Serious health impacts from living near industrial wind turbines are being reported around the globe. But is it just their imagination, a wild conspiracy theory? Environmental sciences expert Dr. Mariana Alves-Peirera, PhD, joins Mark Mallett of Wind Concerns to share her scientific analysis.
Watch
Mark Mallett is a former award-winning reporter with CTV Edmonton and an independent researcher and author. His family homesteaded between Vermilion and Cold Lake, Alberta, and now resides in the Lakeland region. Mark is Editor in Chief of Wind Concerns.
The Problem is that the Governements hand out to much money to these Companys and with this they (Gov) want to whitewash they’re Concience. If these Companys have to pay everything themselfs, they will stop asap. And we just have to fight on and on, until they stop and take them down.
The interview with Dr. Mariana Alves-Peirera is missing a major element and is quite disappointing because of that lack. In earlier lectures on the topic she went into detail about the progress of research that found major medical problems created with infrasound. It started with observed symptoms of people working around infrasound producing jet engines to finding major infrasound related problems in various other industries, to finding ways to diagnose effects in the body, starting initially with autopsies, then with biopsies, eventually with non-invasive instrumental diagnoses (e.g. specialized imaging).
Videos were, hopefully still are, available on-line. Supposedly these changes are not detected in most cases because they are not readily observable at the macro level; one has to know what to look for and how to detect them. Bringing this aspect into an interview would not require explanation of the background, only a statement that tissue changes occur and that those changes can be observed through medical diagnosis.
What she claimed in that two types of connective tissue, both found extensively in the human and other animal bodies, are modified by exposure to infrasound. She further said that the research by her institution was able to consistently duplicate their findings with lab animals. If I understood correctly, limited exposure produces changes that the body can repair if the cause is removed. Longer term exposure produces permanent changes.
Many questions were unanswered. A few among many are: Why are some people effected more than others? Why are tissues in various areas of the body effected differently and differentially from individual to individual? How do the tissue changes produce the medical symptoms (some particular symptoms seemed to be explained in her lectures, other not)? Why are the damages different from person to person (a wide range of symptoms occur from seemingly the same exposure) ?
Regardless, if that research was valid, and I have seen nothing even acknowledging it by critics let alone refuting it, the tools exist to bypass the tallying of reported symptoms. Symptoms can only circumstantially be related to causes. Direct medical investigation of the bodies, showing that tissues are being abnormally modified, would produce much more positive evidence of the problem and critics would have the responsibility of showing through experimentation that those tissue changes do not result in any harms.