1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  2. Pogopoint99

    Pogopoint99 New Member

    There is a point raised in part three, regarding the UV index, that I had never heard mentioned before.

    The speaker suggests that the change in the UV index scale is an indication of an increase in UV radiation. He goes on to say that "they" (presumably the EPA) never offered an explanation for why they changed the UV index.

    Part 3 - Aluminum Dispersed in our Atmosphere 1:06

    A four minute internet search (I'm not kidding... I timed it... it took four minutes) lead to this document published by the EPA. In it, they explain that in order to avoid confusion and provide consistent reporting of UV exposure, they have abandoned their own UV reporting index and adopted one that adheres to world wide standards. The document was published in May of 2004, around the time the new standard was adopted.

    The same explanation can be found from the World Health Organization...

    So despite Mr. Wigington's claims, it seems the EPA did explain why they decided to change the UV index.

    Next, let's take a look at the notion that the new UV index was created to reflect a dramatic increase in UV radiation. Not surprisingly, this idea is parroted by Rosalind Peterson:

    Once again, the EPA did not change their old UV rating system because it was no longer able to reflect increasing UV levels. They changed it to adhere to a global standard. Furthermore, Rosalind is wrong on another basic point. The old system typically showed a scale with levels from 0 to 10+ Where as the new system typically will show a scale from 1 to 11+. Both standards, however, are capable of showing calculated UV index readings from 0 to 15 and higher.

    The contention that because the old scale went from 1 to 10 and the new scale goes from 1 to 15, means we're being exposed to a staggering increase UV radiation is factually incorrect, devoid of logic and demonstrates an embarrassing lack of comprehension.

    It's like Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel arguing that his amplifier is louder because his volume goes up to 11... it's one louder.

    Here's the EPA's clarification on the new index and how it represent UV level exposure.


    So, in a word, they might have changed the labels and colors and shuffled the categories, but what has not changed is that every one unit in the UV index still represents 25 Milliwatts per Meter Cubed. This is true whether you use the old EPA standard (as show in this document from 1997) or the UVI standard.

    In no way does the change in the UV index reporting standard reflect an increase in UV radiation.
  3. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Thanks for helping, good analysis.

    For the most part, Wigington is telling the audience that they can "connect the dots" for themselves, but he is essentially guiding them through the CT connections of disparate, inaccurate and conflated issues to conclude as he has that it is not possible for his lab test results to come from anywhere but something being sprayed from an airplane. To do this, he uses an example:

    Here is an example:
    here are his claims:
    1. Aluminum, barium, and strontium are not being tested for by EPA.
    2. California Air Quality Resources Board studied the aerosols from China, and these metals were not among them.
    3. Heavy metals cannot migrate across oceans.
    4. Whales are full of heavy metals, including aluminum and barium

    First of all, let me discuss the term "heavy metals". The term is "meaningless". There is no strict definition of heavy metals. The term could include metals, semi-metals, even metals which are essential nutrients such as iron could be considered "heavy", which can be toxic at high levels. This is discussed here, and here.

    Claim 1. Aluminum, barium, and strontium are not being tested for by EPA.
    FALSE- EPA has tested for all three of these.
    see Table 2.2 Average PM10 Composition (ug/m3) in Selected Urban and Non-Urban U.S. Areas

    Claim 2. California Air Quality Resources Board studied the aerosols from China, and these metals were not among them.
    FALSE- CARB found these in asian dust
    see:Asian aerosols in North America:
    Frequency and concentration of fine dust
    Richard A. VanCuren
    Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, USA

    Asian aerosols in North America: Extracting the chemical composition
    and mass concentration of the Asian continental aerosol plume from
    long-term aerosol records in the western United States
    Richard A. VanCuren
    Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, USA

    Claim 3. Heavy metals cannot migrate across oceans.
    FALSE- Ibid.

    Claim 4. Whales are full of heavy metals, including aluminum and barium
    I have not found anything on this. The speech was given sometimne before July 2010, and Wigington mentions this news coming several weeks before
  4. Pogopoint99

    Pogopoint99 New Member

    Ha, you beat me to it. I was just about to post a similar remark:

    Part 2 7:54 First question during the Q&A

    He can't speculate... but he'll go ahead and speculate anyway.

    It seems to be the theme of the entire presentation. "I can't speculate... I'm just saying... I'll let you connect the dots..."
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member



    No barium.

    On wonders how much aluminum oxide you'd have to spray to make a difference in whales.
  6. Pogopoint99

    Pogopoint99 New Member

    Here's an article dated June 25, 2010


  7. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Actually, if the claim is that aluminum were being introduced into the water, through the atmosphere, you would see it in an analysis of the water AND the atmosphere, not just in the whale's blubber.

    The Ocean Alliance sampling was done between 2000 and 2005. I was able to find their executive summary here:

    There is quite a bit of discussion on the metals found in the blubber. They did find aluminum, barium, and strontium, along with many other metals- copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, zinc, selenium, chromium, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead, gold, silver, and titanium. The summary focused their contextualizing on selenium, mercury and chromium, especially in contextualizing chromium, which they found at very high levels. The metals discussion starts on page 14.

    The chromium is the only one I was able to find published:

    When you get to the conclusions, you find that since this was the largest and only such blubber study done, the data is considered a baseline, and is only comparable to a few others which mainly focused on liver. Interesting was that whale liver biopsies showed far lower chromium levels than blubber, yet rodent liver bopsies showed highest concentrations in the liver. They also found that some sperm whales had non-detectable levels of chromium, while the mean was 8.8 ppm, and that other species of sperm whales did not have high chromium in the blubber.

    Here is the abstract:
    This is of interest:
    From what I know, the diet of sperm whales is mainly squid.
    Could there be something about this diet that amounts to an environmental source?

    I have to note that Ocean Alliance could best be described as an "advocacy group" whose function
    is pretty clear.

    As for aluminum being relevant to Wigington's claim, the summary says:
    I am unable to find the full report.

    It would be interesting to find some historical levels of aluminum in sea water over the past 40 years to see what trends emerge.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    All the whale numbers are meaningless without historical data. They say:

    Which is the same fallacy used regarding barium in human blood. The reality is that any substance found in the ground will also be found in the air and water due to weathering. Hence it's inevitable that small amounts will be found in our bodies, and also in whales.
  9. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I've been doing some reading on aluminum in sea water. Around ~1000 gigatons of aeolian particles move through the air each year. Aluminum is 8% of the crust, so that means 80 million tons of elemental aluminum is transported in dust annually.

    That is one flux of aluminum into the sea. The second input is fluvial, from rivers carrying crustal sediments. The ocean surface is enriched in aluminum, the mid ocean is lower, and the deep ocean also enriched. Moving closer to Saharan dust shows higher concentration, moving closer to rivers the same.

    Aluminum is removed from the ocean mainly through diagenesis, where plankton adsorb the aluminum and sink to the bottom forming sediments and eventually rock. The process is at steady state and has been for eons. I see no way that any aerial spraying program could come close to changing the levels of aluminum in the oceans.

    BTW, the relative abundance of dissolved aluminum, barium, and strontium is reversed in sea water compared to the crust.
    Most abundant is strontium 8.1 ppm, followed by barium 0.021 ppm, with aluminum last at
    0.001 ppm. This inversion is caused by the similarity of strontium and barium to calcium, which all three cycle through the ecosystem together as calcium is used by marine organisms to form shells and corals. Aluminum, besides not being involved in biogenic processes, is actually scavenged as mentioned above.

    BTW2, note my first paragraph and you will see why David Keith found little reason for "epidemiological" concern when he answered Dane Wigington's question in WITWATS. 20 million tons of aluminum oxide is 2% of the annual ~1000 gigatons(1000 million tons) of naturally occurring aeolian dust in the atmosphere. I assume this percentage of Al2O3 varies more than that from year to year.

    BTW3, Strontium is being touted as a bone strengthening supplement, joining aluminum oxide in zeolite as two out of three chemtrail "toxins" being sold for human consumption: