The Highwire with Del Bigtree - TOXIC TURBINES

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

A new study on marine research shows offshore wind farms are leaching toxic amounts of heavy metals into ocean waters, poisoning sea life and our food supply. Hear how the Trump administration and the USDA are ending dangerous solar and wind projects before they cause any more harm.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The informed consent action network was started with the idea to end man-made disease. Basically, our legal team has been America's watchdog. We've been the most successful health legal team in America. And during the pandemic, certainly, perhaps in the world. And that involves also spotlighting toxic environmental causes. And I want to switch now with that thought in mind to something that we don't really think about put together. And that is windmills, that's solar panels. When people think about this, they think about we're saving the environment.

But remember, there's conservationism and there's environmentalism, big, big difference between the two. And so we go to the UK, Plymouth Maine Laboratories. This is one of the world leaders in the field of marine research. They just published a study showing offshore wind farms could cause significant ecosystem economic and human health risks. So these wind farms, a lot of the windmills are put in water. They're put in the ocean. And a study found that they use these materials. to protect these windmills from corrosion.

But those materials leach into the surrounding water, ocean, marine life. And here's what the study found. The study published, it's in nature's ocean sustainability, estimated annual inputs of metals from current European wind farms to be 3,219 tons of aluminum, 1,148 tons of zinc, 1.9 tons of indium. And it says here in the article, for zinc, this already exceeds the sum of all known direct inputs. known direct inputs and river discharges into the North Atlantic from key European countries,

locating seaweed and shellfish farms in close proximity to offshore wind farms. Like the world's first co-located commercial scale, seaweed farm in the North Sea, could see metals from turbines build up in the species, leading to concentrations that could exceed safe limits for human consumption. Under current government expansion plans, these inputs could increase 12-fold by 2050, which raises serious concerns about the potential accumulation of metals in marine species like oysters, mussels, seaweed, which are also likely to be cultured near wind farms. And remember, the United Kingdom and the European Union are far ahead in the United States. They built out this net zero energy grid way before us. They built it out

very aggressively. So you see the wind farms and the solar panels are already put out there. In fact, last year, in the telegraph, this is what was reported in Britain, because British farmers are having a massively hard time just continuing their livelihood and milliban comes by it comes by britain's farmers brace for milliband solar shock they're going to pave farmland with solar panels and then the whole idea the whole purpose of this obviously was to help the environment to get to net zero but it was also supposed to lower energy bills when they built out this alternative energy grid well here's the current headlines this is the telegraph again wind farms to blame for raising energy bills says off gen that's the uk's government energy regulator here's another

one. Pensioner Fury as energy bills soar to pay for wind farms. Big issues here. So it's a big rugpole. The whole thing, this unreliable power. Whoops, sorry, you're going to have to pay more because we put up this unreliable wind farms. So here in the United States, the Trump administration is putting the brakes on this to look at the science deeper. And this is what happened. Just recently, Trump administration, Nix's giant wind farm approved last minute by Biden team. Remember last minute Biden approvals. There's a lot of controversy around that autopen, who's really approving these. But this is the Department of the Interior and we go to their press release and it says under President Trump, the Department of Interior will no longer provide preferential treatment

towards unreliable intermittent power sources that harm rural communities livelihoods and the land, such as the Lava Ridge Wind Project, that's in Idaho. And the radical green new scam goes on to talk about burdening nations, our nation and public lands. But we go, it talks about sustain subsidies. The government subsidies built out. this net zero energy grid. It wasn't on the merits of this technology. It wasn't because it was so great, it was going to replace it.

It was government, massive government subsidies. How much? Well, I want to go to this chart here. It was written by Dr. Matthew Willicki. And it shows this chart, federal subsidies per unit of electricity generated for basically nine years. You can see solar there, 82.42 US dollars per unit of electricity generated wind next in line, 18.86.

And you go down to the bottom, coal, hydropower, oil and gas, the once dominant energies in the United States here, not even 1%, less than that. 0.7.3. So you're seeing the subsidizing of an industry and the phasing out of another industry by the government. Well, that's not happening anymore in the United States, not at least for the next three years it appears. Here's Reuters, it goes into the USDA. They're also getting involved too. USDA ends programs for solar wind projects on farms. This is Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. She took the act. She says millions of acres of prime farmland is left unusable so green New Deal subsidized solar panels can be built.

This destruction of our farmlands and prime soil is taking away the future of the next generation of farmers and the future of our country. Basically starts to say that starting today, they will no longer deploy these programs to fund solar and wind. on productive farmland, it seems to make a lot of sense, obviously. And then they're going to end these taxpayer handouts, but they're also ending the use of the panels made by what they're calling foreign adversaries like China. So that's the story within the story is these are Chinese solar panels, too, on top of that. But this whole conversation revolves around the science.

Who's right about the science? We've been told it's settled. Here's the New York Post. We have the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That's the IPCC. They're the world's basically science, settled science body that dictates the science for the entire world on climate. UN abandoned science and hires climate change zealots to damn the facts. Obviously, this is an op-ed, but it says this, important facts.

Because the IPCC has consistently failed to establish strong connections between greenhouse gas emissions in most types of extreme weather, a cottage industry of promotional studies have developed in its place. This is something called Extreme Event Attribution, was invented to circumvent the normal process of scientific peer review in order to have media impact and to support litigation against fossil fuel companies. So when you see the temperature rise a couple degrees, you see a couple inches of rainfall falling, the media seizes on this and said, because climate change, because people are breathing and cows are farting, this is why we have to have a net zero grid. we have to build this out because obviously we're getting more rain. Science is not even involved in that. Science will debunk that immediately, but it's a media op. So the new UN co-author of the IPCC says this.

As Frederica Otto, that is her name, the head of the world weather attribution, explains, quote, unlike every other branch of climate science or science, in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind. Otto, who argues in a new book that racism, colonialism, and sexism are the root causes of global warming has just been appointed as co-lead of the forthcoming IPCC chapter on extreme weather. So it looks like they're going away from the settled science of climate change, and they're going to focus on extreme weather to try to really push this for the benefit of the courts. What's amazing is we realize in looking at this investigation that the IPCC is, you know,

It knows its agenda driven down by the UN is to push climate change as damaging, you know, causing dramatic weather. But there's still scientists inside of there. They're like, look, hey, we're trying, but we just can't make the connection. Yes, we see tornadoes, hurricanes, but we also look at the historical data and we just can't get there. So a lot of these headlines were being manipulated after the fact, after the science is saying, you know, we're kind of like, you know, even on this. We really can't prove it. The, you know, UN and others around them started making extreme headlines anyway. Well, now they're just done with it.

Now they're just done with overriding real science. Let's just bring in guys that from the beginning are going to make the claim that the weather is being caused by global warming, whether they can prove it or not. I mean, and look, nothing shocking here. You know, my big realization this week is just, you know what science is? As I look at more and more, it says, you go down these rabbit holes and all you find are just, castles built on sand, piles and mountains of assumptions upon assumptions. You know, I realize that science, really, unfortunately, is the art of finding what you're looking for.

You know, none of these people, none of these hypotheses ever prove themselves wrong. Somehow, they always prove themselves right. Somehow, they always find the right peers to push it through. And only later do we find out that not a single medical journal is able to recreate the science in over 50% of their studies. And here we are again, a new science body that's being designed to find and prove what they're looking for even when the science isn't there.