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.
Get ready for some major denial and subject-changing by Seb.
I give up on this topic, Pierre. Maybe it’s the constant infrasound from the nearby Autobahn that is inducing fear and anxiety and causes me to give up this quickly 😉
lol – you’re out of arguments
If you think so … I guess you believe that you have valid arguments here?
DNCWTRT
@Pierre
He’s been out of arguments for years. But he’s not out of B.S.
“It’s a many to one situation here, of course I am going to have to write a lot more comments than any one individual on your side.”
https://notrickszone.com/2018/10/14/the-green-mob-dutch-filmmaker-attacked-for-climate-energy-critical-movie-received-anonymous-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-1276241
In other words, he’s out to counter everything we say. He’s on a crusade. And the objective of that crusade is to turn your blog into San Franscisco.
https://www.breitbart.com/local/2015/08/25/san-francisco-steps-up-poop-patrols/
…and possibly to get paid piecework for the amount of nonsense he’s able to get away with expelling?
While some of you are debating the existence of infrasound and its effects on people, you can dismiss, deny, downplay, and discount these issues as well:
30 Negatives of WIND Energy
1. Audible sound
2 Inaudible sound and vibration/pulsation
3. Accompanying sleep deprivation that
4. Can cause negative health issues.
5. Higher electricity rates
6. Loss of property value
7. Shadow flicker
8. Barely 35% efficient. Need back up fossil fuel plants that run constantly creating nothing but pollution.
9. Trespass Zoning (uncompensated easement without permission)
10. Miles and miles and miles of additional transmission lines above and below ground.
11. Red flashing warning lights
12. Weak or NO decommissioning language in wind ordinances that can result in eye sores for generations.
13. Oil leaks from wind turbine
14. Ice throw
15. Blade throw
16. Fire in the Nacelle
17. Wind turbine collapse
18. Stray/Induced Voltage
19. Possible damage to water in water wells depending on layout and location of wind turbine.
20. Aesthetics
21. Damage to wildlife, domestic and farm animals
22. Bird and BAT kills especially raptors
23. MASSIVE gov’t handouts oil, nuclear, and natural gas don’t receive anywhere near that amount.
24. Reduction in economic growth and expansion
25. Interference with emergency radio broadcasts
26. Interferes with crop dusting
27. Mercy flight interference
28. Damaging to economy of tourist areas
29. Destruction of the social fabric in smaller communities
30. Toxic/radioactive pollution from mining rare earth minerals used in wind turbine magnets.
I thought your padded cell would stop any infrasound.
You can read about some of this research by the BGR in English below:
https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Erdbeben-Gefaehrdungsanalysen/Seismologie/Downloads/infraschall_WKA_Poster.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
Plus page 66 of: https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Gemeinsames/Produkte/Downloads/Report2018_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4
Not the first time the BGR has come out in conflict with the blatant political advocacy of the German Federal Environment Agency:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/fracking-uba-und-bgr-streiten-ueber-unkonventionelle-gasfoerderung-a-875576.html
Thanks!
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
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/10/29/wind-farms-would-need-to-cover-whole-of-scotland-to-power-britains-electric-vehicles/
They are, IMO, the epitome of criminally insanity.
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.
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/
Thanks
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.
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.
Can anyone think of an upside to the expensive, subsidised, unreliable, bat-bursting, bird-bashing, people-sickening, unsightly eco-crucifixes?
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 …
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.
The IPCC claims it will cost $38 trillion to curtail our fossil fuel infrastructure by 2030. That doesn’t look particularly attractive to me.
DNCWTRT
I am really trying not to reply to you … thanks for the advice!
I take it you enjoy blabbering to yourself in your padded cell, then👻🤡
@B&t
If by “upside” you mean totally insane, then yeah, it’s a many faceted feature. Here’$ 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.
Oh yeah …the sounds of silence.
Writ Large.
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.
[…] Wind Energy Proponents Don’t Acknowledge Proven Turbine Health Hazards […]