He describes how the documentary titled: “Thrown To The Wind” sheds light on a disturbing correlation between the wind industry and the alarming increase in cetacean deaths.
The Government’s Stance vs. The Documentary’s Findings
“The increase in whale, dolphin, and other cetacean deaths off the East Coast of the United States since 2016 is not due to the construction of large industrial wind turbines, U.S. government officials say. Their scientists have done the research, they say, to prove that whatever is killing the whales is completely unrelated to the wind industry.”
Yet, the documentary, produced by Jonah Markowitz, suggests otherwise.
“The film documents surprisingly loud, high-decibel sonar emitted by wind industry vessels when measured with state-of-the-art hydrophones. And it shows that the wind industry’s increased boat traffic is correlated directly with specific whale deaths.”
The North Atlantic Right Whale: A Species in Decline
The North Atlantic right whale, a species already on the brink, has seen its population drop from over 400 to a mere 340 in recent years.
“And, there have been more than 60 recorded whale deaths of all species on the East Coast since Dec 1, 2022, a number that increased markedly since 2016 when the wind industry started to ramp up.”
Despite urgent warnings from leading conservation groups and top scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), wind projects continue to move forward.
“The waters off New York and New Jersey have seen a sudden upsurge in whale deaths this year.”
The documentary highlights two primary mechanisms by which wind industry activities are harming whales.
“The first is through boat traffic in areas where there hasn’t historically been traffic. The second is through high-decibel sonar mapping that can disorient whales, separate mothers from their calves, and send them into harm’s way, either into boat traffic or poorer feeding grounds.”
The wind industry’s impact on marine life, particularly the North Atlantic right whale, cannot be ignored. It’s time for a serious discussion of the true cost of so-called “sustainable” energy.
The offshore wind industry is wiping out thousands of marine mammals and fish are its next victims. While plenty has been written about whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals being deafened by wind turbine construction activities (they don’t respond well to sonar and seismic blasting), less notice has been given to fish, crabs and other critters that make up the ocean ecosystem; and which also provide a healthy food resource for humans onshore.
In this piece, Jim Lovgren opens with the way ‘green’ energy is destroying the Atlantic’s marine mammals, including the critically endangered Northern Right Whale, and turned his attention to a less well-known phenomenon. The effect that the sub-stations – used to convert AC to DC allowing power to be transmitted back to shore (see above and below) – will have on America’s Atlantic fisheries.
Offshore Wind Electrical Substations; The Secret, Silent Killers Fishery Nation Jim Lovgren 3 July 2023
The marine mammal strandings that are taking place almost everyday along the US east coast are the most visible consequence of the Biden administration’s reckless disregard of all environmental safeguards that had been carefully crafted since the environmental movement started in the 1960’s.
Left by the wayside in their rush to meet artificially imposed production deadlines, are the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, [ESA] and the National Environmental Policy Act, [NEPA]. A rogue and abhorrent federal Agency, BOEM, [Bureau of Ocean Energy Management], under the Interior Department, has highjacked Fishery Management and protection of our marine resources from the National Marine Fishery Service, [part of NOAA, and under control of the Commerce Department] and has thumbed their nose at any restraints that are legally required under both the ESA and NEPA. Embarrassingly, the cowards at the National Marine Fishery Service have stood by and watched as research vessels have been performing geologic surveys with high powered Sonar, and Seismic devices before they had their incidental take permits issued.
They have also authorized over 100,000 level B takes of marine mammals, and that’s just for a few projects, as they fully expect the offshore wind factories to cause the extinction of the critically endangered Northern Right Whale. Just ask Sean Hayes, from the NMFS protected species department, whose observations were ignored by BOEM, hence an ESA violation.
Despite government and wind supporters denying any proof that could link the unseen before amount of strandings to the coincidental use of geological sonar and seismic research, [usually only of a type performed by oil companies] in the near vicinity of the strandings, the evidence mounts.
