COP26: All talk or some real action on climate change?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

mudsticks

Squire
Has anyone mentioned llamas yet?

Oh the old story about the excessive number of alpacas being kept in the home counties where their ridiculously long necks were interfering with the flight paths of bees .??

I though that one had been debunked.:blink:
 
I expect you are talking about Infrasound.
there are many many names for it. but you could be correct.
1) Infrasound has never found be detrimental to human health unless so loud that noise of any frequency would be detrimental at this volume.
Google ''infrasound weapons'' first result '' Infrasonic weapons like the long range acoustic device (LRAD) rely on loud, low frequency sounds (infrasound). These bulky units have been used for crowd control and repelling pirates. When on high power, the effects are like a “punch in the guts”, ranging from nausea to involuntary evacuation of the bowels. '' full article: https://theconversation.com/sonic-a...the long,involuntary evacuation of the bowels.

Now i known that talks about weapons, but it uses intrasound to cause damage, which is something else then ''never detrimental to human health'' mind you that i also spoke about wildlife and the possible effect these noises can have on them.
2) Windmills product low volumes of infrasound. We get more exposure from a whole host of everyday natural and man-made things that are higher volumes than wind turbines.
While that is true, it does'nt disregard concerns about windparcs becuase appliances etc. in an household can be switched of, something you can't say of an windpark.
The whole infrasound / windmill thing is pseudo-science BS peddled by people who don't like wind turbines for some reason. Look at the multiple scientific publications into it.
You mean the one's that allowed to windmill lobby to write the end result with them? kind of obvious they came the the conclusion everything was fine. Not to say that every publication/research/''facebook'' expert
Meanwhile, or course fossil fuel extraction and use has no environmental impact... oh wait...
That's a bit of a weak one to be honest, no one is denying that, except for Shell and the likes maybe.
 

FishFright

Well-Known Member
there are many many names for it. but you could be correct.

Google ''infrasound weapons'' first result '' Infrasonic weapons like the long range acoustic device (LRAD) rely on loud, low frequency sounds (infrasound). These bulky units have been used for crowd control and repelling pirates. When on high power, the effects are like a “punch in the guts”, ranging from nausea to involuntary evacuation of the bowels. '' full article: https://theconversation.com/sonic-attacks-in-china-and-cuba-how-sound-can-be-a-weapon-97380#:~:text=Infrasonic weapons like the long,involuntary evacuation of the bowels.

Now i known that talks about weapons, but it uses intrasound to cause damage, which is something else then ''never detrimental to human health'' mind you that i also spoke about wildlife and the possible effect these noises can have on them.

While that is true, it does'nt disregard concerns about windparcs becuase appliances etc. in an household can be switched of, something you can't say of an windpark.

You mean the one's that allowed to windmill lobby to write the end result with them? kind of obvious they came the the conclusion everything was fine. Not to say that every publication/research/''facebook'' expert

That's a bit of a weak one to be honest, no one is denying that, except for Shell and the likes maybe.

Would you like to buy London Bridge ?
 

stowie

Active Member
there are many many names for it. but you could be correct.

Google ''infrasound weapons'' first result '' Infrasonic weapons like the long range acoustic device (LRAD) rely on loud, low frequency sounds (infrasound). These bulky units have been used for crowd control and repelling pirates. When on high power, the effects are like a “punch in the guts”, ranging from nausea to involuntary evacuation of the bowels. '' full article: https://theconversation.com/sonic-attacks-in-china-and-cuba-how-sound-can-be-a-weapon-97380#:~:text=Infrasonic weapons like the long,involuntary evacuation of the bowels.

Now i known that talks about weapons, but it uses intrasound to cause damage, which is something else then ''never detrimental to human health'' mind you that i also spoke about wildlife and the possible effect these noises can have on them.

While that is true, it does'nt disregard concerns about windparcs becuase appliances etc. in an household can be switched of, something you can't say of an windpark.

You mean the one's that allowed to windmill lobby to write the end result with them? kind of obvious they came the the conclusion everything was fine. Not to say that every publication/research/''facebook'' expert

That's a bit of a weak one to be honest, no one is denying that, except for Shell and the likes maybe.

1) LRAD uses sound frequencies from 20Hz to 100Hz. It is not infrasound. This ranges from the bottom end of human hearing to around the average frequency of a human male voice. It would be really very audible to whoever is being subjected to it. Which is sort of the point. LRAD differs from normal sound production since the way it is formed allows the sound waves to be shaped. This allows the sound to be highly directional with minimal dispersion loss. Thus the weapon can direct painful levels of sound to a particular small area. If windmills were creating noise in this frequency, it would be immediately measurable and very obvious.

2) The article you link mentions infrasound but majors upon ultrasound (ie above human hearing). Which is different. A little like the difference between radio waves and x-ray.

3) Infrasound is produced naturally by things like earthquakes, wind, storms, waves. Basically anything big. None of which can be switched off.

4) One of the studies was by VTT - a leading research agency owned by the Finnish government. I think the "Windmill lobby" might be somewhat less influential than you might first think.

5) It is entirely relevant to discuss the fossil fuel environmental impact as a comparison since renewables are another option. The fact that we tend to "export" the impact to other regions doesn't make it go away. The Niger delta (amongst many other regions) is being destroyed because we love oil and won't collectively accept our responsibility for the damage this love affair does.

Anyway, people can moan and make up pseudo-scientific BS as much as they like. The environmental argument is against them. The energy security argument is against them. Even the economic argument is now against them. The countries that invest in the technology over the coming years will reap the reward - put simply, the trajectory of renewables is to electricity production that is cleaner, cheaper and easier to obtain than fossil fuels (which is on exactly the opposite trajectory). The countries that crack this in the next 10-50 years will be the ones that thrive and dominate the world economy. There is a reason that China - for all their coal based energy production - is one of the biggest investors in renewable technology.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside

Archie_tect

Active Member
Maybe the "Activists" will be "celebrities" on their release?

Even, a new TV series: "I am a Climate Celebrity, unglue me"

It certainly is a screwed up world we live in.
Allowing someone to use a two ton vehicle as a weapon is unacceptable- there are other roads, there are other ways of getting from A to B... someone should have a quiet word with her before she does something worse. Mind you she is a great advert for what is wrong with the 'me-me-me' world, while presenting the unattractive face of consumerism of the Chelsea tractor lifestyle.
 
Last edited:

mudsticks

Squire
Maybe the "Activists" will be "celebrities" on their release?

Even, a new TV series: "I am a Climate Celebrity, unglue me"

It certainly is a screwed up world we live in.

Lots of activists in this country have already spent time in jail.

Or been on trial under threat of custodial sentences.

The fact that they haven't made silly programmes made about them on their release suggests perhaps, that they're a bit more serious about this stuff than some.

Meanwhile in other countries activists trying to stop illegal logging, and other crimes against the environment get killed for their trouble.

Indigenous peoples have to fight long and hard to protect their lands against the oil and mining industries.

Hope Range Rover mum feels like a 'true hero' for threatening someone with her big metal, box..
 
Top Bottom