Frost Fan debate: The age of reason?

I like the idea of the debate page in the Marlborough Express.
So I suppose it would have only been a matter of time before frost fans featured.
Young Malcolm took the 'reason' slant. And why not? It's kind of obvious when you boil the issue down. Frost fan operators should be just as responsible for producing a reasonable of noise as defined in the RMA as any other industry. Why should they be special? Perhaps the Chairman of the New Zealand Winegrowers has a reason? Let's take a look....
There is apparently a significant cost in running a frost machine. Frankly a few hundreds of dollars of diesel is pittance beside the potential earnings of the crop, so let's not mince words here. An operator will ALWAYS err on the side of caution when deciding whether or not to operate his fans. Some operators won't even take as much care as young Stuart. I mean why bother to wake up at 3am when you can simply tell your vineyard manager to turn them on at the first sniff of cool weather and turn them off at sunrise. Small price to pay (especially when you live in another part of the country).
Clearly every time he ran his machines he was faced with no other alternative. This is WAR! (have you noticed how the effort is described as frost fighting? This is genuinely how some growers approach the business of frost protection, no matter what technique is used. And as we know, in war, not everyone's following the Geneva convention (I mean history is written by winners isn't it?)).
I see that "landowners have a responsibility to ensure that the adverse effects of their viticultural practices are mitigated as far as practically possible" So there are adverse effects of viticultural practices, but if you've chosen to grow your crop in an unsuitable area, never fear, you only have to make an effort to mitigate adverse effects, not actually mitigate them.
All the hot air over national standards and complicated rules hides the fact that the New Zealand Winegrowers have not made any practical attempt to limit noise pollution. This includes their code of practice which doesn't even pretend to be enforceable. What Stuart is really saying is let's forget about this petty local squabbling and elevate the issue to a national level so that no affected individual will be inclined to participate and we can either write our own rules or simply drag the process out for longer.
Other Councils are less combative?  How much less combative can they get. For crying out loud, they don't even monitor the noise, just the complaints!!