A passion of mine is defending my profession (Science) from assault. Such is approaching a full-time job, as those promoting political or economic agendas are painfully aware that real Science is a major threat to their aspirations — so they are aggressively attacking it on multiple fronts. (See ScienceUnderAssault.info, which was my talk to Congress sponsored by the House Science and Technology Committee.)

We now have yet another distressing example, where a leading scientist has lost his job — apparently for the crime of being a conscientious, competent academic, focused on quality research (instead of chasing grant money).

Dr. Henrik Møller is an world-renown expert on infra-sound, and has published several high-quality studies on low-frequency acoustics (like here, here, here, and here). More recently, some of these have dealt with industrial wind energy noise (e.g. …

“In areas where wind farms are being developed, invasive species can harm … industries by reducing fish populations, damaging habitats, and deterring tourists who seek intact and diverse marine environments.” – Kieran Kelly, Ocean Integrity (below)

‘It is hard being green, particularly when “green” means being one-dimensional against carbon dioxide (CO2) at the expense of virtually every other metric. Consider wind power, the onshore problems of which (failed past, government dependency, intermittency, site depletion, local warming, noise, avian mortality, health effects) are only magnified offshore (cost premium, wake effect, blade failure, industrialization, hurricanes, pile driving, political bribes).

Kieran Kelly, CEO of Ocean Integrity, “a global organization that aims to reduce ocean plastic pollution and create positive social impact,” recently reported on social media about a particular ecological issue: invasive filter feeders.…

“[Hannah] Ritchie ends with suggestions for better results for wind’s avian mortality problem, including ‘Turn off wind turbines at very low speeds when bats are around … Don’t put wind farms in high-risk areas for birds and bats … Paint the turbines Black … Play alert noises to bats and birds to deter them.’ But … these things limit wind siting, increase costs, and/or annoy local neighbors.”

A social media post by Hannah Ritchie (sustainability researcher, University of Oxford) on industrial wind power is worth revisiting. She works within the climate alarm/forced energy transformation narrative (“Bird species are under threat from climate change”) but considers the question:

It would be worrying, then, if a move to low-carbon energy increased pressures on bird populations. That’s a common concern as countries move to wind power.

“Inner organs are sensitive for sound and vibration. The current state of knowledge on mechano-transduction together with known oscillatory and oxidative stress effects, point in the direction of our hypothesis and should be reason for urgent precautionary actions and further research.”

It is a very technical subject–but certainly one for deep ecologists that see humankind being a cancer to optimal, fragile Nature. Industrial wind turbines, huge and disruptive in the open space, are certainly man-made and subject to the guilty-until-proven-innocent doctrine of the “precautionary principle.”

Infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN) is an important issue that wind apologists do not want to discuss or debate. MasterResource posts by Stephen Cooper and others over many years have made a case that “what you cannot hear can hurt you.” As one critic put it:

More than just audible sound, grinding, whomping, blade pass whooshes, an ever-present hum, industrial wind turbines have a silent, below audible impact.