Translation of a first rate letter from Norway:
Wind turbines, microplastics and BisPhenol A"
NATURE: On the way up the "Krystallhaugen" at Hattfjelldal. In the background Røssvatnet, surrounded by wind power plans on the east side, and hydropower development on the west side. No one takes into account that someone is already there. The Sami with thousands of reindeer and a centuries-old history in these mountains. Photo: Tone Toft
A number of new wind power projects have appeared in Helgeland. In such a way that it can appear as if there is a joint coordinated action in several municipalities. This applies to Vefsn, and Leirfjord, Hattfjelldal and Hemnes. A scale that is a well-known strategy from builders, namely to make large-scale plans, and perhaps only get approval for a few. Which is the real purpose, but so that we who are opposed to wind power should feel it as a victory that there were no more.
Applies to our drinking water
A development that we appreciate is that the Norwegian Food Safety Authority has started to get involved. There have been new national expectations for municipal and regional planning with clear requirements for the protection of our most important source of food, namely clean and safe drinking water. It is the municipality's responsibility to ensure that households and businesses have access to sufficient quantities of health-safe drinking water.
The Government has the following proposal to amend point 71 of the Drinking Water Regulations:
"The municipality's drinking water supply must be included in the assessment of community safety in the community section and area section of the municipal plan. Drinking water sources are taken into account and secured in planning, among other things to reduce the need for water purification.'
This brings us over to the next question; What sources of pollution exist in relation to wind power, both development and operation? A selected list based on 12 media reports includes leakage of oil and hydraulic oil, fire in the turbines and overturned turbine towers. Accidents that are actually easy to predict. But what must now be taken into account are climate changes that lead to increased rainfall, problems with stormwater, changes in flood size and landslides. All this will lead to the leaching of pollutants in the catchment area to sources of drinking water, whether they are in the ground water or in surface water.
On top of this comes the realization that the wear and tear on the turbine blades results in the release of large amounts of microplastics of the epoxy type, which contained the toxic component BisPhenol A. A hormone mimic that can have a whole range of negative effects on our health, which is difficult to find out the reason for.
Number magic from the Norwegian Environment Agency:
We have an agency in the country called the Norwegian Environment Agency, which should know more about this problem. They claim that the wear and tear on each turbine blade is approx. 50 grams a year. A number that cannot possibly be correct, when we have seen pictures of countless worn-out turbine blades. But then they admit that the fifty grams are information given by the manufacturers of turbine blades. But served by MD as pure facts.
There are now a number of recent research results that say otherwise. The old venerable University of Delft (Holland) has published a work in collaboration with Norwegian SINTEF, NTNU and UiA. Here it is concluded that erosion per turbine, depending on the size and power of the turbine, will result in microplastic pollution (Epoxy) of between 7.2 and 17.5 kg per year per turbine. Another finding here was that there is greater erosion on offshore turbines than land-based ones. And that the amount of erosion is directly related to the amount of rainfall.
Off the coast of the Netherlands, there is almost a third of the rainfall (800 - 1000 mm/year) compared to the Norwegian coast (2500 mm/year). There will be a lot of poison in the Norwegian sea if all the gigantic plans for offshore wind that Støre is planning for the EU become a reality.
We have previously written about the Norwegian Turbin Gruppen, which claims that the figure is as much as 62 kg/year per turbine. If we move the same calculation method that the National Institute for Public Health and Environment in the Netherlands vouches for, to the Norwegian coast with our rainfall, we practically end up with Turbin Gruppen's figures. Another result from Delft University is that an extra wear layer with the leading edge of the turbine blades is worn away before a year has passed. What is an additional wear coating is polyurethane. A very common plastic component, found in almost all rainwear, and a number of other products that are supposed to be waterproof. The catch is that polyurethane also contains a good amount of PFAS, a collective term for a number of toxic environmental components with an uncannily long decomposition time.
A warning
A statement from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority to NVE on 25 September last year regarding the relocation of the concession area to the Raggovidda wind power plant requires a new impact assessment of the measure, since the decision leads to the possibility of contamination of the main water source and the reserve water source both during the construction and operating period. Among the pollution sources that exist, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (MT) also mentions wear and tear on turbine blades.
This section starts with this:
"In the report, wear on turbine blades is estimated at approx. 3.5 – 4.5 kg/year.”
Despite several inquiries to the authors in MT, I have not succeeded in getting an answer to the origin of this study. Not even if it applies to each blade, or the entire propeller.
On NVE's pages on pollution, we can read:
"If the wear becomes so extensive that it results in direct emissions of glass fibre, there will be a risk of emissions of bisphenol A, which is included in the glass fiber mixture."
When we look at the available investigations from Delft, this possibility is certainly relevant. Although the industry has developed new and better coatings to prevent wear. The content of this plastic component is a production secret, - thus we are equally distant with regard to the spread of toxic components.
Unknown extent
There have been no systematic investigations of Bisphenol A in Norwegian nature. (Hereafter I use the abbreviation BPA according to the international standard BisPhenol A)
In contrast, the FHI (Public Health Institute) has systematically mapped the content of 81 different environmental toxins in the blood and urine of 7-14-year-olds from all over the country. They were compared with the limit values set by the EU's body for food safety. (EFSA) There were safe contents of most of the environmental toxins that were looked for, but with one exception; almost all the children in the survey had high levels of BPA. The explanation given by FHI is that this comes from plastic products that we deal with on a daily basis. Drinking containers, toys, plastic glasses, plates and cutlery. Plus some paper products. BPA is an important part of the content of hard plastic, but the disadvantage is that it leaks out of the products all the time - albeit in small quantities.
If FHI and others such as e.g. MT relates to what the Norwegian Environment Agency says about 50 grams a year from a turbine blade, it is naturally overlooked that this could be a source of the BPA findings. But the information that exists now, about investigations and direct research into the possibility of BPA spreading from wind turbines due to erosion from the propellers, the health authorities should soon get involved.
We who take nature conservation seriously adhere strictly to the precautionary principle, because nature no longer has time to wait for decisive evidence. Because it is getting very late for the nature that all of humanity depends on to live on this planet of ours. Liberal market forces have completely taken over when it comes to political governance of our country and or the rest of the world. For them, politics is only about the question; as much money as possible into your own pockets or the State Treasury.
Well camouflaged from the truth, the worst example is the "green shift". Gigantic plans for the production of electrical power, to be used for a number of foolish projects. Onshore and offshore wind power must ensure this power investment, even if they are neither emission-free nor renewable. CO2 capture is one of these projects, which are just as unserious as emission-free wind power. Another project that appears in several places, with media reports and promises of hundreds of jobs as a result, is hydrogen production. It is a huge waste of electrical power. Measured in terms of energy, hydrolysis is carried out with 100% electrical energy. Which results in only 20% in hydrogen energy as a result. 80% waste is not bad!? I have also discovered that several politicians who are involved in these decisions believe that both batteries and hydrogen produce electricity! They are only energy carriers, and they do not produce many watts.
Insidious poisoning
Seen in the light of MD's information about 50 grams of epoxy peeling off a wind turbine a year, there is not much to worry about. And that's what people are meant to do - not to be reassured. If this misinformation continues to be the truth, we could be facing dramatic problems. MT tightens protection of our drinking water, but far from enough. BPA bound to microplastics is spread far from a wind turbine. Small streams and private water sources become recipients, along with cultivated land and pasture for cattle and small cattle. Veterinarians warn against reindeer grazing in wind turbines, and slowly but inexorably, BPA will penetrate root vegetables, meat from grazing cattle and especially small cattle, domestic reindeer and eventually also our game. There are several who claim that BPA is bound so tightly to EPOXY - the plastic that it cannot be released. But recent research tells us otherwise: BPA is released and can be resorbed in the organism, both spring, animal and fish.
The new green society
One castle in the air after another appears, hundreds of billions of NOK are allocated to investors with breezy plans. Everything is taken from our tax money under the guise of climate measures, and is felt all over the country since it is the Hurdals platform's "now it's the turn of the common people" that is behind this gigantic robbery. Whether the measures work according to the vaunted plans, many are now very doubtful.
We here in our house in Brasøy have claimed for years that "the green shift" is a huge green-painted bluff, in order to continue with economic growth, increased consumption of nature and ever greater private consumption. A life-threatening development for life on the earth we live on, - and off.
But one thing is certain: Nature would have done the entire climate job for free, if only it had been left alone.
Comments