Posted by: WCFN | October 2, 2016

Wind turbines: effects on animals

List of scientific and other literature evidencing the adverse effects of infrasound on animals

For the record, people are affected as well: see Nº 3 at the end of the list

In the case of wind turbines, low frequency noise and frequency/amplitude modulation are also involved








Wind turbines cause chronic stress in badgers –
Journal of Wildlife Diseases July 2016

Wind turbines and pigs – article from Annals of Animal Science | October 2015

Yann Joly, France, sues windfarm owner in the amount of €350,000 for making his dairy cows sick. Voice of America reports in a video:

More about this case: (subtitled video)

Ludovic Ossedat – Allier, France – complains that milk quality goes down when the wind turbines are spinning. 


Background research on infrasound:  peer-reviewed studies as published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health:
Infrasound may cause damage to the central nervous system through the Ca²⁺‑mediated apoptotic pathway in hippocampal neurons.
Infrasound can cause impairment of learning and memory.
Infrasound can cause avoidance reactions (fleeing) in salmons.
Infrasound can induce oxidative damage in rat cardiomyocytes by inactivating PPAR-γ.
Some adverse effects of raising geese close to wind turbines.
Infrasound at 2 and 6 Hz stimulates bacteria proliferation, but inhibits at it 4, 8, and 10 Hz.
Evidence that glial cell-expressed TRPV4 is a potential key factor responsible for infrasound-induced neuronal impairment.
Epigallocatechin gallate can be used as a promising drug for the treatment of infrasound-induced central nervous system damage.
Infrasound promotes proliferation and inhibits apoptosis in bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells.
Infrasound can enhance the chemotherapeutic effects of cisplatin in a clinical setting.
Tractors should be tested re: infrasonic noise levels.
Chicken are more sensitive to infrasound than humans, even more than the homing pigeon.
Effects of infrasound on the proliferation of E. coli K-12 cells (bacteria) – (unlike the others, a subscription is needed for this article).

Not to forget the Russian review of scientific literature on the health effects of infrasound, where we find these interesting quotes, on page 4:

“I – Infrasound of > 185 dB, which is of fatal danger (the variable pressure of such levels can induce pulmonary alveolar rupture).”

“IV – Infrasound of < 120 dB, which is not health harmful if its exposure time is less than several minutes; reactions of the long-time exposure are the subject for future studies.”

Read more: Dr. Vladimir Stepanov

3) For the record, people are affected as well: EFFECTS ON HUMANS

15 years of investigation into the adverse health effects of wind turbines on humans:

Link to the resulting scientific paper:

And here is evidence of the dishonest maneuvers which allowed governments world wide to pretend there was nothing wrong with wind turbines:

Some of the peer-reviewed studies proving a problem does exist:

The Waubra foundation, of Australia, is the leading institution in the study of health effects of wind turbines. Most of the useful information on that subject will be found on its site:   Shamelessly, special interests have vowed to silence the foundation by asking the courts to disallow its charity status, thereby cutting its crowd funding. The foundation is now fighting in court for its survival. Yet the Foundation does not receive any subsidies from the public purse. How corrupt is a system that permits the persecution of honest, decent, courageous individuals that fight to stop proven harm from being done to people?

Posted by: WCFN | April 6, 2016

Pigs and wind turbines

The Effect of Varying Distances from the Wind Turbine on Meat Quality of Growing-Finishing Pigs

“The concentration of α-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) in loin and neck muscles decreased as the distance from the wind turbine increased. Avoiding noise-induced stress is important not only for maintaining meat quality but also for improving animal welfare.”

By Małgorzata Karwowska, Jan Mikołajczak, Zbigniew Józef Dolatowski and Sylwester Borowski
© by Małgorzata Karwowska. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0


Isn’t this another proof that, in the corrupt societies we live in, the health of farm animals is more important than that of people? Indeed, governments worldwide, lobbied by private interests, refuse to study the health effects of wind turbines on humans – especially those caused by harmful infrasound emitted by these giant machines. Hopefully, they will be judged for criminal negligence – that’s if our democratic institutions are not thoroughly corrupt.

The Polish and Bavarian governments, at least, have adopted a setback of 10 times the height of the turbines between these machines and habitations. It’s not enough, but at least it shows some concern. Quebec, on the other hand, has eliminated subsidies to new wind farms. This is even more courageous, and will save the health of many country dwellers in La Belle Province.

Download the study by clicking here.

Posted by: WCFN | February 2, 2016

Wind turbines and marine mammals

17 sperm whales stranded on beaches in a vast offshore windfarm zone

Authorized translation by WCFN of an article in French published here:
Éoliennes et mammifères marins

Sperm whales beached at Skegness - Jan 2016
These sperm whales, and three others, beached on the English shores of the Northern Sea; 12 others stranded in Germany and the Netherlands.

Sperm whale beached near wind farms of Lynn, Inner Dowsing and Lincs
On one of the whales stranded in England, anti-nuclear activists wrote a slogan to white-wash the wind turbines seen in the background.


Map of sperm whale beachings in the north Sea - Jan 2016
These whales were apparently members of the same pod, moving as shown above.

“Strandings are common in the North Sea but there hasn’t been one on this scale ‘in decades’, according to experts”.
The article, the map and more pictures are in the Daily Mail


Map offshore windfarms northern Europe
The 17 sperm whales died in areas of the North Sea that are saturated by sound and infrasound pollution emitted by ships and wind turbines. See the above map showing offshore wind farms, built, in construction or projected. Source:


It could be that sick or ageing whales would seek refuge in very shallow waters at night, so as to sleep away from orcas (killer whales). Being pelagic species, they would be unaware of tides, and could wake up stranded on the sand. Sane specimens, on the other hand, could beach while fleeing toxic surroundings (water contaminated by chemicals) or other unbearable conditions (noise and infrasound).

Regardless, we know that noise and infrasound pollution may impair their feeding or navigation capabilities: “It is likely that acoustic masking by anthropogenic sounds is having an increasingly prevalent impact on animals’ access to acoustic information that is essential for communication and other important activities such as navigation and prey/predator detection” – (Clark et al., 2009) —> Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems

One way or another, there is little doubt that noise and infrasound emitted by offshore wind turbines further reduce marine mammals’ chances of survival. Pelagic fish could be affected as well. As for bottom dwellers, such as soles or crustaceans, an added disturbance comes from seismic vibrations transmitted from the rotors to the sea bed, up to 50 km away (and further still for mega turbines of, say, 8 MW) —> wind turbines emit “seismic noise”


P.S.: The number of sperm whales beached on North Sea shores these last few weeks has been updated to 29. —> Daily Mail Feb. 4, 2016

P.S. 2: Here is the podcast of an interview of the author by Dr Lori Kirshner of the Animals Today Radio Show

Posted by: WCFN | October 13, 2015

Democratic dice are loaded

World Council for Nature

Press Release
13 October 2015



A de facto coup d’état rocked Australia last month. Prime Minister Tony Abbott was ousted by a rival within the same political party. Abbott had led the Liberals to victory in the 2013 elections, promising to cut down on the costly and otherwise harmful green agenda of the previous government.

Rent-seeking businesses in renewable energy, who live on subsidies and other handouts from governments, felt threatened. They vowed to fight, and they did. Lobbying is their strength, facilitated by deep pockets filled with taxpayers’ money. Ordinary people, wind farm victims in particular, can’t compete with that. This led to the victory of the crony capitalists. A new, pro-windfarm majority appeared within the Liberal party. Abbott no longer had the support he needed: he had to go.

Australia, with its peculiar “spill” system allowing challenges to party leadership during a legislature, is particularly vulnerable to lobbies. Some of these have grown to become extremely powerful. The Wind Lobby, for instance, has become a major political force worldwide. Huge subsidies for renewable energy create a perfect storm of corruption when a portion of the handout is used to reward those who voted for it in Parliament, financing their electoral campaigns. The book “Throw Them All Out” (1) documents this revolving door scheme as it works in the United States, but it is a worldwide practice, one which explains the huge development of intermittent, ineffective “green” energies in so many countries.

There is no reason to think that the global scheme does not apply to Australia. As a matter of fact, the demise of Tony Abbott is a strong indication that it does apply: with so much ‘legal bribe money’ available to his enemies, how could he possibly stay in power to carry out his mandate? This coup d’état raises a disturbing question about the reality of democracy in Australia. Here we have a Prime Minister voted in by Australians, but thrown out before his program could bite by a few backbenchers changing their tunes. Hmm!

Enter Malcolm Turnbull, the new Prime Minister, and the ship promptly changes tack. For instance we learn, in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) of October 3rd (2), that Dr Bruce Rapley, a renowned Acoustics & Environmental Health Consultant from New Zealand (3), won’t be appointed to the new scientific committee addressing the impact of wind turbines on human health. It doesn’t matter that he was recommended for the job by crossbench Senators eager to put some balance in that committee. Balanced it won’t be. As Dr Rapley puts it, commenting to us on the SMH article: “Looks like I am out of the race before it even began”. He adds, wryly: “What kind of a watch-dog committee is this, if the dice are loaded by stacking it with people whom you know will support the industry’s point of view? This makes a mockery of science, not to mention democracy and ethics.”

This is not the first time science is being manipulated to accommodate private interests. The tobacco industry led the way decades ago. Today, lobbies are venturing far ahead of their predecessors, using public funds to corrupt science wherever it will serve their purpose. Scientific committees, conservation NGOs, public health organizations, even national medical associations sing to their tunes. The system has become so corrupt, redemption seems near-impossible to achieve.

The World Council for Nature wish to honor those health professionals, acousticians and scientists who, like Dr Bruce Rapley, have the courage to uphold science against those who want to manipulate it towards political ends. We had had hopes with the Abbott government that, at least in Australia, the voice of the people, and in particular that of health victims of wind turbines, were at long last going to be heard. The Senate’s enquiry, spearheaded by conscionable Senators John Madigan, David Leyonhjelm and Chris Back, among others, concluded that wind turbines were having dangerous health effects, with infrasound and low-frequency noise as the most probable cause (4). But the Turnbull government is now busy backtracking on this long-awaited recognition, turning its back not only on public health, but also on the massacre of endangered birds and bats, as well as the destruction of jobs and heretofore competitive industries.

Score: wind lobby, one; zero for science, ethics and democracy.


Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736
Chairman, World Council for Nature



Posted by: WCFN | October 2, 2015

NGOs alert G20 countries


World Council for Nature

to the G20 meeting of Energy Ministers
of 2 October 2015

co-signed by:

na-paw logo          logo

North-American Platform Against Windpower        Wind farm Victims

Prime Minister of Turkey,
Energy Ministers of the G20 countries,
Ladies and Gentlemen of the G20 Meeting,

You are preparing the Istanbul meeting of October 2nd, the objective being to coordinate the energy policies of G20 countries. This is an opportunity to relay to you some serious concerns held by the ordinary people of this planet regarding the “energy transition”.

Wind farm and photovoltaic output depend on the weather. Thirty years have passed since the introduction of this intermittent, erratic electricity. Without means for its storage on a massive scale, it remains of little use. Using fossil fuel power plants to regulate this energy is prohibitive in cost and cancels out savings realized on C02 emissions.

Entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates said that the cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is “beyond astronomical”. Having invested one billion dollars in finding new ways to harness the energy from the sun, he suggests governments likewise redirect wasteful green subsidies to research & development (1). He also donated $28 billion to charity, nearly half his fortune (2).

