The Rotors Of Sickness… Wind Energy Proponents Refuse To Acknowledge Proven Wind Turbine Health Hazards

A report on infrasound (low frequency sound below 20 Hz) by German public television ZDF here further reveals how infrasound from wind turbines causes widespread health issues, despite claims by “experts” that these illnesses are “in peoples’ heads” and not really real.

The dubious argument that “if you can’t hear it, then it can’t hurt you” is often used. It turns out that in the case of infrasound from wind turbines, this is not true at all.

Hat-tip: Agnes Doolan at Facebook.

The ghost of infrasound

The ZDF in its report called “Infrasound, the unheard noise” begins by presenting a case in Coventry, England, where a tour guide suddenly developed a phobia of entering the cellar of a church and how her tourists thought they had seen ghosts. The sickly and scary feelings, it turns out, were not ghosts but effects of infrasound.

While many things cause infrasound, most are very short term, lasting only a few minutes. However, for people living in the area of wind turbines, the sub-audible sound goes on for hours, or even days and weeks, without interruption and thus poses huge problems for people like Insa Bock (2:47), who together with her husband live 700 meters from “dozens of turbines” and suffer from health issues.

German Ministry of Environment refuses to acknowledge

Particularly troublesome, the ZDF reports, are the new, larger turbines which replace older, smaller turbines in what is called “repowering”. But when confronted with the health risk from infrasound, Germany’s Ministry of Environment (using totally irrelevant measurements) denied that there was a serious problem of any type (5:00) for residents nearby.

Cover-up by German Ministry of Environment

However, the ZDF shows that correctly performed measurements and their evaluation show the contrary.

For example, ground measurements by Germany’s Geological Office (BGR) shows infrasound from wind turbines are for real (8:00) and can be measured in the ground:

Image cropped from ZDF, Infraschall – Unerhörter Lärm.

The German BGR illustrates to ZDF (11:00) how Germany’s pro-wind Ministry of Environment “smoothed out” the infrasound signal rather than acknowledging their existence.

Also the Ministry of Environment refused to come out to the Friesian area to perform new wind turbine noise measurements, claiming that the “wind direction and strength were not proper” (11:35).

More independent results confirm

So an outside consultant was hired to conduct more measurements of the wind park, which showed “clear sound waves”. The local resident told ZDF that she was physically able to perceive the vibrations in her bedroom – the dog as well (13:50).

The expert explained to the ZDF how he was able to measure a “a clear exposure” and “very strong vibrations” in the area of the house (14:25) and “very high levels of infrasound”.

Statistical smoothing tricks

The ZDF concludes that the measurements by the Ministry of Environment ignore the health damaging infrasound by smoothing them out, and so takes the position they don’t really exist (15:10).

Infrasound’s profound affect on the human inner ear

The ZDF report also interviewed Dr. Alec Salt of the Washington University, St Louis, a specialist for inner ear anatomy (16:15). Salt said that very low inaudible frequencies indeed have a profound effect on the human inner ear and signal pathways.

Wind industry attacking the results

Salt then adds that the wind industry have made their lives difficult and are actively trying to suppress the overwhelming science: “It’s all to do with bias and money, I’m afraid.”

UKE: infrasound impacts the stress area of the brain

The ZDF also reports on tests that subjected volunteers to infrasound in a laboratory at the University Clinic of Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) for a period of 4 weeks (18:05).  The question: Does infrasound have an impact on sleep and mental capabilities of people?

Here the researchers found that infrasound has impacts on “parts of the brain involved in processing stress and conflicts”. What cannot be heard, but subconsciously sense, may initiate a stress and fear reaction in people the scientists hypothesize.

Confirmed by the US Army – 30 years ago!

The effects of infrasound on humans has already long been confirmed by the U.S. Army, says John B. Alexander (21:00). He also says there’s information that the Soviets and Chinese experimented with infrasound as a weapon in the 1980s. Overall the military abandoned the idea of infrasound as a weapon because different people reacted differently to it.

