lose sleep or maybe even get sick. On a population level, the adverse effects of fossil fuels, which are the alternative to renewable energy, far outweigh any adverse effects of wind farms. You’ve got to be careful to say, “Well, these people are the sacrificial people.” So, yes, let’s look at the evidence. If the location is wrong, and in South Australia, we’ve actually got the EPA has published some comprehensive guidelines to help get the location right, then they may or may not win some of these cases occasionally. But I reckon we’re better off using the planning system to put the wind farms in the right location because ultimately, the climate depends on it.

David Bevan: We’ll continue to look at the outcome of this case in the Gippland, but also other cases like it here in South Australia. Thank you for your time, Mark Parnell, Greens MP. And before that, Dominica Tannock, residents’ lawyer for the people complaining about this, and John Zaluka who lives just a kilometre away from the farms.
ABC Radio

Don Fairbrother: enjoys the first taste of victory against his tormentors.


Rural communities being tortured by turbine noise owe a debt of gratitude to John Zakula and his co-plaintiffs.

And, no doubt, John Zakula fuly appreciates the skillful and determined manner in which his lawyer, Dominica Tannock has taken on Goliath.

As we pointed out in our previous post: “The dogged Dominica Tannock and her Bald Hill trailblazers have lit the path towards justice in Victoria. And none too soon.”

Mark Parnell claims to be an ‘environmental lawyer’, but he must have either skipped Torts, or failed it!?!

Mark might remember that a tort is ‘a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal liability’?

If, which we doubt, he opened a Torts textbook during his time at law school, Parnell would have found a whole section devoted to the tort of nuisance.

Here’s a little primer on that ancient tort.

STT’s Nuisance “In-a-Nutshell”

Nuisance is a long recognised tort (civil wrong) at common law based on the wrongful interference with a landowner’s rights to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their land.

Negligence is not an element of nuisance, although aspects of the former may overlap with the latter.  Where, as here, the conduct is intentional (ie the operation of the wind turbines is a deliberate act) liability is strict and will not be avoided by the defendant showing that it has taken all reasonable steps to avoid the nuisance created.  Indeed, the conduct of the defendant is largely irrelevant (unless malice is alleged); the emphasis is on the defendant’s invasion of the neighbouring landowner’s interests.

A defendant will have committed the tort of nuisance when they are held to be responsible for an act indirectly causing physical injury to land or substantially interfering with the use or enjoyment of land or of an interest in land, where, in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, this injury or interference is held to be unreasonable.

The usual remedy for nuisance is an injunction restraining the defendant from the further creation or continuance of the nuisance.  Injunctions are discretionary, in all cases, and will not be granted unless the nuisance caused is significant.

Where interference with the enjoyment of land is alleged, the interference must be “substantial” and not trivial.

Interference from noise will be substantial, even if only temporary in duration, if it causes any interference with the plaintiff’s sleep.

The loss of even one night’s sleep through excessive noise has been repeatedly held to be substantial and not trivial in this sense (see Andreae v Selfridge & Co [1937] 3 All ER 255 at 261, quoted with approval in Munro v Dairies Ltd [1955] VLR 332 at 335; Kidman v Page [1959] St R Qd 53 at 59; see also Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683 at 701: “a man is entitled to sleep during the night in his own house”).

It is not a defence for the party creating the nuisance to claim that he is merely making a reasonable use of his property.  The defendant’s conduct may well be otherwise lawful, but still constitute actionable nuisance.  The activity engaged in by the defendant may be of great social utility or benefit, but that has been repeatedly held as being “insufficient to justify what otherwise would be a nuisance” (see For example, Munro v Dairies Ltd [1955] VLR 332 at 335; see also Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683)

Halsey’s case is well worth a read – a real “David and Goliath” battle, as described by the trial Judge: “This is a case, if ever there was one, of the little man asking for the protection of the law against the activities of a large and powerful neighbour.”  And just like David’s epic battle with a thuggish giant, the little bloke won!

Here’s a link to the case: Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1 WLR 683

Precisely the same principles were at work in the case pursued by Julian and Jane Davis, who successfully obtained a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator, for noise nuisance; and the resultant loss of property value (the home became uninhabitable due to low-frequency noise, infrasound and vibration).

The Particulars of Julian and Jane Davis’ Claim are available here: Davis Complaint Particulars of Claim

And Jane Davis’ Statement (detailing their unsettling experiences and entirely unnecessary suffering) is available here: davis-noise-statement

The common law also recognises the ability to prevent a neighbour from building a noise generation source that will inevitably cause nuisance (with what is called a quia timet injunction). The rule is based on the common sense principle that it’s easier and fairer to keep wild horses corralled, than it is to round them up once they’ve bolted.

One pertinent example is Grasso v Love [1980] VR 163 (available here).

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the trial judge’s decision to grant a quia timet injunction to prevent the construction of a Drive-in Theatre which a developer was planning to build right next to the plaintiffs’ home. The injunction was granted on the basis that the noise created by the Drive-in at night-time (noise from the speakers, loud voices, banging car doors, engines starting and tooting horns) would be heard within the plaintiffs’ home and, therefore, cause a very substantial degree of interference with the use and enjoyment of their home. On the basis of the noise likely to be created, the threat of nuisance to the plaintiffs was substantial and, accordingly, they were entitled to an injunction stopping the developer from building his Drive-in, as proposed.

What the growing band of individuals – like Julian and Jane Davis – are relying upon to protect their health, wealth and happiness are the rights that citizens of civilised societies have fought over centuries to establish and maintain (think Magna Carta and all that).

The Bald Hills plaintiffs have two limbs to their attack on their tormentors: forcing the Council to remedy the nuisance under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act; and a common law nuisance claim seeking damages for the loss of the use and enjoyment of their homes.

As to the latter, the long-suffering plaintiffs will get to tell their story before a Supreme Court jury. And, with a finding from an independent investigator that the turbine noise constitutes a public nuisance, the only real question will be how much the defendants will be ordered to pay.

Mark Parnell will also remember from his glory days at Uni that a ‘public nuisance’ is not only a tort, it’s a criminal offence, as well.

Parnell, that master of jurisprudence, no doubt already knows that s61 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act codifies the offence of creating a nuisance in the State of Victoria:


Offence of causing a nuisance

(1) A person must not –

(a) cause a nuisance; or

(b) knowingly allow or suffer a nuisance to exist on, or emanate from, any land owned or occupied by that person.

Penalty: In the case of a natural person, 120 penalty units;

In the case of a body corporate, 600 penalty units.

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(b) if the person had a lawful excuse for knowingly allowing or suffering a nuisance to exist on, or emanate from, any land owned or occupied by that person.

So, here’s our poser for that eminent legal mind, Mark Parnell: how many penalty units apply to a wind farm operator when they have knowingly caused a nuisance as an ongoing course of conduct, since March 2015?

Having ‘wowed’ us with his superior command of the law, Mark Parnell then trots out this drivel:

“there’s some alternative medical research which shows that if you can convince someone that wind farms are bad for your health and they hear a wind farm, then they actually can get sick as a result of this, I think psychogenics they call it. The other name they use is communicated illness.”

Right at that point it’s pretty evident that Parnell is more partisan than patrician. Mark, there’s nothing noble about denigrating people’s suffering, especially when that suffering and the source of it has been found to exist by an independent investigator, as a matter of fact.

Being forced to resort to the ‘nocebo’ nonsense pitched up by a former tobacco advertising guru about noise induced sleep deprivation being the figment of their febrile imaginations, smacks of desperation. But, for the wind industry and its acolytes these are, most certainly, very desperate times.

Mark Parnell, no doubt across every relevant decision concerning his beloveds, will also be aware that an Australian Court has already rejected, out of hand, the idea (cooked up by the wind industry) that the suffering caused by wind turbine noise is the product of ‘psychogenics’ and is a ‘communicated disease’.

The full decision – Waubra Foundation v Commissioner of Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission [2017] AAT – is available here: Waubra and ACNC Decision

Here’s what the AAT had to say about the effect of low-frequency wind turbine noise on human health.

Starting at para 467 of the judgment, here are the key factual findings and conclusions on noise and health:


On our analysis, a number of propositions emerge from the medical and scientific evidence. Some of those propositions had unanimous support by the relevant experts, and others had the support of most.

The propositions which we understand have unanimous support from the relevant experts or are not contested include the following:

  • Wind turbines emit sound, some of which is audible, and some of which is inaudible (infrasound);
  • There are numerous recorded instances of WTN exceeding 40 dB(A) (which is a recognised threshold for annoyance/sleep disturbance);
  • There are also recorded instances of substantial increases in sound at particular frequencies when particular wind farms are operating compared with those at times when they are shut down. [Measurements undertaken at the Waterloo wind farm showed that “noise in the 50 Hz third-octave band was found to increase by as much as 30 dB when the wind farm was operational compared to when it was shut down” – Exhibit A51, p 2.]
  • If it is present at high enough levels, low frequency sound and even infrasound may be audible;
  • WTN is complex, highly variable and has unique characteristics;
  • The amount and type of sound emitted by a wind farm at a given time and in a given location is influenced by many variables including topography, temperature, wind speed, the type of wind turbines, the extent to which they are maintained, the number of turbines, and their mode of operation;
  • Wind farms potentially operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
  • There are numerous examples of WTN giving rise to complaints of annoyance from nearby residents, both in Australia and overseas.

The propositions which are supported by the preponderance of relevant expert opinion, and which we accept on that basis, include the following:

  • A significant proportion of the sound emitted by wind turbines is in the lower frequency range, i.e. below 20 Hz;
  • The dB(A) weighting system is not designed to measure that sound, and is not an appropriate way of measuring it. It is even acknowledged in the International Standard, ISO 1996-1 that the A-weighting system alone is “not sufficient to assess sounds characterized by tonality, impulsiveness or strong low-frequency content” – Exhibit A29, T43/8; Section 6.1; “Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures”, International Standard ISO (1996-1).
  • The most accurate way of determining the level and type of sound present at a particular location is to measure the sound at that location;
  • The best way of accurately measuring WTN at a particular location is through ‘raw’ unweighted measurements which are not averaged across time and are then subjected to detailed “narrow-band” analysis;
  • When it is present, due to its particular characteristics, low frequency noise and infrasound can be greater indoors than outdoors at the same location, and can cause a building to vibrate, resulting in resonance;
  • Humans are more sensitive to low frequency sound, and it can therefore cause greater annoyance than higher frequency sound;
  • Even if it is not audible, low frequency noise and infrasound may have other effects on the human body, which are not mediated by hearing but also not fully understood. Those effects may include motion-sickness-like symptoms, vertigo, and tinnitus-like symptoms. However, the material before us does not include any study which has explored a possible connection between such symptoms and wind turbine emissions in a particular population.

We consider that the evidence justifies the following conclusions:

  • The proposition that sound emissions from wind farms directly cause any adverse health effects which could be regarded as a “disease” for the purposes of the ACNC Act is not established;
  • Nor, on the current evidence, is there any plausible basis for concluding that wind farm emissions may directly cause any disease;
  • However, noise annoyance is a plausible pathway to disease. We note the World Health Organization has stated: “There is sufficient evidence from large-scale epidemiological studies linking the population’s exposure to environmental noise with adverse health effects. Therefore, environmental noise should be considered not only as a cause of nuisance but also a concern for public health and environmental health”– Exhibit A4, T287/5709, citing “WHO. Burden of disease from environmental noise.” World Health Organization; 2011 [viewed April 2013]; Available from: as referenced by Professor G Wittert in Exhibit 56 NHMRC Draft Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health, “Expert Review: Comments in full”, National Health and Medical Research Council, February 2015, Appendix 8; and Exhibit 4, T299/6308, Reference No. 40, WHO “Burden of disease from environmental noise”. Bonn: World Health Organization European Centre for Environment and Health, 2011. Available from:
  • There is an established association between WTN annoyance and adverse health effects (eg. this was established by the Health Canada study);
  • There is an established association between noise annoyance and some diseases, including hypertension and cardiovascular disease, possibly mediated in part by disturbed sleep and/or psychological stress/distress. This is also supported by much of the documentary material before us, including a Victorian Department of Health publication entitled “Wind farms, sound and health”, Technical Information, at 7. How can noise affect our health? – Exhibit A4, T297/6232362.
  • There are as yet no comprehensive studies which have combined objective health measurements with actual sound measurements in order to determine for a given population the relationships between the sound emissions of wind turbines, annoyance, and adverse health outcomes. Indeed there is as yet no study which has given rise to a soundly based understanding of the degree to which particular types or levels of wind turbine emissions give rise to annoyance, or what levels or types of emissions are associated with what level of annoyance in the population. Because it relied on calculated rather than actual sound measurements, and was limited to the A and C-weighted systems, the Health Canada study did not do this.

The applicant submitted that the evidence in the hearing provided plausible and credible evidence of the kind required. Counsel referred in particular to the effect of noise on sleep and, in particular, in disturbing sleep. It was not contentious that impaired sleep, if sufficiently serious, may result in a number of ailments and diseases. Professor Wittert said that “depression and sleep disturbance are, respectively, the first and third most common psychological reasons for patient encounters in general practice”. The professor went on to say that insomnia doubles the risk of future development of depression and that insomnia symptoms together with shortened sleep are associated with hypertension. Professor Wittert also said that a person suffering from restricted sleep is exposed to an increased risk of elevated blood sugar levels and endocrine disorders such as diabetes, symptomatic ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, obesity, insomnia and anxiety related illnesses.

The applicant emphasised that Environmental Sleep Disorder has been recognised in the International Classification of Diseases, although there does appear to be some controversy about its existence as a separate and discrete condition.

We also note that the evidence indicated that the annoyance resulting from noise during sleeping times may be greater for those with a noise sensitivity or who have become sensitised to noise.

As our earlier findings have indicated, some wind farms generate sound which is capable of causing, and does cause, annoyance. We are further satisfied that annoyance of the kind which is generated (often associated with psychological distress and sleep disturbance), is a recognised pathway to a range of adverse health outcomes, including hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

So, Mark, nothing in those considered findings supports your bogus claim that sleep deprivation – and the ill-health that comes with it – is the product of pliable imaginations, being whipped up by scaremongering, ‘climate-deniers’.

And the Bald Hills plaintiffs’ case is even simpler, still: wind turbine noise is depriving them of the right to sleep in and otherwise use and enjoy their very own homes.

In the State of Victoria, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act provides those plaintiffs with rights and remedies, as well as making what their tormentors have done, and continue to do, a criminal offence.

For more than two centuries, the common law has provided plaintiffs with a remedy to enforce their right to the lawful use and enjoyment of their homes and properties.

With a factual finding of nuisance under their belts, Dominica Tannock’s clients are all set to enjoy those rights, once again. And about time, too.

About stopthesethings

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


  1. The people of Ontario voted against the Liberal government that brought industrial wind turbines into rural communities. The Liberals lost their party status. They were decimated. The Green Energy Act has been repealed by the new government. Hundreds of projects have been cancelled because these turbines are not fit for purpose and the financial ramifications are staggering.
    Much has been realized about the IPCC deception used by lobbyists and alarmists to rationalize sacrificing the safety and security of rural residents, whose homes have become unsafe due to audible and sub audible noise from turbines sited too close and in some cases surrounding their homes.
    The harm from infrasound radiation has been clearly explained by Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira, who is highly qualified. She has identified the pulse code that is impacting residents’ bodies. She has spoken clearly about the cumulative neurological harm that can cause traumatizing night terror and late onset epilepsy. She has made a direct connection between infrasound radiation and cardio vascular disease.
    Why are these turbines still running?
    Why are people tolerating this genocidal ideology directed toward rural people?
    Surely the next step is to turn them off and end this ethical crisis.
    Why has the work of Dr. Mariana Alves -Pereira been ignored in this case?

  2. Jackie Rovensky says:

    To sum up Parnell – firstly he refers to sacrificial people which in normal speak is ‘collateral damage’, he then goes on to refer to them as having some sort of ‘communicated illness’ which in normal speak as stated in the article refers to the ‘Nocebo effect’ which we heard so much about a while ago and with as yet no proof has been provided that it has any relation to the reported adverse health effects from IWT emitted noise.
    So is Parnell contradicting himself, because he is saying there is ‘collateral damage’ which infers people are being damaged, then anyone suffering this ‘collateral damage’ is actually suffering an illness that is not actually an illness caused by turbine noise, but from listening to other people complain about something that does not exist.
    Which is it Mr Parnell – are these people suffering damage as a result of the avarice of the Renewables industry and its supporters who cheer every time one of their beloved turbines is thrust into the earth or from comments made by those who do not cheer with you?
    Parnell’s response is as confused as his interpretation of what the Green movement (used) to stand for suggesting its possible he has lost his way and is himself possibly suffering from ‘Nocebo effect’.
    Apart from that I congratulate those living around Bald Hills for their tenacity to see this through and show up the failings of their Local Authority, the State Government and the energy company who owns the turbines. Something I expect many others around the world can relate to.

  3. Mr Parnell thinks that the future of power generation in Australia lies with wind turbines. Just to put it into conservative figures given that Australia needs around 35 Gigawatts of power and most Wind turbines produce in perfect conditions 2 to 5 Mw a very conservative 35,000 MW /2-5 MW =17500 x factor 10 (for lack of wind) =175,000 Wind turbines still with no guarantee of a reliable supply depending on their placement. Given this rough estimate every Australian home will have a wind turbine in their back yards LOLOL. This is Australia after all where common sense flew out the door decades ago but luckily we still have Experts like Mr Parnell trying to save the Earth.

  4. singletonengineer says:

    I have read hundreds of STT posts.

    This is possibly the most detailed, closely argued and best referenced of them all.

    I reserve opinion as to the extent that I agree or otherwise, but two comments along those lines are valid:
    1. This post does push me toward an opinion that is consistent with the post’s arguments; and
    2. I am amazed by the detail of the discussion, especially regarding the common law arguments and the laws of tort. Thank you, this has been well worth my time.

    I look forward to future developments in this matter. They may well be, as they say, “interesting”.

  5. A quick thank you to STT. Amazing and inspiring….

  6. Green Vomit says:

    Exactly who’s human rights are the Greens ‘interested in’?

    Green guru Parnell says he’s a strong supporter of renewable energy and also that he’s ‘interested in human rights’, then later states “You’ve got to be careful to say, “Well, these people are the sacrificial people.”

    Clearly for the Greens, renewable energy and human rights are mutually exclusive. If you are a refugee from a foreign war, the Greens are strident advocates for justice, but when you are a victim of wind turbine noise and refugee in your own Land, the Greens ‘look the other way’ ignoring the evidence, spruik wind industry propaganda (communicable BS), and take the ‘blood money’ from the wind industry ‘under the table’.

    Parnell and the Greens are self-righteous mercenary hypocrites of the highest order. They claim to care for the earth, but care nought for human rights. Parnell and his delusional fellow political travellers deserve to be sacrificed politically at every future election.

    • Yes GV the Green/Left is very selective when it comes to the victims they champion. If for instance you are a South African farmer dispossessed of your farm and under threat of murder, all with tacit government approval, the Green/Left doesn’t want to know you, you’re the wrong kind of victim. Likewise if you are a gay residing in the middle east and being persecuted under Sharia law you’re the wrong kind of victim, the Green /Left doesn’t want to know you.
      Similarly if you are an Australian rural resident who has had your property value trashed and who is in the process of having your health ruined by the nightmare of wind turbine noise, the Green/Left may well accuse you of being a “dick brain” but otherwise in their eyes you’re the wrong kind of victim.

  7. Michael Crawford says:

    Mr Parnell apparently believes that the independent investigator, who reported hearing excessive wind farm noise in the homes of some of the complainants, must be suffering from a “communicated illness”.

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: