Hear The Truth About Wind Turbine Noise From An MP – Hear It Loud & Clear …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hear The Truth About Wind Turbine Noise From An MP – Hear It Loud & Clear …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

.

MP Demands Wind Farm Moratorium: Rigged & Pointless Noise Rules ‘Rotten to the Core’

The wind industry is what it is thanks to naïve, gullible and pliant politicians. But not every MP drank the Kool-Aid. One who didn’t is SA Best Member of the Legislative Council, Connie Bonaros.

South Australia is the place that set and met its very own ludicrous 50% Renewable Energy Target. For that it suffers the highest retail power prices in the world, mass load shedding and blackouts. This summer guarantees repeat performances of both, every time the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in. Portable generators will be the must have item come December.

Then there’s the destruction wreaked in South Australia’s rural communities, at places like Waterloo, Mt Bryan, Hallett and Jamestown.

Clearly concerned about her constituents, back in October Connie use the World Health Organization’s new noise Guidelines (which declare wind turbine noise a serious health risk) as a pretty solid platform to call for a total moratorium on new wind farms: Wind Turbine Time-Out: WHO’s Health Hazard Warning Prompts Demand for Immediate Wind Farm Moratorium

Connie is facing plenty of malign indifference from both Labor and Liberal MPs alike, but she isn’t about to quit.

Call to halt new wind farms in SA
News.com.au

28 November 2018

SA-BEST MP Connie Bonaros has called for a moratorium on new wind farm developments in South Australia amid ongoing health concerns and impacts on local communities.

About 50 protesters took to the steps of parliament house in Adelaide on Wednesday to voice their own issues with wind farm developments which they say are being built too close to homes.

Of particular concern is a proposal for a wind farm at Crystal Brook, in the state’s mid-north, where French company Neoen wants to install 26 wind turbines that are 240 metres high, or nearly twice the height of the tallest building in Adelaide.

“Wind farms around the world, including many either being built or being proposed in SA, are getting ridiculous in size and generation capacity,” Mr Bonaros said.

“It is therefore imperative that they are located in areas that do not impact local communities and the people who live in those communities.”

Ms Bonaros urged the government to halt approval or construction of all new wind farms to allow for an independent and thorough review of their impacts.

“We must ensure that both operating and future wind farms in South Australia are not allowed to emit noise that causes sleep disturbance or otherwise harm human health,” she said.

“We also need to review legislation surrounding wind farm developments to ensure that SA residents are adequately protected from harm over the lifetime of each project.”

Gayle Manning, from Keyneton in the Adelaide Hills where a wind farm is set to be developed, said the size and capacity of wind turbines had increased dramatically but Environment Protection Authority studies and guidelines had not kept up.

“In order to ensure the safety of all people living close to wind farms, it is imperative that we better and fully understand their impacts,” she said.
News.com.au

 

Over the last decade, the wind industry has ridden roughshod over the rights of law-abiding citizens to live peacefully in their very own homes. The battle that’s followed proves that the value of any right is determined by the beneficiaries’ determination to fight for it.

Giant industrial wind turbines deliver a cacophony of pulsing, practically incessant, low-frequency noise and infrasound. The effects of which have been held by an Australian Court to be a pathway to disease: Australian Court Finds Wind Turbine Noise Exposure a ‘Pathway to Disease’: Waubra Foundation Vindicated

While the results for people set upon by subsidy-soaked wind power outfits are a tragedy, the real tragedy is that those who are paid handsomely to protect them, not only ignore their plight, but side with the wind industry, protecting it from any attempt by their victims to regulate or control noise emissions from wind turbines.

In our timeline post – Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge – we covered the fact that – from 1995 – the wind industry drew together a hand-picked team with a mission to write noise rules with absolutely no relevance to wind turbine noise; and, therefore, of no benefit to wind farm neighbours (with predictable and soul-destroying results).

In the war against the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time, few individuals come close to South Australia’s Mary Morris.

STT readers will know how tough and persistent Mary Morris is from posts like this: A letter to the Environment Protection Authority, South Australia.

Mary’s knowledge of acoustics and understanding of how the wind industry rigged the so-called noise ‘guidelines’ in its favour with the aid of its pet acoustic consultants, is second to none. Here’s Mary being interviewed on ABC radio (bear in mind that Australia’s public broadcaster is wind cult central and its members would rather wash their mouths out with soap, than ever utter a harsh word about their beloveds). The podcast appears below with transcript following.

Wind farms
ABC
David Bevan and Mary Morris
29 November 2018

 

Transcript

David Bevan:  That’s Connie Bonaros from SA-BEST, and she wants a moratorium on these things. Before we move on though, Mary Morris is a spokesperson for the Hansborough and Districts Residents Group. Good morning, Mary.

Mary Morris: Good morning, David, and thanks for the opportunity.

David Bevan: You live around Twin Creek Wind Farm, is that right?

Mary Morris:  I’m halfway between Twin Creek and the operating Waterloo Wind Farm.

David Bevan: And that’s 90 kilometres northeast of Adelaide?

Mary Morris: Yeah, it’s actually right on the very northern rim of the Barossa Valley, like St. Kitts, Koonunga, Ebenezer, around there.

David Bevan: Mary, what impact do you say the wind farms have had?

Mary Morris: I think the main issue is the thumping noise disturbance. That means people can’t sleep, and that thumping noise is actually technically called amplitude modulation.

One thing that the World Health Organisation said in their new environmental guidelines was that standard method … And this is a quote, standard methods of measuring sound, most commonly A-weighting, may not capture the low-frequency sound and amplitude modulation.

What we want is the amplitude modulation and the low-frequency noise to be included in the South Australian guidelines.

David Bevan: Yeah.

Mary Morris: They’re not there. And when the guidelines were last reviewed, we got some documents under FOI and the EPA, or actually Dan van Holst Pellekaan got them. And from that, we can see that there’s a group of wind industry acousticians, who are steering the content of the EPA guidelines. They said care should be taken to ensure all fundamental characteristics are occluded from the potential application of a penalty, including modulation that may occur under stable atmospheric conditions.

David Bevan: What do you say to Andrew Bray, who …

Mary Morris: I say … Well, he raised a lot of issues

David Bevan: Because he says that pretty much the science is settled.

Mary Morris:  Well, that’s not what the WHO says. They said there needs more research to be done, and it says there are serious issues with noise exposure assessment relating to wind turbines on page 86, quote. Basically, what I say to Andrew Bray is people aren’t complaining to the Wind Farm Commissioner anymore. I’ve been involved with six of them with Waterloo. For each of those complaints, nothing has been resolved because his main role is to direct the complainants’ questions to the company, and then they get an answer back from them. We’re getting the same answers from the company as we were getting without going through him.

David Bevan:  Right.

Mary Morris:  So people have asked for noise monitoring inside their houses because of the thumping at four kilometres, and there’s no funds in his budget for doing noise monitoring.

David Bevan:  Well, that’s an interesting research being done at Flinders at the moment, isn’t there?

Mary Morris:  Yes.

David Bevan:  And they’re trying. My understanding is that they’re trying a different approach to trying to monitor ….

Mary Morris:  Yeah, because it’s subliminal. It’s what’s happening when you’re asleep. I’ve got a suggestion for you, David. Go down and have a go in their sleep lab, and see how you go.

David Bevan: Mary, thank you very much for your time.

Mary Morris: Thank you. Bye.

David Bevan: Mary Morris, who is a spokesperson for the Hansborough and Districts Residents Group.

To view the original article CLICK HERE.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

An Apparent Press Release In Favour of a Wind Turbine In Stroat That lacks Veracity, Balance Or Integrity! …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
An Apparent Press Release In Favour of a Wind Turbine In Stroat That lacks Veracity, Balance Or Integrity! …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

it is interesting to note from the aparent PRESS RELEASE by those who stand to gain the most from this environmentally damaging, inefective & clearly resoundingly rejected concept that requires obscene amounts of subsidy considering the near total failure of Wind Turbines to produce a viable output of electricity to feature on the local or national grid reliably enough to permit the switch off of more sensible methods of production such as nuclear..

Be minded that there is no balance to the Forester’s article of the 21-Feb-2018 in that it merely published the statement of the ambitions of the profiting company with no apparent fact checking!

You will of course be minded that the Local Government Officers, trained in such matters and having researched the proposed planning application reported to the Council and strongly recommended against the application being granted leave to proceed.

In my opinion and having listened to the matter at the planning committee the Council acted in palpable ignorance of any relevant facts and in a clearly vexatious manner when you consider the overwhellming preponderance of objection to the application, both by the professional Officers of their own Council and of the facts pertaining to the application, not least of which was the overwhellming opposition to the scheme from the residents within sight and sound of the proposed monstrosity right on the bank of the River Severn, visible from miles around.

Seemingly the only individuals in favour were those drummed up from out of the area and either family, tenants or employees of the land ower who aimed to profit from the subsidies + any potential income!

It was also worthy of note that the landowner herself was in a position to influence the application being a newly elected Counciller who had moved within days of the election onto the Planning Committee. Having nevert mentioned her application during the election nor having shown any talent, expertise or experience in planning matters!

The decision to appeal the questionable decision of the planning committe to grant the application made in Moira Edwards’ name with the commercial support of Resiliance, was made by the residents of the area effected in the name of Peter Wright and supported in his aims by the clear majority of effected businesses and residents who life and lifestyle would clearly be damaged by the instalation, which would likely give rise to a loss of jobs in the area.

The Appeal Judge upheld the appeal application & the vexatious Council decision was overturned. It was overturned on the limited list of reasons Peter Wright’s barristers felt needed to be fielded. There were many sound reasons for rejection of the plan, though few sustainable reasons in its favour have ever been put forward by the applicants – leading one to believe the matter was mainly being progressed for the personal; profit of a few wealthy individuals!

The latest appeal was granted to Peter Wright by 3 Judges voting unanimously against the scheme. Once again Peter Wright’s barristers felt they had no need of the many other reasons against the plan as Resiliance had failed to field any compelling reason for the application beyond seemingly that of their own profit, from which they undertook to pay what seemed to be a bribe, by way of paying back some of the subsidies and a portion of any revenue AFTER they had taken they management fees!

The repayment was beiguillingly deemed to be a ‘Community Fund’ and their highly profitable (for them) scheme was mastery of aesopian English calling it a ‘Community Wind Turbine’.

Here is The Forester’s unchallenged and seemingly unchecked Press Release by the applicant Resiliance:

FORESTER 21-Feb-2018 01 re Supreme Court

It is interesting to have read the applicants documentation of their proposed appeal to the Supreme Court – The first point of interest is that Our Council has withdrawn its support for the appeal, on that note it is also worthy of note that the Tidenham Parish Council has opposed the installation on every occassion on which it has been put to them to vote.

Further it is interesting to note that the applicants nor their legal advisors have put forward any new evidence to be considerred and thus have no compelling case for the application to the Supreme Court, it would seem.

I also note they are still using the misleading language of these giant windturbines so very damaging in many ways are somehow ‘Community Wind Turbines’ when any bribe paid to the public would seem to be funded by the public’s own investment extorted from them under pretence of the efficacy of wind turbines as a power source which they are most questionably able to fullfill.

We should also note when wind turbines are installed there would seem to be no financial provission made for tyheir removal at the end of their subsidy generating life cycle, nor for the massive damage done by the immense concretye block on which they stand and seemingly no provission for the huge carbon footprint of both their manufacture nor their dismantling – indeed just how do the erectors plan to remove the huge reinforced concrete block and all the waste and dust and tons of steel? and at whose expense or is this where the ‘Community’ learn just how large was their involvement in the wind turbine as no doubt the original profiteers will be long gone!

May I also point out that it is my suspicion that once the requisite number of turbines are installed the installers will vote themselves a very lucrative maintenance & management contract with adequate let outs and then sell tyhe primary ownership to new owners with no legal responsibility to in any way contribute to the ‘Community’ they would seem to have so competently sold their scam to!

I for one see little or no merit in Wind Turbines either as a genuine and honourable investment nor as a solution to power generation whether green or any other fashionable colour!

Let us hope the Supreme Court has had the wisdom to see through the scam as increasingly politicians around the world have!

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Council Contemplates A VERY Dubious Public Investment Of Public Money …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Council Contemplates A VERY Dubious Public Investment Of Public Money …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

as has been pointed out by one correspondent with the Forest of Dean Council – it would be questionably a sound investment for yet more tax payers’ money!

Dear Councillor ******,
I note in today’s The Forester newspaper reference to a possible investment in the
above scheme to be discussed at the full Council Meeting tomorrow.
As you may be aware I and a large number of local residents are currently involved
in fighting the similar proposed Wind Turbine at Tidenham being undertaken by the
Resilience Centre who also built the Alvington Court Turbine. So far both the High
Court and the Court of Appeal have found unanimously in our favour in quashing the Planning Consent. Our legal advisers believe in the face of these clear decisions, the likelihood of the Supreme Court allowing any further Appeal are very slim. Moreover the FODDC itself has now withdrawn its objections and is not supporting the appeal by the developers The Resilience Centre.
Whilst I have no objection to the Council’s strategy of diversifying its treasury
management policy to permit consideration of alternative investments such as
renewables, I do have very strong reservations about the Council investing in any
type of individual Wind Turbine scheme proposed by The Resilience Centre, such as
suggested by Councillor McFarling in the Forester article.
Some basic facts as set out below, may help you understand why :
1.  The Alvington Court scheme failed to find sufficient private investors in its initial
funding proposal in 2015/16 and had to resort to an expensive bridging loan for
some £600,000.
2.  In September 2017 the Resilience Centre sought to raise an additional £600,000
via a public offering to replace this bridging loan this Offer closed in December
2017.
3.  Clearly once again insufficient private investor interest was generated, which is
why FODDC has now been approached by the Resilience Centre.
4.  The Share offer document is attached for information and you will note that The
Resilience Centre will benefit financially to a material extent in the payment of
management fees etc. from the scheme (pages 16 – 17).
Moreover, as noted above in view of the ongoing legal discussions, I would
seriously question whether it is wise for the Council to consider investing into any
similar single wind turbine scheme (particularly one operated by the Resilience
Centre), at least until the Supreme Court has given its ruling on the Appeal which
was submitted only last month.
I hope that you will feel able to object to this suggestion accordingly.
Minded that it would seem that Resiliencehas been unable to sell the shares in their dubious investment over a two year period perhaps it would be apposite for the Council to consider the wisdom of making up any of the shortfall  that Resilience would seem to have, particularly as the Council in the current year has shown a shortfall of its own, by way of an overspend of some £115,000 in the matter of Planning and related legal fees, a high percentage of which is likely to have been as a result of failing to take the advice of their own Officers in the matter of granting planning for a wind turbine for Resilience against the wishes of the clear majority of the Council’s own effected rate payers!
Fortunately wiser heads have so far prevailed in two appeal Courts with 4 Judges unanimously voting/adjudging in favour of the effected rate payers!
In pure investment terms I must admit I incline to doubt the wisdom of investing in shares in a scheme, particularly other people’s, where the vendors have been unable to sell their shares – just what would the Council do when it wished to sell its shares which would likely to prove even less saleable than the owners have found them to be so far!
I do not pretend to legal training but if the shares could not be sold might it not be probable any apparent profit would rapidly turn to a considerable loss and furthermore might there not be a possibility of becoming liable for the very considerable costs of reinstating the damage the Wind Turbine had cased and reinstating the land it had ruined!

ALVINGTON FORESTER 21-Feb-2018 03

I incline to the belief that the more time passes the more people will realise that using wind as a source of power is seriously unreliable in Britain and the more this becomes apparent the less the income on the shares will be & the less will be the probability of selling ones shares – the entire concept of a ‘Community Fund’ of any substance in the long run sounds little more than an unsophisticated Ponsi scheme where it will last until the founder sells their stake in the scam and the new owners are not obliged to pay out one cent!

Individuals may of course gamble their own money but I would caution it is morally repugnant for a public body to gamble public money on a scheme where clearly the very foundations are suspect even by its style, such as the pretence of the description, a ‘Community Wind Farm or Wind Mill’, whatever the apparent bribes and incentives – or even a collective guilt at having become embroilled in a Ponzi Scheme!

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~