Subsidies to ineffective wind “farms” have created a “1.8 trillion dollar global industry” (3), whose cost is stifling the economy everywhere while CO2 emissions fail to regress. Collateral damage, on the other hand, is considerable, no matter how many “experts” for hire dismiss the evidence, such as adverse health impacts revealed by conscientious professionals (4). Likewise, the massacre of birds and bats by the million (5) is denied, as are deleterious effects on the price of electricity, employment, property values and tourism potential. Wildlife habitats and marine ecosystems are sacrificed, as well as marine mammals, forests, landscapes, amenity of the countryside and quality of life. Ground water is being contaminated (6), unrecyclable turbine blades accumulate in dumps, the extraction of rare earths for wind turbines kills miners, women and children in China (7), while everywhere populations are fed mendacious buzzwords like “green energy”, “wind is free”, and “renewables will save the planet”.

Vested interests and unscrupulous politicians have hijacked the “Green” Agenda, causing unprecedented devastation throughout the world, notably when wind turbines are erected in migration corridors or protected habitats, killing rare species – as in Ontario (8).

Press articles testify to growing suspicions of corruption, and a book describes how (money) “bundlers” are working within the US administration, distributing favors to private interests: “Throw Them All Out” (9).

Infrasound emissions increase as wind turbines become larger, causing more wind farm victims. These are neither attended nor compensated. Also, e.g. in Turkey, property rights are being breached by bulldozers illegally entering private properties, or valuable land being expropriated outright in violation of the Constitution (10). State Council (High Court) orders to stop construction are not always implemented by local authorities (10). In Bodrum, residents had to remain on guard 24/7 carrying sticks to prevent construction workers entering their land. Yet many wind projects in Turkey are being actively supported by the German or Danish governments, and financed by the EBRD and/or the World Bank.

Residents globally suffer the brutality of windpower development. Take Mexico, where entire communities of indigenous populations from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec are taking to the streets to demonstrate against the invasion of their tribal lands by hundreds of unwanted wind turbines. Violence pits wind farm personnel against protesters, causing loss of life (11). Wind development caused more deaths in Guatemala and Kenya (12), and in Dongzhou, China, 20 protesters were killed by police firing into the crowd (13).

Ineffectiveness & cost caused the wind farm bubble to burst in Spain, Greece, Portugal & Italy. Richer countries like Denmark, Germany and the UK, are scaling back their support, as have China (14) and India. Others – Australia, Canada, France & Turkey, having entered the game belatedly, lurch ahead blindly, moved by a political agenda which may yet prove corrupt (15). Only the United States can maintain its misguided renewables’ policy after 30 years of wasteful subsidies – courtesy of its bonds and treasury bills remaining sought-after investments the world over, giving the U.S. the unique advantage of being able to print money at will.

None of this bodes well for the future of mankind. In a bid to assist decision making based on current realities, we respectfully urge you to consider the information herein provided. It’s just the “tip of the iceberg”, and we hold further evidence at your disposal. On behalf of those suffering now and in the future, we strongly recommend that G20 countries reassess their energy policies, starting with calling a moratorium.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736
Chairman, World Council for Nature –

Sherri Lange

Ghislaine Siguier
Présidente, Victimes des Éoliennes (Wind Farm Victims) –















(14) “the share of renewables in China’s energy mix is projected to only reach 17% by 2030 compared to 13% in 2010”
One, just one of the reasons may be the poor quality of their wind turbines:


Turkish version of our letter:

French version of our letter:

Our letter was also published by Principia Scientific International and by Canada Free Press, in French by Économie Matin, in Turkish by Enerji Magazin, and the Turkish Evrensel wrote an article about it.


Posted by: WCFN | September 20, 2015

VESTAS embarrassed

VESTAS Special Advisor apologizes to Dr Sarah Laurie

Ken McAlpine
Ken McAlpine

He sent a Tweet:

Ken McAlpine
I sincerely apologise for any harm I caused to Sarah Laurie for falsely claiming she was deregistered & not a Doctor.

You will note that he is no more a gentleman than the other offender, Professor Simon Chapman, writing as they both did: “Sarah Laurie” instead of “Dr Sarah Laurie”.

Waubra Foundation
Dr Sarah Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation.

He also wrote this public letter of apology:


I am a consultant Special Advisor to Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd.

On 19 March 2014, I uploaded the following allegations on Twitter concerning Sarah Laurie:

NOT DROWNING, RANTING: Deregistered “Dr” Sarah Laurie doesn’t like the medicine dished up by @ama_media:…

At the time that I uploaded the Tweet, I was employed by Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd. The thrust of my allegations is that Sarah Laurie had given cause to the Medical Board of Australia to deregister her as a medical practitioner, on account of unprofessional conduct and that Sarah Laurie is not entitled to use the title “Dr”.

These allegations were made without foundation and are entirely false.

Sarah Laurie is not deregistered and has never been sanctioned by the Medical Board of Australia. I understand that Sarah Laurie allowed her registration as a medical practitioner to lapse for personal reasons; and, accordingly, does not currently practice as such. By reason of her academic qualifications, Sarah Laurie is entitled to use the title “Dr”.

I sincerely apologise to Sarah Laurie for the harm, embarrassment and distress caused by my allegations, which I unreservedly retract.

Ken McAlpine
Special Advisor, Public Affairs,
Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd

Original document here

See also the apology of Professor Simon Chapman and comments from the Australian Senate


Posted by: WCFN | August 23, 2015

Dr Sarah Laurie: doubly vindicated

The ill effects of wind farms on health are real

Dr Sarah Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation

Dr Laurie has spent 5 years doing voluntary work to help windfarm victims, and others impacted by other sources of industrial noise in rural Australia, where she lives with her family. Also, as CEO of the Waubra Foundation, she has been promoting research into the effects of infrasound, low-frequency noise, and vibrations emitted by wind turbines and other sources. She is recognised worldwide as a leading expert in the harm done by wind turbines to people, and has been invited to testify in numerous parliamentary inquiries, courts and tribunals on various continents.

Hypersensitivity to infrasound causes sleep deprivation,
headaches, nausea etc.

As a result of her hard work, generous heart, and uncompromised professional dedication, she enjoys the highest respect among the people who, around the world, do voluntary work to help the victims of wind turbines. But her very success in further raising the profile of the issue of infasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN) emitted by wind turbines has created her many enemies, among those making a living from the wind power business and related activists.

One of them was an Australian employee of Danish wind turbine manufacturer VESTAS, Ken McAlpine, author in March 2014 of a defamatory tweet which wrongly implied that Dr Laurie was no longer a doctor as a result of some professional misconduct causing her to be “deregistered”. He is not alone – Canadian based IBM employee Mike Barnard authored a document, published by the Energy and Policy Institute in 2014, which defames a number of health and acoustics experts, including Dr Laurie.

Simon Chapman, a sociologist, Professor of Public Health (sic) at the University of Sydney, is also on the list. He has been ridiculing and denigrating those suffering ill-health and exhaustion from the vicinity of wind turbines, and personally attacking doctors and acoustics professionals for over five years. Chapman was one of a number of people who retweeted the defamatory words of McAlpine. Others involved included a journalist from Fairfax Media, and an employee of Infigen Energy (formerly Babcock and Brown), owner and operator of wind power developments in Australia and the USA.

Simon Chapman
Simon Chapman, sociologist, Professor of Public Health (sic)

Chapman has been trying to discredit Dr Laurie and her work for years, thus helping the wind industry to keep selling their unsafe products. Time and again he denied the known adverse health effects of noise and infrasound emitted by wind turbines, and tried to destroy the reputations of those professionals who are sounding the alarm. Chapman has been the main proponent of the grotesque accusation that Dr Laurie is herself making people sick by speaking out about the health problems caused by wind turbines and by advocating for research and safer regulations (i.e. an alleged “nocebo effect” caused by “scaremongering”).

But the tables have turned. Dr Laurie has been vindicated. First by the Australian Senate. In its report issued on 3rd August 2015, at the end of the enquiry about wind farms, we find this:

2.21 The committee highlights the fact that Professor Chapman is not a qualified, registered nor experienced medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, acoustician, audiologist, physicist or engineer. Accordingly:

  • he has not medically assessed a single person suffering adverse health impacts from wind turbines;
  • his research work has been mainly—and perhaps solely—from an academic perspective without field studies;
  • his views have been heavily criticised by several independent medical and acoustic experts in the international community;
  • and many of his assertions do not withstand fact check analyses.”

This is followed by a number of paragraphs where Chapman’s allegations are rebutted one by one:
Read more: Senate’s Select Committee on Wind Turbines

Australian Senate

Senator Madigan commented: “(Chapman) is a person who is not lawfully permitted to conduct any form of medical research or study in relation to human health”.
And: “(his) undergraduate qualifications were in sociology and his PhD looked into the relationship between cigarette smoke and advertising”. *Click here for more*

Senator Madigan
Australian Senator John Madigan

Exposed by the Senate, the professor of public health is now in the hot seat. He had to make a public apology. First by a tweet which said: “I sincerely apologise to Sarah Laurie for retweeting the false statement that she was deregistered and not a doctor.”
Then by letter: “I sincerely apologise to Sarah Laurie for the harm, embarrassment and distress caused by my allegations, which I unreservedly retract.”
Read more: Simon Chapman apologizes to Dr Sarah Laurie

His apology, however, was less than gentlemanly: he chose not to address the victim of his smears as “Dr Laurie”. Yet, as pointed out by Graham Lloyd’s recent article in the Australian, Dr Laurie IS a medical doctor, even if she has offered not to use the title for her work with the Waubra Foundation. Otherwise patients would be calling for appointments.

Simon Chapman, to say the least, is not an asset for the wind industry, nor for his employer – the University of Sydney, or for any of the organizations who have irresponsibly adopted his biased nocebo claims, such as the Public Health Association of Australia, and the Climate and Health Alliance.

The World Council for Nature takes this occasion to praise Dr Sarah Laurie for her outstanding work, her courage and her abnegation. Few people in the world today deserve to be honored as much as she does.

Posted by: WCFN | June 17, 2015

Climate and the Pope


The Pope embraces the hugely expensive renewable energies, which cause fuel poverty and unemployment.

See this two-minute video by an American think-tank, high-lighting the dreadful impact of “green” climate policies on the poor and the vulnerable:


See also:

The Pope’s Climate Letter Urges ‘Dialogue with Everyone,’ So Why Did Vatican Single Out and Harass Us?

Read more:
“Our opinions were not only ignored, but we were scoffed at and demeaned by high-level Vatican officials “


What Pope Francis should do to really help the poor, by Bjorn Lomborg

Read more:
“…today’s climate policies themselves have a cost, which predominantly hits the poor… Relying on expensive green energy sources like wind and solar power makes electricity pricier and less available for those who desperately need it.”


Note: if an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress, not from WCFN. WordPress is free of charge, but publicity is how they recoup their costs. We regret that our budget does not permit us to afford an ad-free webpage.

Posted by: WCFN | June 4, 2015

Global Wind Day?

Global Wind Day will be celebrated June 15 2015, actually WORLD ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY, as per United Nations’ resolution A/RES/66/127. Pirating that Day, the wind lobby shows little respect for senior citizens.

In reality, it will be:

Global WIND SCAM Day

new energy 160

This cartoon explains why wind turbines are a scam: wind power is intermittent, i.e. useless


Wind turbines emit dangerous infrasound

Wind turbines massacre birds and bats

Wind turbines slash property values

Wind turbines kill tourism

Wind electricity costs 3 times as much

Wind turbines make electricity too expensive

Wind turbines destroy jobs

On June 15 2015, disinformation agents will be mobilized worldwide to make believe wind turbines are useful, cheap, harmless to birds and people, good for property values and great for tourism and the economy – DON’T BE FOOLED!

Our thanks to Josh, author of the cartoon –


1) – Health professionals worldwide are sounding the alarm about the ill effects of infrasound emitted by wind turbines:

2) – Wind turbines massacre birds and bats by the million each year:
Covering up the massacre

3) – The rising cost of electricity destroys 900 jobs at Alcoa plants in Spain:
Renewable energy kills jobs

4) – Feel free to contact us if you need more data or studies on these matters.


Note: if an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress, not from WCFN. WordPress is free of charge, but publicity is how they recoup their costs. We regret that our budget does not permit us to afford an ad-free webpage.

Posted by: WCFN | June 4, 2015

Covering up the massacre

Unlike cats, cars and buildings, wind turbines kill cranes (as above), eagles, storks etc.

Wind farms: a slaughter kept hidden from the public

Many of our members have complained to us that mortality predictions being used to assess the impacts of wind turbines on birds and bats are minimised to a level that thoroughly misleads decision makers. To wit, in a widely used report prepared for the Australian Government by consultant Biosis Research Pty Ltd, we read: “the additional mortality predicted for the cumulative effects of turbine collisions for wind farms within the range of the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle (TWTE) is likely to result in the additional death of approximately one bird per annum” (1). Yet, actual eagle mortality at just one of the 7 wind farms considered by the study turned out to be 3.2 eagles per year, according to the operator of the Woolnorth wind farm (2). Dr Stephen Debus puts the number at 5 TWTE per year (3). As the 6 other wind farms have not been monitored, “there might be tens of eagle deaths per year in Tasmania” (from blade strikes), adds Dr. Debus. Of these, the vast majority concerns the TWTE: at the Woolnorth wind farm, from 20 eagles killed in 4 years, 17 were TWTEs and 3 were white-bellied sea eagles (2).

The Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, a (bigger) sub-species of the Wedge-tailed Eagle, numbered only 130 successful breeding pairs in 2010 according to the state’s National Parks and Wildlife Service (2) – and obviously less now, as the killings are allowed to continue. It is classified as “endangered”. The result of the misleading assessment of Biosis will be to condemn to extinction the largest of Australia’s eagles.

I analysed the Biosis TWTE study in 2010, and found disturbing “errors” in it, huge ones at that, totalling two orders of magnitude. So I wrote an open letter to the authors (4). They failed to reply. Australian ornithologists, who had been copied on it, also kept silent. The letter generated record levels of traffic on the Iberica 2000 website that had published it, but nobody responded, no one. Apparently, nobody wanted to hear the bad news, let alone acknowledge them, especially ornithologists, bird societies, and even the media, enthralled as they all are by the “goodness” of wind turbines. In fact, I realised that everyone had an interest in continuing business as usual. And business as usual it has been, in the five years that followed to this date. As we speak, mendacious mortality predictions from eager-to-please consultants continue to be used to promote wind farms across Australia, and indeed the across world.

The Tasmanian situation was resolved by making sure that no more news of eagles killed by wind farms on the island would be published by the media. This cover-up is now 5 years old, and has been quite effective: no news of eagle mortality has transpired from Woolnorth or any other Tasmanian wind farm.

I shall come back to the matter of unethical consultants and bird societies later, but I would like to cite two other examples briefly, to make my point. Before the Macarthur wind farm was built, in the State of Victoria, consultants had estimated that the level of bird activity was low in the area, and that the impact on birds would be insignificant. But after construction, a monitoring survey counted the carcasses and estimated the death toll at about 1500 birds in one year, including nearly 500 raptors among which 6 wedge-tailed eagles (5). So much for the negligible bird mortality… Much the same happened with the Wolfe Island windfarm, in the Province of Ontario.

This scenario is repeating itself at wind farms all over the world, wherever post-construction monitoring surveys are performed. My experience has been that predicted rates of mortality are often two orders of magnitude (100 times) lower than reality. The monitoring surveys themselves play their part, by never reflecting the full extent of the death toll (for technical reasons – e.g. the insufficient size of the area searched under each turbine * – as well as conflicts of interest).

* search area: a 50-meter-radius circle around each mast, whereas a 150-meter-tall wind turbine can project the body of a small bird 200 meters away and beyond.


It is my duty, as President of the World Council for Nature, to blow the whistle about the true extent of the carnage which is taking place at wind farms everywhere. The deception being staged by consultants in order to fool people and their governments will have unfathomed consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, natural habitats, and the health of forests and agriculture. We are facing widespread corrupt behaviour, which is putting private interests ahead of the common good.

Consultants, hired as they are by promoters, have an obvious interest in misleading decision-makers by predicting insignificant mortality. It’s been the case for the above-mentioned Macarthur and Wolfe Island windfarms, but in Europe and the United States it is much the same, e.g. in France the official mortality estimate is about one bird/turbine/year (6). Everywhere, consultants willing to please the wind industry, their main employer, are the source of the deception.

In the US, the latest nationwide windfarm mortality estimates are Dr. Smallwood’s 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats per year, i.e. almost 15 birds and 23 bats per turbine (7). But there are also European estimates of interest: for instance, extrapolating to Germany the findings of renowned Dutch biologist J.E. Winkelman, ornithologist Bernd Koop had calculated that annual mortality would be 60,000 – 100,000 birds per Gigawatt of installed wind capacity (8). For today’s Germany, which has 39 Gigawatts, this would add up to 2,340,000 – 3,900,000 dead birds a year.

The Koop estimate is much closer to reality, which was revealed in 2012 by a comprehensive evaluation of wind farm mortality by the Spanish ornithological society SEO-BirdLife (Sociedad Española de Ornitología). In response to a request based on the right to information in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention), SEO has obtained copies of 136 monitoring studies of wind farms, studies that the Spanish government had filed without publishing. Having analysed them, SEO researchers estimated the mortality as follows: Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines kill on average 6 – 18 million birds and bats a year. Considering that wind turbines kill roughly twice as many bats as birds, this comes to a death toll of 100 – 300 birds and 200 – 600 bats per turbine per year (9). Averaging these numbers, we can say that, on average, each wind turbine kills 200 birds and 400 bats a year. For the Macarthur wind farm: 200 birds x 140 turbines = 28,000 birds a year, as opposed to 1,500 estimated by monitoring consultants.

These figures are actually shy of the first estimates of two decades ago. In a study published by an agency of the California government, the California Energy Commission, we can read as follows: “In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al. (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden(10). We are very far indeed from the 1 bird per turbine/year being routinely predicted by some remarkably mendacious consultants or government agencies.


Something obviously happened between the high mortality found in the early days of wind farms by biologists such as Winkelman, Benner, Lekuona, Everaert etc. and present estimates as low as 1 bird per turbine/year being “predicted” in Australia, France, the UK etc. Could it be that actual mortality has come down to such a low level?
– Not in the least: if you need convincing, see the mortality at Altamont Pass, Macarthur, Wolfe Island, Woolnorth, Smola, etc.

What actually happened is that powerful political and financial interests have worked together towards deceiving our perception of mortality from wind turbines – i.e. putting in place a cover-up. To succeed in this mystification, it was essental to obtain the cooperation of ornithological NGOs. This was generally done by way of donations, and a plethora of attractive contracts: impact studies for wind projects, monitoring avian mortality once the projects are built, modelling ornithological mortality etc… In countries with high penetration of “green” energy, the wind industry quickly became the main employer of ornithologists.

In Spain, Iberdrola and Banco Triodos (the renewable energies’ bank) used to make donations to SEO-Birdlife amounting to nearly 25% of its budget. After a number of years, this finally caused some dissension among members, eventually resulting in the departure of the General Manager, Alejandro Sánchez, in 2010 (11). Less than two years later, the ornithological society published its estimate of windfarm mortality in Spain, revealing the enormity of the massacre (9). But their report was neither published nor mentioned by ornithological societies in other countries – what better proof of the collusion between wind interests and ornithology?

An average of 200 dead birds per turbine per year is not at all surprising: it is less than one bird per 24 hours. It could easily be more, considering that song birds migrate at night, to avoid overheating. On moonless nights, all they can see from the turbines are the position lights on the nacelles, while the blades are slashing through the air at up to 300 km/h, invisible.

Accidents also happen during the day, particularly in the case of those species that are attracted to wind turbines (12). This attraction puts their lives in danger, because the blades can reach speeds of 300 km/h at the tip (see further below). It is the case for swallows, swifts and other birds that catch insects on the wing; Professor Ahlén found that they are attracted to wind turbines because insects are themselves attracted to these machines (12).

[ UPDATE. The Audubon Society wrote in March 2016 :“white blades attract insects, and insects attract foraging birds” ]


It is also the case of raptors (12), which are attracted by dead or wounded birds or bats that lie under the turbines, or by the mice and rabbits that live there. Indeed, rodents find plenty of food in these open spaces covered in gramineae; also, it is easy to dig burrows where the soil has been softened up by foundation work – see picture below.

cottontail Altamont
Rabbit in front of its burrow, Altamont Pass wind farm, California – (first generation turbines).

Perched on the still blades (picture further below), or on the nacelles, birds of prey have a commanding view of this exceptional hunting territory. Many will hunt successfully without getting struck by a blade. But their very success causes their brains to establish a connection between wind turbines and great hunting opportunities. Thus, when they spot a wind turbine, which may be seen from many miles away, they will be attracted to it. Young, unattached raptors will therefore visit many wind farms, and so will adults on migration. Breeding adults, on the other hand, will only visit wind turbines located within their own territories, but will do it over and over again. In either case, the more time they spend near the turbines, the greater the chances they will be struck by a blade, the speed of which it is only too easy to misjudge. This is why so many raptors get killed by wind farms.

For birds as for humans, the blades appear to be moving at a leisurely pace. Yet, they travel at up to 300km/h at their tip. Here is the calculation for a 2.3 MW ENERCON Model E-70: 71m (diameter) x 3.14 = circumference of 223m x 21.5 revolutions per minute (in winds above 45 km/h) = 4.794m travelled by the tip of each blade in a minute x 60 minutes = 287,640m travelled in an hour, i.e. at a speed of 287km/h. In low winds, the speed is of 100 – 200 km/h. The difference between apparent slowness and actual high speed, plus the attraction they exert, are what turn wind turbines into deadly traps for birds and bats.

Raptors, experience has shown, are prone to be decimated by wind turbines (13). Yet these birds are very useful to us, as they control certain animal populations (rats, mice, rabbits, and nest plunderers such as magpies, crows etc.). They also eliminate sick or dead animals, thus preventing epidemics and contributing to the health of many species. Their role is important for the maintenance of natural balances, biodiversity and ecosystems. Yet, a new peer-reviewed study is alerting us that wind turbines are partly responsible for the coming extinction of some species of raptors (in southern Europe). One of them, the Egyptian Vulture, is seeing its population of breeding adults decline by 3-4% per year (14). This spectacular glider is already very rare in Europe, where millions of euros have been spent for its protection, including even its reintroduction (in France for instance).

Photo: Red-tailed hawk perched on a blade, Altamont Pass, California.

Perching opportunities make wind turbines attractive to raptors, so do the prey and carcasses to be found under them (as we commented above). Here are more pictures (15), and videos (25 and 26) proving the point. But consultants promote the fiction that raptors “avoid” wind turbines, and the ornithology profession turns a blind eye to that baseless assertion, all of which is helping their common employers: wind farm promoters. If raptors avoided wind turbines, why would so many be killed by their blades? (13)

Consultants use a wide array of deceptive tricks, which they developed over the years. I listed some of them years ago in an article, “the Shame of Scotland” (16). One of these tricks has been pushed to unprecedented levels in Australia: the “core-range manipulation” (16). There, consultants have decided, based upon unscientific, biased and unpublished observations, that wind turbines can be safely erected as close as 300 meters from the nests of eagles or other raptors. For instance, in the Bulgana Windfarm Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13051 (7.6), page 97, we read: “Previous studies on wind farms have shown that resident Wedge-tailed Eagles are able to successfully nest and raise young on wind farms, if turbines are located at least 300 metres away (BL&A unpublished data )”.

Years ago, I debunked an identical assertion which was based on 24 searches spread over two years at the Challicum Hills wind farm – hardly constituting solid scientific evidence, to say the least. Biosis even admitted: “the work does not discount the possibility of WT eagle collisions” (17). Yet the fiction perdures, and wind turbines continue to be erected in Australia as close as 300 meters from eagle and other raptors’ nests. Nowhere else in the world are wind turbines erected so close to large raptors’ nests. Australia’s eagles are being slaughtered, but the cover-up imposed in the last few years keeps Australians uninformed.

By contrast, Scottish raptor expert Michael J. McGrady recommends a 5 km buffer zone for the Golden Eagle, in the peer-reviewed study “A model of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) ranging behavior”, J. Raptor Res. 36 (1 Supplement): 62-69 – by McGrady, M.J., Grant, J. R., Baingridge, I. P. & David R.A. McLeod D.R.A. (2002) (18). This study and its recommendation are mentioned in SEO-Birdlife’s guide for the assessment of windfarms as regards bird life, in which one can find the buffer zones recommended by scientists for various protected bird species (18). The shortest is 1 km, for the smallest of the kestrel species. For eagles, they vary from 5 to 10 km (18); for ospreys 2 km, peregrine falcons 2 – 4 km, cranes 10 km.


Out of control windfarm development is hurting many protected species, riding as it does on the optimistic estimates put out by hired consultants, government agencies, bird societies, the wind industry and its agents, pro-wind activists etc. It is also facilitated by considerable flows of public money, in the form of subsidies, tax credits, special loans, carbon certificates, etc. These millions of dollars (billions in those countries that have thousands of wind turbines) enable private interests to remove all obstacles to their greed, and this includes overriding nature protection legislation. Migration routes and stopover areas (e.g. Prince Edward County, Ontario; Escandorgue, France), shrinking habitat of threatened species (e.g. brolgas, Bonelli’s eagles, whooping cranes, California condors), designated Important Bird Areas (e.g. Sierras d’Alfaro y Almudaina, Spain, Lewis Island, Scotland), , nothing is sacred: the plunder has no limits.

Planning authorities which give the green light to wind projects rarely have other bird data at hand than what’s reported in impact studies prepared by unethical consultants. I read about a hundred of these reports over the past 12 years, and none concluded that the impact on the environment would be unacceptable, even when the project was to be located inside a protected nature reserve, or was threatening an endangered species with extinction. None of them was honest, without errors or omissions, and free of manipulations.


To obtain approval for wind projects that will highly impact protected species, consultants usually suggest applying some techniques for avoiding, minimising, or attenuating the risks of collision. They call these “mitigation”. But we must be aware that none of these schemes, none of these formulas have proved effective. Wherever they have been implemented, they have failed (Altamont Pass, Woolnorth, Smola, Tarifa). The President of the French bird society LPO-Birdlife acknowledged the fact that mitigation does not work (19).

[ UPDATE. The Audubon Society concurred, in an article dated March 16, 2016 :“I would say it’s highly experimental; none of it has been proven to work” ]

In situations where opponents to a wind project have raised the issue of bat mortality, consultants often propose a mitigation which consists in increasing the cut-in wind speed to, say, 6 meters per second. This means not letting the blades rotate unless the speed of the wind exceeds 22 km/h. The idea is that, as few bats fly when the wind exceeds that speed, mortality will be reduced by about 90%. We comment on this particular mitigation as follows:

First observation: the promised 90% reduction in mortality has not been verified. To our knowledge, no wind farm has put this measure into practice and published the results.

Second observation: a 10% residual mortality is considered by consultants to be negligible, as if it were acceptable to kill 1.2 million bats per year instead of 12 million (supposing a country that has, or will have, 18,000 wind turbines as in Spain). Most bat species are endangered, all are extremely useful. Killing them in such numbers is irresponsible. Also consider that the figure of 1,2 million will be much higher, as
A) the reduction to 10% is unproven,
B) only few wind projects contemplate “bat mitigation”.

Third observation: the practical application of such a measure is not verifiable. Indeed, who would make sure that, during 25 years, the computer program controlling the feathering of the blades…
C) reflects that mitigation,
D) is in good order and
E) is being applied?
The interest of the windfarm owner is to not apply it, as it reduces his income. Thus, inspectors would be needed, but who would pay them during 25 years? It would have to be the State. And who would ensure that the operators of the wind farms will not “convince” these civil servants to turn a blind eye? Indeed, wind farms are often associated with corruption (20).


Mitigation of bat mortality is therefore doubtful at best. Yet bats are killed in bigger numbers than birds – about twice as many, i.e. circa 400 per turbine/year, or one bat per turbine/night. According to a study published in France, bats “are the most valuable fauna group” (in French: «constituent le groupe faunistique ayant la plus forte valeur patrimoniale») (21). Indeed, bat species are very useful to humans, but they all are in decline. To make things worse, their populations cannot recover easily, most females only raising one pup a year.

Many of the chiropter species are classified as threatened with extinction. This is especially worrying because, without bats, farmers, the forest industry, and national forestry administrations would have to use more pesticides to control insects that attack trees and crops. This would lead to undesirable effects on prices and on the health of citizens. Services rendered by bats to US agriculture have been valued at $3.7 billion – $53 billion annually (22). That we know of, no evaluation has been made for services rendered by chiropters to forestry, but their usefulness in controlling some forest pests is recognised (23). Yet bats are being killed in their millions by wind turbines. This is causing considerable harm to the environment.

In this video (24), we see bats getting struck by turbine blades, and others falling to the ground due to “barotrauma” (fatal injuries in the lungs caused by large pressure differences created around the blades).


The ineffectiveness of mitigation resulted in wily consultants proposing yet another deceptive scheme: “compensation”. This stratagem is useful to businesses that are causing serious harm to nature as a result of their activities. So much so that “offset programs” (27) are being set up, fooling people into believing that destroying more nature can be compensated. “No net biodiversity loss” is the publicised goal, but it is yet another scam to facilitate more plundering of nature. It boggles the mind to see most ecologists and bird societies supporting this fraud. Here again, ethics vanish where there is money to be made…

Natural wetlands cannot be replaced by man-made reservoirs, any more than destroying primary tropical forests can be compensated by planting eucalyptus. Just as surely, installing long-lasting ecological traps in the habitat of protected species cannot be offset by donations to a bird society. This scheme of redeeming one’s ecological sins with money is not without parallel with the “indulgences” that were sold by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Compensation is increasingly being used in the windfarm business. For instance, it is being alleged that, if new hunting areas for raptors are created nearby, it is acceptable to install wind turbines in their breeding territories. But this only works on paper. It hasn’t been successful anywhere in the world. The example of Beinn an Tuirc, Scotland, is sometimes quoted by some consultant as a reference. But this example is anything but conclusive. I exposed its false claim to success years ago (28).

The since-discovered fact that raptors are attracted to wind turbines further proves the ineffectiveness of this compensation. These machines act as giant bird and bat traps that attract their victims from many miles around, creating as many “population sinks” across whole continents. Nothing can compensate this ongoing massacre. Creating new hunting grounds next to wind farms is as absurd as “killing the children but building orphanages”. .

No government in the world has considered objectively the cumulative effects of so many wind turbines, each of them an ecological trap attracting and killing many protected species. Some residents report that, since wind turbines were built, there are no more bats where they live; others noted that they see fewer and fewer raptors. Swallows and swifts are becoming rarer too, according to others.

The situation is serious, if only because these species are of great benefit to humanity. Natural equilibriums are also at risk, and so is quality of life. Are we willing to replace our countryside with industrial landscapes, our birds and bats with crop dusters? Where are we headed, with this “green” ideology which destroys nature by calling for its invasion by more destructive industry, and misleads people into thinking it’s for the greater good of the planet?

What an awful mess are these ideologues making of our world, under the pretext of saving it… The wind industry has never been able to prove it can achieve its goal of significantly reducing harmful emissions. The wind’s intermittency stands in its way. The German experience is far from being conclusive in this regard, to say the least (29). A few years from now, when all the expensive tinkering will have failed (more power lines, international connections, smart meters, giant batteries, reservoirs and pumping stations, etc.), the Germans will have to face the harsh reality: wind intermittency has no economically viable solution.

Independent engineers keep repeating it (30), but stubborn governments are not listening. Through the famous “revolving door” of politics, wind power subsidies help finance political parties. It would be suicidal for any party to vote against their renewal (30). The wind industry clearly calls the shots, be it in Copenhagen, London, Ottawa, Canberra or Washington. The wind farm scam controls our energy policy, and the ministers of health and the environment must obey.

The renewable energy bubble has burst in Spain and other southern European countries. It occurred when the cost of subsidies became unaffordable, i.e. when these countries became technically bankrupt and HAD to cut down on government expenses. When this happened, the so-called “green jobs” vanished. The countries were left with households impoverished by the high cost of “renewable” electricity. Some companies had to relocate abroad due to this cost, and more are contemplating to do likewise. Tourists looking for nature, landscapes and relaxation choose other destinations. In the countryside, residents are poorer as their homes are worth a fraction of their normal value. Many suffer from the Wind Turbine Syndrome, and their lives may end sooner because of high levels of cortisol in their blood. As for the birds, they keep being chopped up year after year…

Mark Duchamp
Chairman, World Council for Nature
Tél: +34 693 643 736


1) – page 32 of TWTE modelling study

2) –

3) –

4) –

5) –

(6) –

(7) –

(8) – (Koop B., 1997. Vogelzug und Windenergieplanung. Beispiele für Auswirkungen aus dem Kreis Plön (Schleswig-Holstein). Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 29 (7): 202-207).

(9) –

(10) – Page 12, 1er paragraphe.

(11) –

(12) –

(13) – Some of the eagles killed by wind turbines (tip of the iceberg) – Last updated in 2006

– Some of the ospreys killed by wind turbines (tip of the iceberg)

– Effects on red kites (pages 96, 97).

(14) – Study “Action on multiple fronts, illegal poisoning and wind farm planning, is required to reverse the decline of the Egyptian vulture in southern Spain”
Ana Sanz-Aguilar, José Antonio Sánchez-Zapata, Martina Carrete, José Ramón Benítez, Enrique Ávila, Rafael Arenas f, José Antonio Donázar (a).
Study published on April 21 2015 by ELSEVIER, Biological Conservation, Volume 187, July 2015, pages 10–18

(15) – –

(16) – The Shame of Scotland:

(17) –
See –> ” 4 – The precedent of Challicum Hills ”

(18) –
See –> Annex II, pages 106 and 107
Literature review of recommended buffer zones and sizes of home range for eagles and other raptors.

(19) –

(20) –

(21) –
See –> page 89

(22) –

(23) –

(24) – VIDEO

(25) – VIDEO

(26) – VIDEO

(27) –

(28) –

(29) – Available upon request to

(30) –

(31) –


Note: if an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress, not from WCFN. WordPress is free of charge, but publicity is how they recoup their costs. We regret that our budget does not permit us to afford an ad-free webpage.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »