1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    In the classifications of causes of death shown in the chart above, CLRD (the red line) is "Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease", which is a combination of bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. CLRD is currently the third leading cause of death in the US, moving from 4th to 3rd in 2008.

    However the actual rate of CLRD is largely unchanged from 1999, actualy moving down slightly from 44 deaths/100,000 in 1999-2001 to 42 in 2011-2013. So there is no rise in respiratory mortality. The reason CLRD "overtook" stroke in 2008 was because the rate of deaths from stroke is decreasing faster than deaths from CLRD. Let's compare just stroke and CLRD:

    Notice the trend line for CLRD, the average rate is trending down - on average fewer people are dying of respiratory disease.

    The data set here comes from the CDC, specifically the NCHS data visualization: Top 10 Leading Causes of Death: United States, 1999–2013


    The interactive tool there is useful, but does not let you compare the different causes against each other, so I created the above graphs from the linked data spreadsheet. You can verify this yourself, or simply compare the individual graphs there with the ones I posted above.

    So given the lack of changes in this number, why are some people (specifically chemtrail theorists) claiming it as evidence of some secret program of spraying that's affecting everyone's respiratory health?

    This origin of this claim initially seems to date back to 2011, when the stroke rate falling below the CLRD rate was reported, first by the CDCC:
    This story was picked up by the American Lung Association, a group that advocates for lung health.
    CLRD did indeed rise slightly from 2007 to 2008, going from 41.4 to 44.7. However this was not all the data available. As seen in the CDC graph, from 2008 to 2009 the rate dropped from 44.7 to 42.7. And now with the 2013 data available, we can see this was part of a general downward trend that has been occurring since 1999.

    This slight misrepresentation by the American Lung Association was then pounced on by the "chemtrail" theorist, for example Patrick Roddie, who used it in a statement he read at an EPA hearing, linking to the lung.org paper in a transcript he posted later
    And yet as we see for the actual figures, far from a "dramatic increase", there has actually been a slow but steady decrease. (Note the 4th to 3rd change was in 2009, not 2011)

    While Roddie's claim can be dated back to 2011, it seems to have been conflated with earlier claims by chemtrail theorists who originally claimed that the rise was from eighth to third. Many of these claims are still published as fact, with varying dates, for example in 2015:
    That does not really make any sense, as the most recent data show a drop from 2010, and it's actually been in 3rd place for all the last five years. But then back in 2012, Geoengineeringwach said:
    Which is very odd, as in the span indicated (from 2000 to 2005) CLRD actually fell slightly, and stayed quite solidly in 4th place.
    The linked video is an interview with Naturopath Gwen Scott, who says:
    "Almost number three" is still fourth, which is where it had been over all those five years. Or rather the five years up to 2003, which seems to be when she first made the claim:
    I can't find any reference to a book called "The Breathing Crisis". But it seems most likely she simply misinterpreted something she saw on the daily show. After all, she was half right, the CLRD rate was "almost number three" in 2003 - it had just always been like that.

    The mistake propagated, with version of it finding its way onto many web pages, speeches and documentaries. Such as this statement by Dane Wigington in 2012:
    It's a little unclear which six years he's referring to, but that's not very relevant, as he's wrong. Respiratory mortality has not gone from 8th to 3rd. In fact it's actually decreased over the last 16 years. He's simply repeating a garbled version of something someone thought they saw someone say on TV in 2003.
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015
    • Like Like x 11
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I'm thinking its Life and Breathe by Dr. Neil Schachter.

    His amazon book review has a commenter stating she first saw him on the Today show April 2003. And he talks about (book intro) not exercising outside.
    he runs Mt. Sinai? he's a big name. COPD was the focus of his talk in 2003 i believe. But i cant find any footage from Today Show 2003 to find out what exactly he said. Could have been anything really for instance pneumonia was 8th for females i believe in 1998 which relates to COPD. It's impossible to guess what he said exactly without seeing the footage.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks! That's almost certainly it, as the book says:

    So he's just saying it's #4 in the US and he predicts it will rise to #3 by 2020. And it did (by 2008), just not for the reasons he was thinking. It stayed pretty much the same, and stroke decreased instead.

    And actually, he's conflating two statistics, the US cause of death ranking, and the world rankings, which would be skewed by industrial growth in non-western nations.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2015
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea there was major marketing about COPD a while back (probably around that time) mostly from big pharma.. remember all those copd commercials and the grandparents all happy they could play with their grandkids again. That's how i became aware of it anyway.
  5. munchie

    munchie Member

    Just dropped in to say thanks, this is exactly what's needed. The chemtrail lore has a lot of weak points like this one, why has respiratory mortality dropped even though chemtrail scene is claiming massive respiratory problems? Cold facts usually stop the discussion and speculation.

    But I was left wondering, what kind of effects would spraying aluminium, barium and.. maybe strontium have on human health when inhaled? Maybe this is discussed somewhere else on the forum? I was thinking of a Mytbusters approach on what would be needed to "replicate the results". How much "crap" would be needed to be dumped to cause problems to human health?
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's kind of irrelevant, because how would you know? What statistics would you look at?
    For a start, look at the top graph. People are living longer, and dying less. Then there's other factors, like diet and exercise, that have changed over the years. Human health changes over years is an incredibly indirect, and ineffective way of testing the emissions of aircraft.

    That said, a good place to look is the CDS's Toxic Substances Portal:

    This gives two page information sheets:
    Aluminum: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=190&tid=34
    Barium: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=326&tid=57
    Strontium: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=655&tid=120

    And much more detailed Toxicological Profiles:

    Aluminum: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp22.pdf
    Barium: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp24.pdf
    Strontium: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp159.pdf

    There you can find relevant info, like:

    15 mg/m3. The volume of air above the US is 3 millon square miles, of 7.7E+12 (7 trillion square meters). Up to contrail altitude, around 7 miles, 11,000 meters, that's 8.5E+16 cubic meters. Multiply by 15 mg. divide by 1000000 to get kg, is 1.2E+12 (1.2 trillion) Kg, or 1.2E+9 (1.2 billion) metric tonnes. Just to raise the amount of aluminum in dust in the air to the maximum safe level.

    The proposed 747 supertanker can carry and about 75 metric tonnes (of liquid, spraying a powder would be far less efficient). To spay 1.2 billion tonnes would require 16 million flights. Just to raise the amount of aluminum in dust in the air to the maximum safe level.

    And then this kind of ignores the settling issue - if the dust is falling out of the sky into people's lungs, then it's falling into the ground, and ocean, millions of tons a year.

    And it also ignores the air circulation issue. Air does not stay over the continental US. It circles the globe. It spreads out. So really you'd need to account for the area of the entire planet. 5E+14 square meters, of about 100x the area of the US. So 1.6 billion flights of a hypothetical supertanker, assuming it can spray powder as well as dust, and assuming the dust does not settle in the ocean. Just to raise the amount of aluminum in dust in the air to the maximum safe level.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. munchie

    munchie Member

    Thanks Mick, exactly what I was asking for. I know it's irrelevant and speculative, but it shows how ridiculous the claims for some aspects (depopulation) of chemtrails are. For a layman, the size of the operation that would needed (1.6 billion flights) is easy to understand.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Phillip Jermakian

    Phillip Jermakian New Member

    This is from the US Census Bureau..

    if you removed your clevelands and went with Dallas, Manhattan, and LA you would only have to spray less then .1% of the US to do whatever evil chemtrails are supposed to do, but I believe the government is guilty until proven otherwise so I may be biased.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2016
  9. If you're limiting spraying to cities, why even use airplanes then? Smokestacks and chimneys would be cheaper in the long run, and they could work 24/7. Plus nobody is going to question tanker trucks delivering to what is ostensibly a factory.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Let's not forget that chemtrails are also ostensibly modifying agricultural soil, comprising over 40% of the US land area (and even higher if you ignore Alaska).

    Not to mention all of the continent's weather, requiring substantial tracts of the Atlantic and Pacific to also be covered.
  11. mm1145

    mm1145 Member

    the current preferred bunk for chem trials is "geo-engerning" witch is changing of the climate and for that you need to do the whole planet not just the cities it is no use trying to change the climate over just the cities weather dose not work like that
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Bumping this because of yet another story on BIN repeating this myth:
    • Like Like x 2
  13. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Last edited: Feb 6, 2017