Infrasound damages heart tissue

The ZDF next cites Professor Christian-Friedrich Vahl, Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery (HTG) of the University Medical Center Mainz who says infrasound is an energy and that it has a physical effect (23:05). He led a team of researchers who conducted two different trials. Their findings in summary:

In both series of experiments, a clear reduction in cardiac muscle strength was observed when subjected to infrasound signals.”

Just days ago, NTZ reported on this here.

The ZDF also reports that Germany’s prestigious Robert-Koch-Institut hat bereits 2007 had found a potential health risk back in 2007.

10 – 30% of population have symptoms of infrasound

Overall the ZDF reports that exprts estimate between ten and thrirty perceont of the population sense symptoms from infrasound.

Though the data are in, Germany’s Ministry of Environment and wind energy proponents refuse to believe it and ignore the cries from those who are being seriously injured by it every day.

Germany’s wind energy risks turning into an industrial-scientific debacle that will have a huge health price to pay.

26 responses to “The Rotors Of Sickness… Wind Energy Proponents Refuse To Acknowledge Proven Wind Turbine Health Hazards”

  1. Pat Swords
  2. Yonason

    ENVIROGEDON

    T’ain’t warming that’s the threat to humanity and the planet. It’s the schemes of demented faux-Greenies.

    https://www.city-journal.org/wind-power-is-not-the-answer

    meeting America’s current demand for electricity alone—not including gasoline or jet fuel, or the natural gas required for things like space heating and fertilizer production—would require covering a territory twice the size of California with wind turbines.

    https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/10/29/wind-farms-would-need-to-cover-whole-of-scotland-to-power-britains-electric-vehicles/

    Scotland would need to be entirely covered by wind farms in order to power all of Britain’s electric cars, according to a leading academic.

    Jack Ponton, emeritus professor of engineering at Edinburgh University, said another 16,000 turbines would be required in order to replace petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles.

    They are, IMO, the epitome of criminally insanity.

  3. BoyfromTottenham

    I identified several years ago that the type of sound level meter mandated by most environmental agencies to measure wind turbine noise was technically incapable of doing so. They specified a common type of sound level meter that was designed to measure only audible sound (approx 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Hey presto – no infrasound! Very cunning, This alone held back public objections to wind turbine farms by at least a decade. And by the way, a reading of 90 dB means a very loud sound (if it was audible, but the ear cannot hear ‘sounds’ in that frequency range.)But medical science has known for at least 80 years that infrasound has bad effects on the inner ear, e.g. from well-documented attempts to use infrasound as a non- lethal weapon.

  4. Richard Mann

    Please see the following article and comments following. Health harm is real and has been reported in Ontario. Please see comment of October 19th, 2018, “Cardiac instability caused by infrasound radiation from industrial wind turbines”

    http://cmajblogs.com/health-canada-and-wind-turbines-too-little-too-late/

  5. Derek Colman

    The USA also tried out infra sound as a weapon. The idea was to direct high power infra sound at the enemy with a large reflector, and it was supposed to knock them out, rather like a long range taser. The US troups would then move in and take them prisoner before they recovered without a drop of blood being shed. Infra sound is too low frequency to vibrate the eardrums, which is why we can’t hear it, but it can vibrate the larger inner organs like the heart and the brain, and make people sick.

  6. BoyfromTottenham

    Richard Mann – of course health harm due to infrasound is real – anyone can tell after spending 5 minutes on Google. And various nations militaries would hardly have spent precious time and money developing infrasound weapons if they thought they were harmless.
    As I said in my previous post, it was very cunning of the folk who drafted the rules used by most, if not all, of the developed world’s ‘environmental protection’ agencies to mandate the use of a sound level meter (set to the ‘A weighting’ yet), which is designed to measure only audible sound (approx 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz). I am familiar with these devices, having had at times been required to use them to officially measure aircraft noise.
    For example, one EPA’s rules for measuring wind turbine noise notes:
    “A-weighted network (dBA). This is the most commonly used weighting network. It was designed to approximate the response of the human ear, which is most sensitive to mid and high frequencies. Therefore, sound pressure levels with an A-weighting (written as dBA) generally indicate how loud a sound
    is to the human ear, regardless of its frequency.”
    But what they don’t make clear is that as the frequency range of harmful infrasound is below the operating range of this sound level meter, it will indicate none of the infrasound, as a glance at the manual for such a meter will confirm.

  7. Bitter&twisted

    Can anyone think of an upside to the expensive, subsidised, unreliable, bat-bursting, bird-bashing, people-sickening, unsightly eco-crucifixes?

    1. SebastianH

      Can you think of an upside to expensive, subsidised, dirty, human-killing, river-polluting, climate-changing, ugly fossil fuel power plants?

      Factor in all costs and suddenly fossil fuel doesn’t look so attractive anymore. But mankind are masters in shifting real costs into the future or hide them cleverly. We are also masters in denial on that part …

      1. Kenneth Richard

        https://www.masterresource.org/energy-myths-vs-reality/fossil-fuels-improve-the-planet/
        The basic question underlying our energy policy debates is this: Should we be free to generate more and more energy using fossil fuels? Or should we restrict and progressively outlaw fossil fuels as “dirty energy”?

        I believe that if we look at the big picture, the facts are clear. If we want a healthy, livable environment, then we must be free to use fossil fuels. Why? Because for the foreseeable future, fossil fuels provide the key to a great environment: abundant, affordable, reliable energy.

        We’re taught in school that the key to a great environment is to minimize our “impact” on it. We think of our environment as something that starts out healthy and that we humans mess up. Not so. Nature does not give us a healthy environment to live in; until the fossil-fueled industrial revolution of the last two centuries, human beings lived in an environment that was low on useful resources and high on danger. [1]

        Today’s industrialized environment is the cleanest, healthiest in history. If you want to see what “dirty” looks like, go to a country that is still living in “natural,” pre-industrial times. Try choking on the natural smoke of a natural open fire burning natural wood or animal dung—the kind of air pollution that has been almost eliminated by modern, centralized power plants. Try getting your water from a local brook that is naturally infested with the natural germs of all the local animals—the once-perennial threat that modern, fossil-fuel-powered water purification systems eliminate. Try coping with the dramatic temperature and weather swings that occur in nearly any climate—a threat that fossil-fuel powered air-conditioning, heating, and construction have made extremely rare.

        We live in an environment where the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick, and where we can cope with the often hostile climate of nature. That is a huge achievement—an achievement that lives or dies with the mass-production of energy. We can live this way only by getting high-powered machines to do the vast majority of our physical work for us. [2]

        Energy is what we need to build sturdy homes, to produce huge amounts of fresh food, to generate heat and air-conditioning, to irrigate deserts, to dry malaria-infested swamps, to build hospitals, to manufacture pharmaceuticals. And those of us who enjoy exploring the rest of nature should never forget that oil is what enables us to explore to our heart’s content, which pre-industrial people didn’t have the time, wealth, energy, or technology to do.

        Factor in all costs and suddenly fossil fuel doesn’t look so attractive anymore.

        The IPCC claims it will cost $38 trillion to curtail our fossil fuel infrastructure by 2030. That doesn’t look particularly attractive to me.

      2. Bitter&twisted

        DNCWTRT

        1. SebastianH

          I am really trying not to reply to you … thanks for the advice!

        2. Bitter&twisted

          I take it you enjoy blabbering to yourself in your padded cell, then👻🤡

    2. Yonason

      @B&t

      If by “upside” you mean totally insane, then yeah, it’s a many faceted feature. Here’$ ju$t one.
      http://prismsuk.blogspot.com/2018/07/13-days-of-low-levels-of-uk-wind-power.html?m=1

      Poverty insn’t just on the horizon, it’s just around the bend.

  8. Stephen Way

    Oh yeah …the sounds of silence.
    Writ Large.

  9. Krzysztof Nawrot

    It is not healthy what we eat, what we drink, the air we breathe, the radiation from all communication devices, tv-sets, and so on. Sounds are part of our live the same as chemical particles or electromagnetic fields. Life is not healthy. Cultivating infra-sounds as separate subjects is not reasonable imho.

  10. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: November 12, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Wind Energy Proponents Don’t Acknowledge Proven Turbine Health Hazards […]

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close