Wind Turbines and 'Nasty Fibres' are Deadly
An expert opinion by Attorney Thomas Mock, written in Feb. 2023, spells out the implications and dreadful consequences of our mad dash towards wind power
A few days ago, we talked about so-called ‘nasty fibres’, also known as Carbon-fiber reinforced polymer, said to be as dangerous as asbestos. Read up on it here:
Today, we’ll take yet another deep dive into this topic, specifically taking a look at expertise submitted to the state parliament (Landtag) of the German federal state of Northrhine-Westphalia. The author of this expertise is attorney Thomas Mock, it is dated 2 March 2023 and was compiled at the request of the Association for Progress in Liberty (Gesellschaft für FORTSCHRITT in FREIHEIT e.V.), a self-declared ‘libertarian’ (freiheitliche) think tank (website).
You can find the source here, the below excerpts (pp. 44-54) come to you in my translation and with emphases added.
On Microparticulate Erosion of Rotor Blades
The growing dangers from microparticles caused by abrasion on the rotors also justify maintaining the 1000 metre distance.
In view of the health risks generally posed by microparticles, it goes without saying that they are also posed by microparticles from wind rotors, which affect the property and health of local residents as well as areas where food is grown and where significant, continuously increasing contamination by various microparticles occurs over decades of operation. The operation of wind turbines due to the natural and unavoidable abrasion/erosion/ delamination of toxic microparticles from rotor surfaces, regardless of the surface protection provided, especially on the rotor beads that are most exposed to wind and weather, can be an obstacle to authorisation, as the risk of significant damage to health from such toxic and harmful particle inputs is disproportionate and unreasonable, Art. 2, 20 (a) GG [Grundgesetz, Germany’s de facto constitution] and can endanger the existence of an agricultural business, Art. 14 GG. In view of the large surfaces of today’s rotors and the usual average but unavoidable abrasion of microparticles of all sizes and the lifetime of rotors, a significant quantity of microparticles can already be assumed, which, due to their tiny size, can reach into the hundreds of thousands if not millions of particles. Locations in food growing areas or areas used for agriculture are therefore ruled out per se. A precautionary distance of 1,000 metres between wind turbines and every residential building is also imperative, particularly due to the decades of neglected research and the resulting lack of research results that are now available.
Microparticle erosion that is harmful to human health is caused by significant erosion of the surfaces of today’s larger rotor blades and front rotor blade beads and, over the 20-25 years of operation, increasing contamination of the soil and surface water such as groundwater with toxic properties, including bisphenol-A, which is classified as life-threatening (according to the UBA [Umweltbundesamt, Germany’s EPA]), due to the carbon/GFRP/CFRP [Carbon-fiber reinforced polymers] materials used, to the detriment of the health of local residents, especially the micro-fibres [these are the ‘nasty fibres’ we talked about], which according to the UBA can even cause cancer. It is also fatal that such particles and fibres measuring less than 2 millimetres, which is predominantly the case or can be assumed to be the case with fine-particle erosion, because why should erosion NOT produce small particles which, as shown in the following linked study on mice and human cell cultures, can overcome the protective blood-brain barrier and penetrate the brain. There they apparently accumulate in certain nerve cells, the microglia, influence the immune defence and lead to life-threatening inflammation. This is all state of the art.
[Here’s the reference provided: ‘Potential utilization of dairy industries by-products and wastes through microbial processes: A critical review’, in Science of The Total Environment, vol. 810, 1 March 2022, 152253, (source).]
…Today’s standard rotors with a length of approx. 80m have a total surface area of 250 to 350 square metres. A wind turbine with three such rotors therefore has a total surface area of up to approx. 1,000 square metres…
Due to environmental influences, such as UV radiation, wind, temperature changes (especially in the winter months), lightning strikes, and large-scale insect adhesions on the surface in summer, wind turbine rotor blades are susceptible to erosion. Such erosion is characterised by more or less continuous wear and tear, cracking and similar signs of wear on the surfaces. These increase the higher wind turbines are erected today. This is because the more aggressive weather up there and the much stronger winds at higher altitudes not only generate higher electricity yields to the third power, but also, in proportion to the more aggressive winds prevailing there (which are sought by the height of the turbine), higher wear and tear on the surfaces. Among other things, this worsens the aerodynamic properties of the blades…
The Material Used For Rotors
The materials carbon/GFRP/CFRP used in the surfaces of today’s standard rotor blades are synthetically produced substances that do not occur in nature. They are characterised by the fact that they are simultaneously water-repellent (hydrophobic), grease-repellent (lipophobic), and dirt-repellent. Due to these special properties, they are used in many areas of industry. They are used, for example, in aeroplanes and cars to reduce weight in the military sector and in the wind industry. Due to their high stability, the chemical compounds of carbon/GFRP/CFRP are practically not destroyed by the usual degradation processes in the environment. Accordingly, they cannot be removed from the waste water by the degradation processes commonly used in sewage treatment plants, which are essentially based on the use of microorganisms. They are now increasingly detectable in the environment. Carbon/GFRP/CFRP are toxic to humans and animals and are suspected of being toxic to reproduction and carcinogenic in high doses (including bisphenol-A) and are equated with asbestos (UBA 2020). Their direct effect on the body has not yet been studied. However, it is undisputed that they cause cancer. There is of course a need for research, as with all such substances. However, particularly in the case of military accidents (crashes of aircraft containing carbon/GRP/CFRP material), the removal of residues contaminated with carbon/GRP/CFRP always involves considerable effort and only with the use of complete full-body protective clothing (PPE) for the specialist personnel deployed and by removing/replacing the soil surface on and in which residues of the material are or could be found [none of these precautions are undertaken in case of wind mills catching on fire, or merely standing around in ‘normal’ operation]…
Turbines and towers [are] exposed to incomparably greater forces when a storm hits. In fact, towers and rotor blades can burst during storms. At the end of October, two rotor blades broke during an autumn storm in southern Germany, one of which fell to the ground. After all, in addition to the rather unusual turbine collapse at Haltern, there have been 5 rotor accidents this autumn [2023], which always pose problems, especially due to the material of the rotors.
During storms, wind turbines switch off automatically and position the rotors in such a way that they offer the wind as little contact surface as possible.
Statistically speaking, the risk of pure storm damage is therefore quite low. More often, rotor beads catch fire due to lightning strikes. However, there is no standardised record of such damage, or there was, but it was deleted from Wikipedia a few years ago at the instigation of interested third parties! This can and may be labelled as lobbying driven by financial interests…
[here follow a few linked references to local media pieces and research organisations (on pp. 49-52) that are only now conducting some work, which, as the expertise holds, ‘does not affect wind turbines currently in operation’]
…On the one hand, the[se] stud[ies] confirm the microplastic erosion of rotors per se, and on the other hand, the dependence of microplastic inputs on the height of the turbine (the higher the more aggressive the weather), the length of the rotors, the surface area, wind speeds, (winter) weather conditions, etc. This can of course vary from year to year. Of course, this can be different every year, so it is as volatile as the wind itself. But there is no doubt about the formation and distribution of microplastics. And the longer a turbine is in operation, the more the material accumulates in the environment.
However, the current heights of the turbines of up to 265 metres and the even higher loads caused by the stronger wind speeds etc. that hit the surfaces have not been investigated separately. Conversely, this makes it clear how quickly the rotors on the surface lose a considerable amount of microparticles through such erosion and erosion processes and release them into the environment.
The studies presented above have estimated the quantities that are lost from the surfaces each year. They reach over 100 kilograms per rotor blade after just a few years, which can result in millions of microparticles. With three rotors, these values increase accordingly and even more with several turbines. These microparticles are dispersed by the wind within a radius of
up to 1000 metres, as they are only detached from the rotor in the event of wind and its consequences, and thus continuously and additively contaminate the soil.
This also makes it possible to forecast the expected microparticle emissions over the lifetime of the rotors, as they can generally be estimated within a natural variance. The quantities are considerable, as the studies show, and pose a challenge for the BBodenSchG [Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz, Federal Soil Protection Act, which provides for what in the US context is referred to as ‘superfund’ sites], among others. This is because huge areas of soil, if contaminated, may have to be removed after decades of operation of wind turbines. However, this must be considered from the outset. Added to this is the growing sensitivity of the scientific community and legislators to such indisputably detrimental environmental influences due to the forthcoming tightening of legal regulations and limits of emissions maximums. This is likely to be particularly sensitive where the areas affected by microparticle input are used for food production. Without investigating and assessing this at an early stage in the procedures and, if licences can be granted at all, explicitly regulating it in the licences and, for example, requiring provisions for ‘worst-case scenarios’ [i.e., large-scale contamination of soils, animals, people, etc.]
Despite these obvious scientifically proven facts, the authorities refuse to carry out soil analyses or define conditions in the licences. The whole subject has been taboo for years, as if it didn’t exist. But it does exist and is a burning issue, especially in view of the planned nationwide expansion of such plants, which are increasingly polluting the environment, and especially in the present case, where these circumstances make it vital to have such prior investigations, forecasts and clarification in the event of damage.
Bottom Lines
If you read German, I highly recommend you read the rest of the expert opinion by attorney Mock. The language is quite technical at times, but it’s definitely something to read-up on because, if the powers that be have their way, these wind turbines—cancer-promoting contraptions—will be put up in all our neighbourhoods before too long.
What the report leaves out, however, is what’s happening to offshore wind farms: given that these are the same machines and materials, these toxic and carcinogenic ‘nasty fibres’ are similarly dispersed through the environment and taken up by marine life, too.
Asbestos, ‘nasty fibres’, and all that kind of crap is thrown around; those who will suffer from this kind of contamination is all of life on earth.
There may be one slight glimmer of ‘hope’: I doubt that the globalist elites (and/or those who are behind them) know about these ‘problems’, which will also affect them. Perhaps they’ll retreat from the abyss we’re all facing.
If (a hypothetical, if there ever was one), and until, they figure this out, we must fight this insanity with every fibre of our being.
Finally a prove that masks save lifes. Take that, you corona conspiracy theorists. But seriously, not only that tiny particles are a problem, those windparks, and also the large solarparks, are able to change the wheather conditions. Especially the huge windparks in the North Sea take away much of the wind that is responsible for the wheather changes in Northern Germany. Building large solarparks has a similar effect like building a large parking place next to a supermarket, you collect heat.
Reminded of the warnings of impacts to public health in creating coal fired power plants around London post WWII. Meteorologists warned of atmosphere inversions would trap sulfur and other toxics creating a killer fog. And, one year it did.
That was to become the albatross to Winston Churchill's legacy, one which haunts the British through the benefits then accorded the Monarchy in order to save Churchill's reputation.