By Robert Bradley Jr.
“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. It is not like a day contamination/harm at work where people can go home at night for relief. With industrial wind projects literally engulfing homes and rural areas, there is little or no escape.
———————
The ILFN debate continues. In the June 2023 issue of Journal of Biosciences and Medicines (Vol. 11; No. 6), “Impairment of the Endothelium and Disorder of Microcirculation in Humans and Animals Exposed to Infrasound due to Irregular Mechano-Transduction,” Ursula Maria Bellut-Staeck presented an important hypothesis for the mainstream to debate (not ignore). The Abstract and Conclusion follow.
Abstract
The microcirculation of mammals is an autoregulated and complex synchronised system according to the current demand for nutrients and oxygen. The undisturbed course of vital functions such as of growth, blood pressure regulation, inflammatory sequence and embryogenesis is bound to endothelial integrity. The sensible vasomotion is particularly dependent on it.
Mechano-transduction signalling networks play a critical role in vital cellular processes and are the decisive physiological mechanism for an adequate NO-release, main responsible for the autoregulation of vessels. Disturbed endothelial integrity, originating, e.g., from chronic oxidative stress and/or mechanic (oscillatory) stress, leads to disturbance of vasomotion as well as a disequilibrium of redox systems, recognized as main cause for the development of chronic inflammation diseases such as atherosclerosis and corresponding secondary illnesses, possibly cancer.
The endothelial cytoskeleton, which corresponds to a viscoelastic “tensegrity model”, offers the possibility for mechano-transduction via its special construction. The rapidly growing knowledge about mechanical forces in cellular sensing and regulation of the last years (that culminated in the Nobel Prize award for the decoding of pressure/vibration sensing ion channels), led us to the following hypothesis: The extern stressor “Noise” produces under certain conditions an oscillatory stress field in the physiologically laminar flow bed of capillaries, which is able to lead to irregular mechano-transductions. Findings provide a strict dependence on frequency in mechano-transduction with determination of thresholds for a 1:1 transmission.
The knowledge, recently gained on endothelial mechano-transduction, sheds a new light on the importance of low frequencies. This could indicate the long-sought pathophysiological way in which infrasound can exert a stressor effect at the cellular level. Noise-exposed citizens, who live near infrastructures such as a biogas installation, heat pumps, block-type thermal power stations and bigger industrial wind turbines (IWT’s), show worldwide mainly a symptomatology associated with microcirculatory disorder. Conceivable are also effects on insects or fishes, since the piezo-channels are recognised as conserved structures of all multicellular organism.
An experimental design is proposed to demonstrate the direct pathological influence of infrasound of defined strength, frequency, effect/time profile and duration on the sensitive vasomotion.
Conclusions
For the first time, the symptomatology of chronically infrasound exposed humans and animals can be classified pathophysiologically in a coherent hypothesis. This was made possible by the progress in knowledge of endothelial mechano-transduction, essential as vascular function of vital character in response to mechanical forces. Crucial cellular processes such as growth, differentiation, migration, angiogenesis, redox homeostasis and inflammation, are simultaneously dependent on mechanical forces and the integrity of the endothelium.
Normally, the flow in the mammalian microcirculation is laminar and not variable. This is achieved by the upstream connection of the resistance vessels in the arterioles. Persistent changes in shear stress patterns, particularly oscillatory flow, have been associated with decreased bioavailability of NO, an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS), higher lipoprotein oxidation rates, increased endothelial apoptosis, pro-atherogenicity, chronic inflammation and possible development of cancer.
We have positive evidence for our hypothesis that a chronically acting oscillating stressor with certain conditions in frequency, time/effect profile, sound pressure and duration might induce an oscillatory stress field and therefore trigger a stress reaction on the cellular level. With the crucial basics of mechano-transduction, there is now a strong evidence with obvious indicators for a possible interaction of infrasound, especially with deep frequencies and impulsive character, as have, e.g., IWT’s or heat pumps. The elucidation for the strong dependency on mechano-transduction from the frequency of “Noise” and the identification of actin filaments and microtubules as “low-pass filters”, support our hypothesis.
In this way, the propagation of sound wave in the viscoelastic organism could become a decodable information. Regeneration, as would occur with a one-time or infrequent exposure, could not take place with chronic impact. Initially functional disturbances of the orchestrated vasomotor system, respectively of sensible vasomotion,can be expected,with longer exposure fixed anatomically recognisable pathological damages in endothelial integrity. Important in this context are the structural changes that tend to be self-reinforcing, as described in the example of remodelling of the heart.
By probably elucidating the pathophysiological pathway of how infrasound/IFLN could lead to the main health disorders, it will be possible to make steps forward in defining safe distances for living or working with emitting technical installations. Many scientific questions remain to be answered, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that, as precautionary measurements, further technologies, involving very low frequencies and/or impulsive emissions with potential impact on living organisms, should be limited or better avoided until all issues are scientifically resolved. The possible effects on insects, which have not been clarified yet, could be of great importance, e.g., for the biodiversity and for co-affection of pollinators and thus nutrition.
The decoding of the PIEZO-1-channels should have already alerted public to the potential risks. 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.
Final Comment
So will “ExxonKnew” be replaced by “Industrial Wind Knew” in future litigation? When did the issue of infrasound and low-frequency noise first emerge, and did the trade groups in the U.S. and abroad take note and investigate the issue? The future of dilute, intermittent, inefficient, land-intensive, noise-intensive industrial wind power is part of Earth in the Balance.
Being expensive, intermittent, and bird and bat killers are reasons enough to condemn wind turbines. And being fugly.
Nope, this is not helpful for us. There is a good reason to get rid of industrial windmills. They aren’t suited for the energy we need. We need constant, reliable, affordable and dispatchable energy. Wind fulfills none of these.
This study is a gateway to control and limit any number of processes that some people don’t like. They want to protect us from things we aren’t aware of or can’t see or hear and may harm insects. The word precautionary is particularly troublesome.
Nope count me out.
Yep I’m out too particularly as humans have a strong preference for living by the foreshore and will pay handsomely for the privilege. As for the whales you’ll note Southern Right whales like to seek out high energy coast lines like the Bunda cliffs in order to calve and the whales are saved now we don’t need whale oil. The weak and frail will no doubt wash up on our beaches more regularly as they come into balance with their food source so just tow them back out for the sharks if we can’t handle the stink.
Story Tip
Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground
Abstract
A new data set of annually averaged CO2 background levels directly measured from 1826 to 1960 is presented. It is based on a selection process of about 100,000 single samples from more than 200,000 available near ground on land and sea, mainly in the northern hemisphere. Analysing the data, methods, sampling stations, meteorological conditions and air masses it is possible to reconstruct the past yearly CO2 background levels. New methods to estimate annual marien boundary levels from near ground data from the historical data are presented. This allows the reconstruction within
an estimated error range of ±2.5 % and a methodical error range since 1870 of ±3%.
A posthum publication E. G. Beck
If this is correct, and I have not means to personally verify (verification is everything), it indicates that CO2 levels around WWII were as high or higher than they are today.
Did some research before commenting.
The post’s cited paper sounds very sciency—but it’s all theory and no data.
The journal Environmental Health Perspectives, v 131, issue 3 provides experimental data in a smallish but very well designed study. Paper title: ‘Health Effects of 72 hour simulated wind turbine infrasound’.
37 self proclaimed infrasound and/or other noise sensitive individuals ages 18-71, 51% female. Randomized double blind gold standard experimental design in several lab ‘efficiency apartments—kitchen/living, bathroom, bedroom’. Three arms, all 37 subjects rotated thru each arm. Arm 1, 72 hours continuous simulated infrasound at 5-20 hertz thru living room and bedroom speakers at 90db. Arm 2, same speakers and duration, but speakers actually silent (remember you cannot hear infrasound). Arm 3 control, 72 hours prerecorded traffic noise at 75db continuous.
Conclusion: Infrasound did NOT perturb any physiological or psychological measures tested, in any test subjects. Traffic noise did perturb sleep in some.
Exxon didn’t know, and big wind doesn’t know either.
Lots of reasons not to like wind turbines (expensive, intermittent, kill raptors and bats). Infrasound isn’t one.
And the study was “Simulated”.
I’ve read about people that once lived in the vicinity of wind turbines, and some at least, have reported a horrendous experience over time, eventually moving out of their respective homes. The blades on thes monstrosities are massive. Wouldn’t there be a pressure wave given off the turbine blades that speakers can’t simulate? Maybe it takes weeks or months to begin to have sensitivity to the inescapable turbine infrasound. The blades alter sunlight patterns – creating flashes of light, like strobes alternately casting light and shadow patterns on interior walls of homes; I didn’t read that the “Simulation” had flashing lights; strobe lights. Also, 37 people NOT experiencing physiological or psychological measures does not mean that all people would test the same. What if one has: Misophonia? Tinnitus? More sensitive hearing than most? Depression? Anxiety? Did the test subjects know the number of days they would be tested, and that they could immediately leave upon completion – there is psychological effect there. I’ll use for example the psychology of putting test subjects in a closed environment for a year to “Simulate” being on a Mars mission – the subjects know they are perfectly safe on Earth, not knowing they are risking their lives every minute of the journey in real space, and not knowing they are probably not returning to their respective families. The levels of stress in the simulations are inherently not equal. Were the test subjects paid, looking forward to being paid? The human brain produces endorphins when its body is getting rewarded. I assume the test subjects were not financially invested in the houses next to the turbine site property, i.e. they didn’t live there and were not going to lose investment money because their property value was crashing because: WIND TURBINE INFRASOUND and FLASHY LIGHTS. In Summary, I don’t know, it just feels like this test, as described, is not exhaustive enough to draw sufficient conclusions. Disclaimer: I have not read the test.:)
Count me skeptical. I wonder why “heat pumps” are mentioned. Same as air conditioners, exposure to which has been accumulating for many, many decades. What about agricultural and factory equipment exposure. What about cars, trucks, buses, trains, and airplanes? There are “mechano-transduction” sources all over the place.
I can see the sense in more study of wind turbine infrasound, but as others have commented, there are plenty of reasons already to stop those things from proliferating.
“The ILFN debate continues. In the June 2023 issue of Journal of Biosciences and Medicines (Vol. 11; No. 6), “Impairment of the Endothelium and Disorder of Microcirculation in Humans and Animals Exposed to Infrasound due to Irregular Mechano-Transduction,” Ursula Maria Bellut-Staeck presented put forward an important hypothesis for the mainstream to debate (not ignore).”
The author is an “independent scientist” writing in a predatory journal.
‘an important hypothesis’ supported by NO data. For once we agree, Nick.
I posted above a small but well done study debunking the ‘important hypothesis’.
Yes, Rud, that seems to be a much better study.
Rud, the most that can be said is that under these conditions, and for the limited time duration, no evidence was found to support the conclusion that infrasound, as generated by the experimental set up, poses a health risk. Longer duration studies, or different methods of generating infrasound may or may not come to different conclusions. To flat out say any “debunking” took place is a conclusion too far.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
These people are out to “save the world” … from what? Prosperity? “Them” losing control?
Someone else living in the Farmhouse? (Animal Farm reference.)
Nice compendium. Sometimes the masks drop and the real agenda evidences. ‘When data doesn’t matter’ you know you are dealing with a cult belief. Never ends well for the cult, no matter whether Feynman’s Cargo cult or the Jonestown cult, because reality always eventually produces overwhelming countercult data.
They want to end our “addiction” to oil and gas.
https://www.theoilmachine.org/
Addiction….
(DIILINIIWP)
The is a mouthful but an accurate way to describe what is commonly referred to as “renewable energy”.
I use the more impartial term term Weather Dependent Generator (WDG) for the same thing. But whatever term you use ti describe these monsters it should be known they are not renewable because they are unsustainable. As the developed world is beginning to realise. The whole charade would fall apart if China stopped making all this useless stuff.
China won’t until their customer West stops buying.
Accurate.
I have spent dozens of hours in the midst of a large wind energy plant. I have recorded sounds above ground on high fidelity equipment. I have planted geophones and seismometers on the surface and some distance below ground and recorded this on high quality equipment. All of this I did in weather fair and foul and with wind coming from all points of the compass. I have examined the data in myriad ways.
What I can say is that wind turbine noise is elusive. Nothing done in the lab makes sounds like what a person hears in the field while recording. In the field I can nearly always hear a turbine over the wind. As wind noise grows so does turbine noise and besides noise from the turbine is recognisable even when it is of lower volume than wind although I am unable to specify an intensity difference where one drowns out the other. I can hear turbine sounds upwind, downwind, cross wind.
What I suspect is this:
1) In the field a person can locate the source of the noise, and the visual system I believe now works with binaural information to aid the cortex in picking out and processing sounds. Most of this additional information is missing back in the lab.
2) Some sounds are produced with blades, tower and nacelle interacting with turbulence and interacting most likely with the wake of upstream turbines. One odd turbine I noticed would sound exactly like a bass drum beating to the rhythm of the blades, but this occured only when the wind came from a southwest direction aligned with three other turbines upwind.
3) Some sounds undoubtedly interact with structures, vertical temperature and terrain, making the whole “science” of modeling via ISO-9612-3 like a sort of ritual — specious and not pertinent in specific locales. In fact, this “standard” is no standard for estimating noise in this situation at all as anyone can see by reading ISO-9612-3 itself. While it may work well enough when conditions that it lists itself pertain, in other instances a ouija board or magic 8 ball would be about as credible.
4) Because of what I say above in 1-3, I am skeptical that simulated sounds even in gold standard randomized designs actually settle the issue of sound nuisance from wind turbines.
Excellent points here. Thank you.
You conducted field measurements. Good for you.
Some very interesting material KK which is also borne our in Nina Pierpoint’s book about Wind Turbine Syndrome which has attracted such comments as “There is evidence that infrasound has a physiological effect on the ear, and it is impossible to conclude that wind turbine noise does not cause any of the symptoms described, but many believe that these symptoms are related largely to the stress caused by unwanted noise exposure.”
As I understand the theory behind Pierpoint’s research it is the audible and the ‘unheard infra’ sounds together which can cause long term damage to individuals and has been researched since the 1990s will plentiful history of sufferers. The fact that developers make no suggestion or mention of noise pollution in their bidding briefs speaks very loudly. There is a lot of clinical evidence and whales with no hiding place come off even worse it would seem.
So much for green solutions.
.
A couple of weeks ago I experienced some very odd low frequency effects.
The local train line had some earth slippage onto the track. Line closed, and metal sheets driven into the ground on the slopes on the sides of the track.
At midnight the sound started.in my house, a low frequency thud could be heard about once every 1 or 2 seconds.
It sounded like a damped bas drum.
We ran around the house turning taps on and off, checking the attic etc looking fir a plumbing problem.
Eventually I went outside to check the outside of the house.
Then the intermittent noise started again. Outside it was a feint sound of metal on metal ie pile driving in nature.
I went inside, closed the door and there it was. Thud, thud thud.
So the feint metal on metal sound had transformed into a very low frequency thud.
I was glad we were over a mile away.
Perhaps the sound people experience in their homes should be simulated, not the sound outside of their homes?
Life has evolved whilst being subject to all manner of sound frequencies, some audible to some species but not others, some inaudible to all species (maybe). What sound are blood vessels subject to in normal life? There are pressure waves passing through the arteries between 1 and 3 (in a new born) times a second. Then the heart is expanding and contracting at the same rate, with associated heart sounds in the audible range. Similarly there is the movement of air in and out of the lungs, which has audible frequencies but has it any sub audible frequencies?
But isn’t putting part of our power generation structure miles off the coast critical to protecting the grid from our foreign adversaries?
Article says:”We have positive evidence for our hypothesis that a chronically acting oscillating stressor with certain conditions in frequency, time/effect profile, sound pressure and duration might induce an oscillatory stress field and therefore trigger a stress reaction on the cellular level.”
What a crock! I have what is called “aviators notch” in my hearing. Over 5000 hours in turboprop/jet aircraft. The noise damaged cells in my ears. “Stress reaction on the cellular level” has been known for decades. I am positive evidence.
A waste of time and money.
One of the aircraft I used to fly in.
“We have positive evidence for our hypothesis that a chronically acting oscillating stressor with certain conditions in frequency, time/effect profile, sound pressure and duration might induce an oscillatory stress field and therefore trigger a stress reaction on the cellular level”
Positive evidence it might, say what? Either it does or it doesn’t, you can’t have positive evidence and then waffle.