Siemens adds checks after nacelle drop & Turbine Test Data

Siemens adds checks after nacelle drop & Turbine Test Data

Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves


Siemens adds checks after nacelle drop & Turbine Test Data


Analysis: Siemens adds checks after nacelle drop

12 February 2016 by Sara Knight , 1 comment

EUROPE: Questions remain over who pays for the additional inspections required following the failure of a Bonus turbine at the Danish Paludan Flaks offshore project in November.
The 14-year-old Paludan Flaks offshore project comprised ten Bonus 2.3MW turbine
On 28 November 2015, one of ten Bonus Energy 2.3MW turbines at the 14-year-old Paludan Flaks offshore wind project near the Danish island of Samso suffered a catastrophic failure; the nacelle and blades broke off and fell into the sea.

Catastrophic failure is widely defined as the complete, sudden, often unexpected breakdown in a machine or other system. This winter, there have been four such events reported across the wind industry.

With regular wind turbine service and maintenance and the possibility of sophisticated condition monitoring, how is such an embarrassing failure — appearing as it seems out of the blue — still possible?

At Paludan Flaks, the answer is still not clear.

The project owners — a group of municipalites and investors — are still negotiating over the consequences with German industry giant Siemens, which has the service contract for the Paludan Flak wind farm.

Siemens acquired Danish turbine manufacturer Bonus Energy in 2004, and the service contracts came with it.

A spokesman for Paludan Flaks told Windpower Monthly in early February: “I cannot comment on the situation because Siemens insisted on a non-disclosure agreement before it would begin negotiations with us on how the problems at the wind farm will be solved.”

For its part, Siemens declined to comment on who will pay for the lost electricity output of the destroyed turbine.

Whether the machine will be replaced, and whether the tower can be re-used “is currently under clarification together with the customer”, the German manufacturer said.

The remaining nine Bonus 2.3MW turbines at Paludan Flaks were inspected shortly after the incident, found to have no defects, and have been producing power since, Siemens added.

Siemens and the Secretariat for the Danish Wind Turbine Certification Scheme agreed that regular checks on the remaining turbines will be performed once a month until further notice, in line with the technical certification scheme for design, manufacture, installation, maintenance and service of wind turbines. But who pays for the extra inspections is also not clear.

Investigations ongoing

Technical investigations are still under way into the root cause of the failure at Paludan Flak.

“Investigations so far have concluded that the tower top flange welding-geometry is not optimal, but it cannot be ruled out that the turbine was affected by abnormal load conditions, causing the crack in the tower to occur,” Siemens said in early February.

An issue with the top flange on Bonus machines was first identified in 2003 at an undislosed site with extremely high and turbulent wind conditions.

This led, “after a thorough technical assessment”, to a general update of the design of the top-flange configuration for new installations, as well as a retrofit programme for already installed turbines, depending on site-specific assessments.

In this respect, the Paludan Flaks wind farm was assessed as not being affected, Siemens said.

But after a crack in the tower top flange weld of a 1.3MW Bonus turbine was identified in January 2016, Siemens re-assessed the 2003 retrofit criteria using a more advanced calculation model. This assessment is still on going, the company added.

Under the review, Siemens launched an inspection campaign of about 750 Bonus turbines to ensure the potential risk is controlled, the company continued, without divulging the locations of these turbines.

The tower top flange is inspected visually by the local service staff operating the turbines, the company said. “It is not a major task and can be done quickly,” said a spokeswoman for Siemens, declining to comment on the cost involved.

Similar problems

Why the company did not react earlier — considering the small outlay in time and effort for inspection, and experience with issues of the tower top flange retrofit dating back as far as 2003 — to amend other turbines with the same problem and prevent such potentially image-damaging catastrophic failure is not clear.

An incident at the Smola wind farm in Norway also gave the company some experience in the issues.

In October 2011, Statkraft technicians who carried out operations and maintenance work at the project noted a noise problem at Smola phase 1, comprising 20 2MW Bonus machines commissioned in 2002.

During additional inspections they discovered a crack in the tower top of one turbine and closed it down. Five of the other turbines were also found to be badly damaged and had to be repaired.

The repairs were carried out by Statkraft in cooperation with Siemens, Statkraft’s vice president of communications for wind power and technologies, Torbjorn Steen, said in February.

Why the Smola incident did not trigger wider action by Siemens at that time is not clear.

Also in November 2015, the rotor fell off a Repower MD77-1500kW turbine in France. And in December, a Vestas V112-3MW turbine collapsed in Sweden, and a Suzlon S95-2.1MW turbine tower collapsed in Brazil.

None of the incidents resulted in injury.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE


Danmarks Tekniske Universitet
Departments and Centers Shortcuts Contact Dansk
Tender for rental of test stand no. 2 at the Test Station at Høvsøre

Date Activity
4th of February 2016

Date for the publication of the material for tender at
9th of March 2016

Tender information meeting at Høvsøre
24th of March 2016 at 16:00
(Danish time)

Final deadline for submitting questions
Latest the 31st of March 2016 at 13:00
(Danish time)
Answers will be published continuously on
7th of April 2016 at 12:00
(Danish time)

Final deadline for submitting of tenders
21st of April 2016

DTU´s evaluation of tenders
Udbudsdokumenter – dansk version:
Information til tilbudsgivere
Information til tilbudsgivere

Bilag B
Beskrivelse og tekniske specifikationer for Prøvestationen ved Høvsøre

Bilag C

Bilag C1,C2,C3,C4,C6,C8,C9
Bilag til lejekontrakten

Bilag 1a
Tilbudsskema Høvsøre

Bilag 2
Skema vedr. generelle virksomhedsoplysninger

Bilag 2a
Tro og love

Bilag 3
Skema vedr. økonomisk og finansiel formåen

Bilag E
Overordnet evalueringsmodel

Alle dokumenter

Tender documents – unofficial English version:
Information to Tender
Information to tender
Appendix C
Rental contract concerning rental of test stand for the Test Station at Høvsøre

Appendix C6
Lessor’s safety regulations for work at the Høvsøre Test Centre

Appendix C9
“Agreement on Grid Connection Facility” concluded on 29 April 2002 between NOE Energi A/S, the Lessor and the other manufacturers who are lessees of the test stands at the Test Centre
• (please note the rest of the appendixes to the rental agreement are in Danish – use the link provided in the Danish version above)

Appendix 1a
Tender form for rental of test stand at the Test Station at Høvsøre

Appendix 2
Form concerning general company information

Appendix 2a
Solemn declaration concerning unpaid due public depth

Appendix 3
Form concerning economical and financial capability

Appendix E
General description of evaluation model for the received tenders

All documents

To view the original of this document CLICK HERE


We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines (WT) to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD) as administered by The Forest of Dean District Council (FoDDC), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB), sites of special scientific interest (SSI) & wildlife habitats.

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies of the ‘Warmists’ & self proclaimed ‘Greens’, which are presented as ‘fact’, regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see:

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see:


PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept responsibility for material on links and other sources

IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own or manage please bring it to my attention for correction @ – Thank you.

PS 95: Do World Political Leaders Aim To Bankrupt Mankind

Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves


PS – 95:


(PS 95: Do World Political Leaders Aim To Bankrupt Mankind
Based On An Error?.)

Do World Political Leaders Aim To Bankrupt Mankind Based On An Error?



one increasingly realises that world political leaders seem to be determined to bankrupt mankind based on the fundamental error of believing that climate change and global warming are consequentially influenced by mankind, yet increasingly scientists are speaking out with proof that anthropogenic influence is so minimal as to be insignificant.

Never forget the folly of the British Government’s enacting of the Climate Change Bill through Westminster which was THE most expensive consequence of ANY British Parliamentary Act – Higher even than the 1909 Pension Act which largely accounts for the perilous state of British finances nowadays!

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

Dr David Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science. Picture: Thinkstock


A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-Bevan

Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-BevanSource:Supplied

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture:

Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: Source:Supplied

“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”

Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.

He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.

“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”

You heard it here first!

To read the original article CLICK HERE
You might also like to read Prof. Ian Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is  an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at theUniversity of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published many scientific papers, six books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology. He has been an outspoken critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
His book on climate change not only refutes the primary propaganda being peddled by the scientists funded by Western Governments, controlled by the IPCC & UN but proffers example after example where the theory they have tried to convince the world of is wrong on many counts.
I suggest you read ‘Heaven & Earth’ and ‘Not for Greens’. blog makes well reasoned and scientifically based reading for those seeking the truth on Global Warming and Climate Change – a blog which systematically exposes the fantasies of the warmists & the faux science of the IPCC.



Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address:

First published at CLICK HERE



We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see:

For more information about Greg_L-W see:

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages ….

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins




Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning


David Davis MP: pulls a common sense move for Brits’ property rights.

In a stunningly brilliant legislative move, David Davis MP recently introduced a Bill in UK’s Parliament which will allow Britons to enforce judgments against wind power outfits; and which will ensure the removal of these things when they grind to an inevitable halt within the next decade or so – whether because the massive subsidies they run on are chopped; or because they have flamed out; rusted out; thrown their blades to the four winds; or have simply collapsed in heaps.

The standard corporate structures used by wind power outfits involve a parent company – like Infigen, say – usually as a holding company, with a subsidiary, which usually takes on the name of the wind farm (threatened or realised), such as Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Infigen – going nowhere, thanks to its inability to obtain a Power Purchase Agreement).

The subsidiary is lumbered with all the current debts and other liabilities, which are loaded up in such a way as to exceed its assets (as long as the wind farm is operating, the parent sees that sufficient cash flushes through the subsidiary for it to remain technically solvent, at least in the short term).

In the event that a creditor pursues the subsidiary for any substantial claim, the parent (or related holding company) simply sits back and watches its subsidiary wind up in insolvency; leaving the creditor(s) without so much as a penny to pinch. Infigen has done it all before, back when it was called “Babcock and Brown”.

Among the class of creditors seeking to recover, are wind farm neighbours who successfully sue the windfarm operator (ie the subsidiary company) and who obtain a substantial award of damages for nuisance.

In David Davis’s speech below, he refers to the case of Julian and Jane Davis who successfully obtained a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator, for noise nuisance; and the resultant loss of property value (the home became uninhabitable due to low-frequency noise, infrasound and vibration).

The Particulars of Julian and Jane Davis’ Claim are available here: Davis Complaint Particulars of Claim

And Jane Davis’ Statement (detailing their unsettling experiences and entirely unnecessary suffering) is available here: davis-noise-statement

So, the next time you’ve got some wind industry parasite mouthing off that there has never been a successful claim against a wind power outfit, simply flick them a link to this post.

The other reason for setting up £2 subsidiary companies (in Australia referred to as $2 companies) of little or no real value, is to avoid (by winding up in insolvency) liability to clean up the mess after the rort is all over and done with.

Hawaii rusting turbines

Rust Never Sleeps: monuments to stupidity grace Hawaii’s verdant hills.


While planning authorities often talk about obtaining what are called “decommissioning bonds”, whatever promises are made, are given by the subsidiary (not the parent), which is designed to have no assets available to cover the cost of decommissioning; whenever that inevitable event takes place. Hence, the thousands of wind turbines scattered all over California and Hawaii, left rusting as monuments to our political betters’ collective stupidity (see our post here).

To avoid that event, David Davis introduced the “Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill”, which is to be voted on sometime next month. Here’s David’s speech as he introduces the Bill  – video and then audio (Hansard – Transcript follows).



Audio Player


Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill
David Davis
21 July 2015
House of Commons Hansard

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision about obligations on wind farm operators in respect of financial cover for potential liabilities arising from cause of public nuisance; and for connected purposes.

Wind farms are contentious. Some argue passionately that they are a great public good and the solution to global warming while others equally passionately believe they are a waste of money. This Bill takes no side in that debate. It is narrowly defined to one aspect of public interest; it requires the operators of wind farms, who are in receipt of £797 million of public subsidy a year, to organise their affairs so that they are able to meet the costs of any nuisance imposed on people living near them.

In 1995 the World Health Organisation recommended that to prevent sleep interruption low frequency noise should not exceed 30 decibels. However, in 1996 the Government’s Energy Technology Support Unit—ETSU—set the noise limit for wind turbines at 43 decibels. That is an enormous difference; on the logarithmic decibel scale it is approximately double the WHO limit. We still use those standards today.