This week, two Humpback Whales washed ashore in Martha’s Vineyard, coincidentally only a few days after Piledriving started at a nearby wind site. Piledriving of the turbine stanchions creates a 260 DBs level sound, that no amount of “Bubble Curtains” can contain. It is deadly. A few weeks before that beaches on the south shore of Nantucket had a carpet of dead crabs, clams, and other benthic organisms that are susceptible to seismic testing, which coincidentally was taking place nearby, [“sparkers” and sub- bottom profilers are seismic equipment]. The relationship of marine animal deaths while unsafe level industrial noises are being produced in the same vicinity are too numerous to ignore, worldwide. So, stop denying them.
Marine Noise pollution has been an increasing problem on an Oceanic level since the invention of the steam engine. Most of that noise increase was caused by increased vessel traffic, by increasingly larger ships, [and faster, so they could hit more Whales], but as the 20th century dawned, War became the largest noise increase ever. Torpedoes, depth charges, 16 inch shells exploding, and finally the creation of Sonar. There has never been an accounting of how many marine mammals died from the 20th century wars, but the amount would be staggering. Just as staggering would be the amount of marine mammals killed by the military, [that’s all countries] in training exercises, or testing of weapons, like at Bikini Atoll.
In an official BOEM document written by Pamela Middleton and Bethany Barnhart called, “Supporting National Environmental Policy Act Documentation for Offshore Wind Energy Development related to High Voltage Direct Current Cooling Systems” the authors contend that the only feasible cooling system for a HVDC Substation is a once through, or open system. The kind that is not allowed for new power plant construction, because of its devastating effects on aquatic life.
This embarrassing Official BOEM document concerning the effects of offshore wind substations admits it knows nothing about how many substations are planned, how big, and where they will be. NEPA concerns such as environmental and economic costs to other industries are totally ignored within the enormous expanse of information contained within the 4 ½ pages of actual text. Up until the Green new deal a NEPA supporting document would be hundreds, and even thousands of pages long, detailing all aspects of a proposed project.
From page #1 of the BOEM NEPA document; “Converting high voltage electricity from AC to DC for long range bulk transmission from offshore wind farms reduces losses of power experienced on AC transmission lines and becomes cost effective within 37 to 60 miles from shore [BVGassociates, 2019;ICF, 2018].
When electricity is generated offshore, it is converted from AC to DC for transmission from the offshore windfarm, then converted back to AC onshore for distribution to consumers. The offshore conversion from AC to DC is accomplished through an HVDC system located in the wind farm. The HVDC system converts AC to DC, creating a byproduct of heat in the process. For the system to operate continually, the portion of the conversion equipment that emits heat, called the “thyristor,” must be cooled.”
Keep in mind that this conversion process means that AC is converted to DC in an offshore substation, then DC is transmitted under the seabed to shore where it is converted back to an AC land-based substation. Which generates more heat into the atmosphere, and no mention is made of what cooling system will be used for the onshore substations, or where they will be located.
How big is a substation? From page 2, “Presently HVDC system structures for an offshore wind farm range from about 200 to 400 feet long, 140 to 350 feet wide, 80 to 300 feet high, and weigh several thousand tons [Mayflower Wind Energy, LLC, 2021; Sunrise Wind, LLC, 2021; Siemens, 2015; Kirchgeorg, et al, 2018]. These structures are likely to get larger as offshore wind farms grow and move further offshore.”
These structures are massive already, and may get bigger. What does that mean? How big is big? If an offshore site has 80 turbines how many substations are needed? One, two, ten? There is no mention in the document. How are they secured to the bottom? How many gallons of sea water would be circulated through a once through system per hour? How many degrees hotter would that dumped water be than it was before being used? What species of fish will be impinged and what is the economic effect on the fishing industry?
None of these basic NEPA information requirements are included. Instead, we get this in regard to impingement and entrainment; “Most filtration systems backflush filters to allow for continuous use, so the collected filtrates will eventually return to the ecosystem; however, larval species will be lost and will not grow to maturity.” {Woke-speak for they will be killed]. “The number of larval fish and invertebrates lost in the process is difficult to measure. Losses of larval food sources for other species is notable, in addition to the larval species that do not survive to maturity. It is unclear how many marine species do not mature to reproduce and provide fish and shellfish for human and animal consumption.” They might as well have added, “and we don’t care.”
The whole point of these wind turbines is to stop Global warming, yet a new study from Harvard concluded that warming continental temperatures could ensue from widespread wind energy, primarily through enhancement of low-level atmospheric mixing and interruption of radiative nighttime cooling. This net localized effect was quantified in 10 other studies.
In regard to the “warm” water discharged from an offshore substation, the BOEM document has this to say, “Temperatures of the discharge water have not been documented for the proposed wind farms on the OCS to date. The warmer outflow from HVDC is generally accepted as a minimal effect that will be absorbed and transition to ambient temperatures over time.” “Given the single point outlet within the large mass of surrounding ocean, effects from the warm water are likely to be extremely minimal. Similar conclusions have been made for any chemicals added to prevent growth within the seawater system.”
Those chemicals include sodium hypochlorite, used to kill any tiny marine life that might dare to attempt to grow within the system, at least it is noted that sodium hypochlorite would be used in the 10-200 parts per million, but it doesn’t say per million of what, assumed to be ocean water. So, the water will be heated substantially but to an unknown degree, while at the same time an anti-lifeacide chemical will be introduced to the marine environment, but don’t worry the ocean can absorb it all. Just like the good old days.
I think this BOEM NEPA document perfectly presents the Biden regime’s contempt for the environmental laws that have been put in place over the last half century to protect our wildlife and environment. This paper has a disclaimer inside stating the views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US government, nor does mention of trade names and commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
BOEM should disclaim the whole document, pitiful as it is. I believe that this document was submitted in all its inadequacies on purpose to legally meet NEPA requirements concerning project submission timing, knowing that by the time any legal recourse could be taken, the issue would be moot. They are going full steam ahead and no stupid precautionary principle, or environmental law will stop them. The NRDC has provided us with the information proving how deadly “once through” cooling systems are, why are they even being proposed for usage? It is because they are cheaper, ignoring the environmental disaster they are creating, we must save the world. In reality though, it’s all about the Benjamin’s. Fishery Nation
Wiping out hundreds of marine mammals is all in a day’s work for the offshore wind industry. And granting permits to do so, with complete impunity, appears to be the work of the US government.
The mindless slaughter of whales, dolphins, porpoises and sealed is completely legit, thanks to the government-backed licenses known as the ‘Incidental Harassment Authorization’.
As David Wojick reports below, the wind industry’s cruelty is only matched by its audacity.
NOAA proposes massively cruel offshore sonar survey CFACT David Wojick 5 June 2023
You would think that with all the uproar over whale deaths, NOAA and the offshore wind industry would be more careful about harassing huge numbers of marine mammals. On the contrary, NOAA’s latest proposal sets a new record for needless cruelty.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is taking comments on an outrageously destructive harassment proposal from Invenergy Wind off the coast of New Jersey, where whale deaths have been greatest. Here is the proposal:
It is called a “site characterization survey,” and it does include a new offshore wind development site that Invenergy picked up last year with a whopping bid of $645 million. That apparently buys a lot of Federal cooperation because this is nothing like a site survey.
You see, the site is a mere 131 square miles, while the proposed sonar blasting survey area is over 6,000 square miles. In other words, the site is a mere 2% of the survey area, so it is clearly not a site survey.
What is the 98% non-site survey for? There is no actual explanation, but it is labeled the Export Cable Route (ECR) area. There is no actual export cable route, so they are surveying every place it might conceivably go. Some of the ECR area is absurd as a potential cable location, especially that which is as far out to sea as the project or further.
This possible-cable area is enormous. It runs from New York City to south of Atlantic City and from the Jersey Shore to over 50 miles out to sea. The front page of the NMFS proposal linked above has a map, conveniently showing both the tiny site area and the huge ECR area.
Not surprisingly, given this huge area, the predicted marine mammal harassment numbers are appalling:
138 Whales
1,900 Seals
950 Porpoises
1,742 Dolphins
Total = 4,730 or just under 5,000 supposedly protected marine mammals
This is needless cruelty personified. They clearly have no idea where the cables will go. That will be determined by who takes the Power Purchase Agreement, if anybody, and where they can come ashore to deliver the juice.
The results of this incredibly destructive 6,000-square-mile survey will be almost entirely irrelevant when that happens. All that will matter is what lies between the project site and the landing point. Obviously, the cable route survey should wait until that location is known, thus saving thousands of protected critters from harmful harassment.
That NMFS should propose this huge amount of needless harassment is an issue in itself. NMFS, known simply as NOAA Fisheries, seems to have abandoned its mission to protect marine mammals in favor of reckless offshore wind industrialization.
Here is their mission statement: “NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the stewardship of the nation’s ocean resources and their habitat.” These are living resources to be cared for, not industrial wind facilities.
In particular, NMFS is supposed to enforce the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Allowing the pointless harassment of thousands of marine mammals is the opposite of protection.
They cannot have failed to notice that this is not a site characterization survey. NMFS should have rejected the Invenergy proposal as absurdly overreaching and cruel.
Even worse, NMFS claims that this mass harassment of thousands of protected critters is not an environmental impact, so it does not fall under NEPA. Harassment is clearly an adverse impact, plus it can easily lead to deadly behavior. For example, it includes causing deafness which in one of the world’s busiest shipping areas is obviously life-threatening.
Given this absurdly cruel proposal, NOAA Fisheries needs to be redirected back to its mission. To begin with, the Invenergy proposal must be rejected. CFACT
The marine science community knows this much for certain: The high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys used to site offshore wind turbines and transmission cabling causes harm and mortality to marine mammals. They know the intense noise of pounding thousands of monopiles deep into the seabed, along with an exponential increase of vessel traffic during construction and for maintenance afterwards will do the same—disturb, injure, and kill marine life.
Here’s the proof: As of mid-March 2023, NOAA Fisheries has handed out 15 marine mammal Incidental Take Authorizations (ITAs) to offshore wind projects from NC to MA. These will allow companies to “take” 111,817 whales, dolphins and seals. The harassment, injury, and killing of marine mammals are referred to as “takes.”
The 111,817 figure is the tally of 118 “Level A” and 111,699 “Level B” takes. Level A includes permanent hearing loss and other bodily injury. Level B harassment includes behavioral disturbance (such as frightening an animal from its normal feeding area) and temporary hearing loss. A deafened whale fleeing into a shipping channel is likely a dead whale.
It is illegal to take any federally listed animal, that is, unless one applies for and is granted an ITA. An “incidental” take is defined as, “an unintentional, but not unexpected taking of a protected species.”
NOAA is in the final stages of approving an additional 1,272 Level A and 477,285 Level B takes of marine mammals for another 11 wind projects. Soon the approved ITA count will permit wind companies to disturb, injure or cause the death of 590,374 marine mammals. These figures were compiled by carefully searching 26 individual wind project ITA requests. NOAA either does not have or will not share cumulative take numbers.
The data reveals that NOAA has either granted or is in the final stages of granting Level B takes for 915 critically endangered North Atlantic right whales, of which there are only 334 remaining animals alive. Either this means NOAA and the wind companies expect repeated harassment (including recurrent hearing impairment) of numerous right whales, or they have not taken the trouble to realize they have granted more “takes” than the number of live whales who exist today.
A total of 387 A and 21,704 B takes have been or are close to being approved for whales. These numbers include the taking of five species of endangered whales. For eight dolphin species A takes total 140; B takes total 474,605. A takes total 658 for harbor porpoise; B takes total 24,122 porpoises. A takes total 205 harbor, grey, and harp seals; B takes total 68,553 seals.
The numbers of “not unexpected” harassment and injury of marine mammals are staggering.
NOAA states in its February posting of Sunrise Wind’s ITA request (NOAA-NMFS-2023-0012): “Project activities likely to result in incidental take include pile driving…and vessel-based site assessment surveys using HRG equipment.”
Still NOAA has only one answer to the question being asked by thousands of coastal residents as to whether wind companies’ recent seismic testing might be related to the highly unusual number of whale strandings: NO.
“Damn the whales, full speed ahead” seems to be the offshore wind policy of Biden’s NOAA. They now propose to approve yet another site survey, just 10 miles off Atlantic City. These surveys are the top suspect for the recent wave of dead whales, centered on New Jersey.
The site is a big one because the offshore wind project is huge. Phase 1 is a whopping 1,500 MW, which means over 100 monster turbine towers. The survey area is around 1,500,000 acres or an incredible 2,300 square miles.
Ironically the project is called Atlantic Shores, which is where all the dead whales are washing up. In fact this is basically a renewal of a prior permit. NOAA acts as though nothing has changed, ignoring the horrible New Jersey whale deaths.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is taking public comments on this preposterous proposal, details below.
NOAA predicts the number of adverse impacts by species, but here are the staggering numbers by category:
42 Whales
2,534 Dolphins
142 Porpoises
1,472 Seals
Total = 4,190 adversely impacted marine mammals
Here is NOAA’s basic argument:
“….only Level B harassment is proposed for authorization, which NMFS expects would be of a lower severity, predominately in the form of avoidance of the sound sources that may cause a temporary abandonment of the location during active source use that may result in a temporary interruption of foraging activities for some species. NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity will have long-term or permanent impacts as the acoustic source would be mobile and would leave the area within a specific amount of time for which the animals could return to the area.”
In short these thousands of large animals will get the hell out of the way and come home when the survey is over, in a year or so. Apparently NMFS thinks this massive forced relocation is harmless. Despite having hundreds of scientists on staff they cannot think of how it might be harmful.
Here are two obviously harmful possibilities, among many.
First, the site is deliberately in a relatively low ship traffic area, surrounded by high traffic zones. This is one of the busiest ship traffic areas in the world. Being forced to relocate into higher traffic areas is virtually certain to increase the incidence of fatal ship strikes.
Second, moving this many animals into territory already occupied by similar animals should greatly increase the population densities for each species. But the food supply remains the same, which could lead to food scarcity.
The treatment of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale is especially egregious. NOAA says this:
“…the size of the survey area (5,868 km2) in comparison with the entire migratory habitat for the North Atlantic right whale (BIA of 269,448 km2) is small, representing 2.11 percent of the entire migratory corridor.”
Right Whales migrate through the area twice a year, going between offshore Georgia and New England so the “corridor” is indeed large, but this is irrelevant. What is crucial is that the survey area is about 35 miles wide East to West and almost all of the migrating whales presently pass through this space. Thus the survey has the potential effect of blocking the migration, or at least seriously disrupting it, taking nearly 100% of the needed space not 2.11%.
Despite all of the above predicted and potential impacts, NOAA maintains that this proposed authorization is exempt from the environmental impact assessment requirements of NEPA. They specifically claim there is “no anticipated serious injury or mortality”.
They should anticipate a little harder. NEPA requires assessment if injury is reasonably likely. Injury and death certainly are reasonably likely here, to thousands of supposedly protected marine mammals, including the severely endangered Right Whales.
More deeply, the Atlantic Shores Wind Project has yet to be approved and may never be. Hugely disruptive site surveys should not be authorized until the Project is approved.
Here is the basic comment statement: “Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov “
I suggest as an email subject line: “Comment on proposed Atlantic Shores IHA”. Simple objection is sufficient but specific arguments are always useful. Anyone can comment.
In the offshore wind stampede Biden’s National Marine Fisheries Service has lost sight of its mission to protect marine mammals.
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
