Wind turbines in fields – A real nightmare for farmers and food safety
by Dr. Peter F. Mayer,* Austria
(13 September 2024) Masses of wind turbines have been put into operation in the middle of agricultural land. Abrasion on the rotors releases highly toxic substances such as fine respirable carbon or glass fibres. There are also several hazardous chemicals such as bisphenol-A. These microparticles are distributed over a wide area, contaminating the soil and subsequently food.
(Picture www.tkp.at)
I have already reported on the effects on people and reactions to this in the past. Residents in southern Crete have prevented the construction of further wind turbines. This was prompted by serious illnesses suffered by neighbours near large turbines on mountain ridges.1 The area became deadly for all kinds of animals and farming became impossible. A medical study states that “neighbours living within 10 km of industrial wind turbines have reported adverse health effects and have considered evacuating their homes. Some participants described their concern for wildlife and the impact on their pets, animals and well water.”2
Mr Sandere-Faes first reported in an article on scientific findings on the many potential health risks posed by wind turbines.3 A second article deals with documents known to the authorities, which lawyer Thomas Mock presented to the Lower Saxony state parliament last year in the form of an expert report.4 These are dangers of the “green turnaround” for humans, animals and the environment that have hardly been recognised to date.
on one side and an industrial area on the other. (Picture ma)
Sooner or later, these dangers will likely (must) lead to bans on use within a radius of at least 1000 metres around wind turbine sites. The area in question would be 3.14 square kilometres. This is the result of an expert report submitted to the North Rhine-Westphalian state parliament. The author of this report is lawyer Thomas Mock, it is dated 2 March 2023 and was commissioned by the Society for Progress and Freedom e.V., a self-proclaimed “liberal” think tank.5
If the radius of the contamination increases to 1500 metres, the affected area grows to 7,07 km² (F = r² • ∏).
Microparticles released by wind rotors into their surroundings affect the property and health of residents as well as agricultural land, where significant and 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 can be an obstacle to authorisation.
However, this has not been the case to date. On the contrary, wind turbines are being built en masse in the middle of fields, as the picture above shows. This is the case in the greater Vienna area, in Lower Austria and Burgenland, in the Weinviertel, Marchfeld, the Vienna Basin and around Lake Neusiedl. A large proportion of the fodder grown in the region comes from these regions, as well as food for humans, such as various types of grain and vegetables.
According to Thomas Mock’s expert opinion, the risk of significant damage to health due to toxic and harmful particle inputs is disproportionate and unreasonable, Art. 2, 20a GG, and can jeopardise the existence of an agricultural business, Art. 14 GG. In view of the large surface areas 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, already reach into the millions of particles.
250 to 350 square metres. A wind turbine with three such rotors therefore has a total
surface area of up to around 1000 square metres. (Picture ma)
“Locations in areas where food is grown or agricultural land are therefore ruled out per se,” says Mock. But this is not the case, as we can see.
The carbon/GRP/CFRP materials used in the surfaces of today’s 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 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 wastewater by the degradation processes commonly used in sewage treatment plants, which are essentially based on the use of microorganisms.
In other words, they remain permanently in the soil or groundwater if they are not absorbed by plants and thus end up in the food of humans and animals.
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).
The responsible authorities have so far not even demanded a forecast or investigations or monitoring to protect local residents and agriculture, even if the plant is built only a few hundred metres from residential buildings or even directly next to or in the middle of areas used for growing food.
All of this has already been done on a large scale and is constantly being extended and expanded for “climate protection”.
When will the EU ban land use and expropriate land?
As the lawyer points out, the relevant laws and paragraphs exist that prohibit the installation of wind turbines even in the vicinity of agricultural land. What if these paragraphs are now applied in reverse? The contamination has happened, so agricultural use can no longer be permitted.
For some time now, the EU has been doing everything it can to make life difficult for farmers. The regulations lead to mass expropriations and evictions of farmers, as in Holland,6 CO2 taxes on cows in Denmark7 and are supplemented by never-ending bureaucratic restrictions.
At the same time, insect meal from crickets, mealworms and similar creatures to produce food,8 laboratory meat,9 artificial milk,10 chemical butter11 and vertical vegetable production in mega-factories are authorised and massively subsidised with taxpayers’ money.
According to the report, the quantities of microparticle emissions are considerable, as the studies show, and pose a challenge to the Soil Protection Act, among other things. This is because, according to the lawyer, huge areas of soil may have to be removed after decades of operation if they are contaminated by the emissions.
The question then is who can afford this. If the company operating the wind farm goes bankrupt in time, the farmer is left with a contaminated area that is forbidden to use and too expensive to clean up. This offers an ideal field of activity for the large asset managers, who then act as buyers.
In my opinion, the question is not whether this will happen, but when. The WHO’s “One Health” ideology, which has also been adopted by the EU, provides the ideal justification.
| * Dr Peter F. Mayer is an Austrian publicist for Science&Technology. He is the publisher and editor-in-chief of “tkp – The Blog for Science&Politics” and can be reached at home@tkp.at |
Source: https://tkp.at/2024/08/19/windraeder-in-feldern-super-gau-fuer-bauern-und-nahrungsmittelsicherheit/, 19 August 2024
(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)
1 https://tkp.at/2024/06/16/hitze-und-saharastaub-in-griechenland-und-die-rolle-von-windparks/
2 https://tkp.at/2024/07/02/studie-windraeder-machen-menschen-und-tiere-krank-und-schaden-der-umwelt/
3 https://tkp.at/2024/08/09/windkraftwerke-als-todesfallen-fiese-fasern-und-kontaminationsrisiken/
4 https://tkp.at/2024/08/15/windkraft-und-fiese-fasern-fakten-von-ra-thomas-mock/
5 https://fortschrittinfreiheit.de
7 https://tkp.at/2024/06/27/daenemark-steuern-auf-kuehe-um-laborfleisch-zu-foerdern/
10 https://tkp.at/2024/04/23/deutschland-foerdert-produktion-von-kunst-milch-und-kunst-fleisch/
11 https://tkp.at/2024/07/16/butter-aus-co2-zur-produktion-von-nahrungsmitteln-ohne-landwirtschaft/