In the last five years no planning application was refused on noise-related grounds, but there have been 600 noise-related incidents arising from wind farm operations. The majority of complaints arise as a result of amplitude modulation, which is the loud, continuous thumping or swishing noise regularly described by those living near wind farms.

Numerous studies have identified that sleep is disturbed on a regular basis even at distances over 1 km away from turbines, yet under the ETSU standards turbines can be installed just 600 metres away from residential property. The wind farm companies are acutely aware of this, and all the more so since a member of the public, Jane Davis, sued a wind farm near her home for noise nuisance. The matter was settled out of court, and there is a gagging order preventing us from knowing the details, but the settlement is rumoured to have been in the region of £2 million.

Since this case, some dubious measures have been taken by the industry to obstruct perfectly legitimate claims for nuisance. The use of shell companies in the wind industry seems to be the commonest trick. The parent company provides a loan to a specially created subsidiary to set up the wind farm, then leaves it in control of operations. The subsidiary’s balance sheet typically comprises the wind farm physical assets, but they are more than offset by a very large loan from the parent company, with a resulting net liability. Profits from energy generation and large amounts of public subsidy are siphoned off to the parent company. The subsidiary is left as a financial shell, with very few liquid assets and total liabilities greater than total assets. That makes it impossible to bring litigation against a wind farm, simply because there is nothing to win from them. As such companies have negative net assets, even liquidating them would generate no cash to pay either damages or a legal bill.

One of my constituents bought his house in my constituency to enjoy a quiet retirement with his wife. After living there for more than a decade a 10-turbine wind farm was built near the house. The closest windmill is just over 600 metres from his home. He was assured at the planning stage that the wind farm would not trouble him, yet he has suffered the misery of regular noise and turbine blade flicker which has rendered his home almost unliveable. The low frequency noise from the turbines easily penetrates the double glazing. The couple have had to change bedrooms in order to sleep, but even so the persistent noise from the wind farm has taken its toll on his wife’s health; she now suffers heart palpitations and is prescribed anti-depressants on a permanent basis by her doctor.

My constituent, fearing his retirement has been ruined and his home thoroughly devalued, attempted to use his legal insurance to claim for nuisance from the wind farm operators. While there was a good chance of success in court, the company’s finances were organised so that there was no realistic prospect of recovering either damages or the legal costs of bringing the case. That being so, his insurers would, quite understandably, not cover his legal costs. That is despite the fact that the eventual owner of the wind farm is AES, a multibillion dollar international company involved partly in renewables but largely in coal and gas, that paid its chief executive $8.4 million last year. It laughably claims in its annual report to be a “World’s Most Ethical Company”.

It is not alone in its hypocrisy. In March I raised this disreputable practice with Falck Renewables, prospective operators of a wind farm near my own village in my constituency. I asked it whether it was going to do the same. It did not reply.

My constituents have no way to recover the tranquillity of the lives that they thought they were going to enjoy when they first moved to rural Yorkshire. They can neither sell their house nor get any financial recompense to enable them to afford to move, so they are trapped in this misery.

My point is a simple one. My constituents are just individual representatives of a situation that is repeated up and down the country. Wind farm companies must be adequately capitalised so that there can be a reasonable prospect of financial success for prospective litigants whose way of life they have damaged.

It is not only the noise that is a nuisance, of course. When the sun is low in the sky behind a turbine it creates a “strobe effect” which can be harmful to health and wellbeing, and there are also now concerns that some wind farms could be abandoned at the end of their operational lifespan, creating another sort of visual blight, this time in perpetuity.

The simple solution that I propose in this Bill is to require wind farm-operating companies to hold enough cash in hand to manage a legal case at any time, and in addition a financial bond—a guarantee, or insurance policy—as a security against potential liabilities, including all public nuisance and final decommissioning costs.

Any wind farm that fails to do that should lose its right to subsidy—which, as I said, amounted to £797 million in one year for the industry.

This would ensure that citizens could reasonably sue when they suffer damage, but, just as importantly, it would be a strong incentive for the companies to operate wind farms in such a way as to avoid public nuisance, which is causing great distress in some cases, and would mean that when the turbines are decommissioned there is money or insurance to cover the cost of clearing the wind farm, avoiding a situation whereby the local council has to pick up the bill.

Whatever our stance on onshore wind, companies in receipt of public subsidy should be required to meet their public responsibilities. This measure seeks to ensure that the big wind farm companies can truly be held liable when they are at fault and gives families the protection they deserve. I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.


That Mr David Davis, supported by Chris Heaton-Harris, Tom Pursglove, John Mann and Jim Shannon, present the Bill

Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be presented (Bill 62).

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill


More rusting monuments to California’s ‘clean, green energy future’.


To view the original article CLICK HERE


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address:

>Side Bars<
The Top Bar >PAGES<


ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip:
General ‘Stuff’:
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W


Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
Stolen Oyster with links:
Stolen Trust with links:
Stolen Childhood with links:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide


>Side Bars<
The Top Bar >PAGES<





Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins




The Main Web Site:




interestingly to date there has been absolutely no comprehensive Risk Assessment published in the UK regarding the impact in the soil, on the ground and in the air and such assessments that have been done would seem to all have been completed by interested parties likely to commercially or politically gain from the instalation of these undeniable ecological disasters.


By Mia Myklebust and Miriam Raftery

May 10, 2012 (San Diego’s East County) –


With an increasing number of industrial-scale wind turbines around the world,  numerous reports are surfacing to suggest that noise, infrasound and stray voltage (dirty energy) may be harmful to livestock and wildlife. 

While evidence is largely anecdotal, incidences of mass die-offs of farm animals, chickens laying soft-shelled eggs, high animal miscarriage rates and disappearance of wildlife near turbines provide pause for reflection. These and other incidents suggest a need for scientific study to determine safety before additional wind energy facilities are erected across the U.S., including several proposed in San Diego’s East County.  

Although wind turbines have been growing in popularity as an energy alternative in the 21 st century, there has been little to no testing done on the effects that these towering turbines could have on animals or for that matter, humans in the vicinity.  We require testing of chemicals to assure safety before they may be used in the environment.  Why is similarly rigorous testing not required to date for wind turbines?

This is concerning particularly in East County, which has among the highest number of horses per capita in the U.S. along with other livestock.  In addition the region is home to endangered Peninsular Big Horn sheep, rare birds such as the tri-color blackbird, eagles and hawks, mountain lions and other wildlife.  Even pets such as dogs and cats potentially could be impacted.

Federal wildlife authorities voice concern over wind impacts on wildlife

There are currently no noise standards for wildlife in the U.S.  However the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in a document titled The Effects of Noise on Wildlife, concludes that “although there are few studies specifically focused on the noise effects of wind energy facilities on birds, bats and other wildlife, scientific evidence regarding the effects of other noise sources is widely documented.”

Those impacts include both audible noise and low-frequency infrasound which turbines generate.  “It is important to take precautionary measures to ensure that noise impacts at wind facility are thoroughly investigated prior to development,” the USFWS determined.

Declines in some bird species have occurred at noise thresholds as low as 35 decibals (dba), the USFWS notes.  Noise levels of 35 to 43 dba have been measured up to a mile from turbines.  Closer in, within 300 feet, sound levels of 50 dba have been recorded.  Noise can interfere with communications among birds, having an impact “ultimately on avian health and survival,” according to the USFWS report.

Mass animal die-offs

In an article titled Are Wind Turbines Killing Innocent Goats?  Discovery Magazine reported that a Taiwanese farmer blames the death of 400 goats on a nearby wind facility.  His claim is backed up by a local livestock inspector who said unusual sounds can impact animals’ appetite, growth and sleep.  The farmer has stated that the goats had been unable to sleep and began losing weight prior to their deaths. 

In Wisconsin, a farmer who tells his story on YouTube describes losing 19 cattle that died or had to be put down because they were “pretty much lifeless.”  In addition, 30 calves have died. The farm is within a mile of a wind facility.  One cow removed from the site and moved elsewhere later recovered, the farmer stated.

Reproductive problems

An Ontario, Canada goat farmer reported that all 20 of his nanny goats miscarried or had kids that died within hours of birth.  

Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome,interviewed a horse breeder who lost six of eight babies after wind turbines were erected nearby his breeding mares.  Some aborted early, others had no milk and others didn’t conceive. 

“I’ve been in the horse business for 45 years,” the rancher said. “I don’t know whether there’s dirty electricity in the ground, I don’t if they keep them from sleeping…but there’s something.”

If turbines are, in fact, causing miscarriages and other reproductive problems in large animals, what could this mean for the health of pregnant women and women of child-bearing age living in close proximity to the turbines?

The public has no answers, because  governments have not required any scientific testing to prove that turbines are safe for humans or animals, despite the proliferation of massive wind projects approved or in the pipeline.

Additional animal issues in wind turbine areas

Chickens near wind farms have been known to lay shell-less or soft-shelled eggs resulting in deaths of chickens. 

Dr. Nina Pierpont at Johns Hopkin University School of Medicine has concluded that Wind Turbine Syndrome occurs in people as well as in animals.  “During my research interviews I collected anecdotal information on animal problems. I heard about moles, deer, dogs, horses, ponies, alpacas, goats, seals, sea eagles (Norway), killdeer, and frogs—all of whom disappeared, behaved abnormally, and/or had observed reproductive failure,” she has written

It is widely known that bird kills are common when birds collide with whirling turbine blades.   Most notoriously, the Altamont wind farm in California has killed thousands of golden eagles, as well as many other birds. 

The impacts for bats, however, are even worse.  Mass bat die-offs can occur even when bats don’t strike blades, because their lungs explode from the air pressure changes, an article in Current Biology reported in 2008.

In some portions of Wisconsin, Canada and other areas, residents have reported disappearance of wildlife ranging from hummingbirds to crickets to nesting swallows after wind turbines came into the area. Some pet owners have also reported unusual behavior in dogs, such as a reluctance to go outside when turbines are spinning.

Noise impacts on marine mammals

In Germany, a dozen dead porpoises washed ashore near the site of a newly completed wind farm and authorities did not rule out the wind facility as potential causes.  Some have suggested that the beaching of 130 dolphins at Cape Cod may be related to wind turbine facilities nearby.  At high levels, sound from military sonar has been shown to be fatal to marine mammals, the National Resources Defense Council has reported.  

What are the lowest sound thresholds that are safe for whales, porpoises and other marine mammals?  More study appears necessary.

Stray voltage

Animals can also be impacted negatively by stray voltage, also known as dirty electricity.   Cows living near power lines, for example, have experienced reduced milk production and even been observed “dancing” in fields due to electricity in the ground, according to scientific research presented by experts at the International Conference on  Production Diseases in Farm Animals at Michigan State University.   

Magda Havas, PhD, has published a provocative article titled “What do Dancing Cows and Zapped Dogs Have in Common?”  Havas reports on stray voltage, or ground current, in Toronto, Canada that killed a dog and zapped a child. Cattle have been videotaped “dancing” or lifting hooves repetitively from being shocked by electrical voltage in the ground, Havas reveals. 

High ground currents from stray voltage have been measured near multiple wind facilities, including Palm Springs and Campo, California. The latter has had ground currents measured at 1,000 times normal in the Manzanita Indians’ tribal hall and church near a wind facility on a neighboring reservation, according to measurements taken by Dr. Samuel Milham, author of Dirty Energy.

Cumulative observations in some geographic areas

One sheep farmer in Waterloo, Australia had a three-fold spike in birth defects since the turbines started operating. This year, lambs have been born with no ears, three legs and hoofs turned backwards, the Australian newspaper reported.   While it’s difficult to know the cause for a handful of birth defects, the fact that they occurred in the same area where chickens have begun laying yolkless eggs and many humans have complained of health problems increases concerns.

A growing number of geographic areas now report animal symptoms overlapping human health complaints after wind turbines are built.  Is it all just coincidence?


Mounting anecdotal evidence suggests a need for caution before building wind turbines in areas near wildlife, livestock, and people.  While it’s too soon to conclude that turbines have caused the various health problems and fatalities in animals near industrial wind facilities, it is also dangerous to assume that wind turbines are safe for animals or humans living in close proximity. 

To view the original article CLICK HERE

To read about additional incidents of unusual animal behavior and health impacts observed near wind turbines, visit



Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address:

Skype: GregL-W


>Side Bars<
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide



The Main Web Site: