Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Classified, Apr 20, 2013.
So why is barium in jet fuel?
Why is it in lube?
Why not find out HOW MUCH barium is in jet fuel, and what jet fuels it's actually in?
As far as I can tell that link is simply wrong - there is no barium additives for jet fuel.
It was believed for some time that Stadis 450 contained Barium - but the MSDS has no mention of it
So the CDC.GOV simply made a mistake stating that barium is in jet fuel? That is really strange. You guys can really debunk anything cant you!
And why is that strange?
Since there is no other source other than this passing mention, it really can only be seen as being a mistake. Read the full version of the Toxicological Profile:
It's mentioned as an additive for fuels (not jet fuel specifically)
The "jet fuel" mention is the same as in the pamphlet:
Its use in diesel fuels as a smoke supressor.
I think the facts are that barium WAS considered for use as a jet engine additive, about 50 years ago, and the slight mentions of this in the science literature have just bubbled up to the present day. See:
This 1969 document on barium has just one passing mention of jet engines
So I present you with a .GOV link stating barium in jet fuel and Micks response is.... Why don't you look up how much is contained and in which fuels?
Why don't you look it up... I thought you were the debunker?
I have looked it up, see above. Barium is NOT used in jet fuels. They tried it once as a smoke suppressor, but it did not work.
I highlighted that part because deposition in the turbine section would drastically reduce engine life which is why the additives chemtrailers claim are added to fuel could not be used.
I OCRed that 1969 doc, it reads like it might have contributed to the CDC's lists of barium usages (or be based on the same sources).
View attachment 91004YF6.pdf
View attachment 91004YF6.rtf
If you beleive in the conspiracy then by definition you already believe the Govt isn't perfect - why can't they make a mistake like this?
As I said - I can find no evidence of barium in jet fuel - the usual material quoted as including it is Stadis 450 (lots of chemtrail sites mention it) but it appears to not actually include barium, and I can find no other reference to barium in jet fuel, either as an additive or in any other context.
So given that I HAVE done some research, and cannot find any evidence of Barium in jet fuel, why would I not suggest it is in error?
If you think I am wrong how about doing some research yourself and providing some information to support that conclusion? I'm hapy to admit I'm wrong if there's evidence of it.
What we can actually debunk is stuff that can be debunked - and in this case it happens to be a .govt webstite - debunking is not limited to loony conspiracy theories!
You can buy a small amount of jet fuel at airport FBO's. It costs a few dollars a gallon. Testing of fuel and oils is available at many locations just search for lube oil analysis. I work with diesel engines and we get tests done every 1000 hours. The chemtrails advocates should have done this a decade ago, and maybe they did, but never reported it. It's not up to us to do. If a toxic substance were in jet fuel, you'd think the ground crews at airports would be keeling over dead since 1997, though. They stand there waving the flights into parking. Mechanics, too. Maybe that simple logic is why chemtrailers never bothered?
It appears there is another source, Mick?
Is this another typo Mick? How many government agencies have stated this?
It's just another propagation of the same thing. It's explained above where this comes from - the 1960 tests of barium as a smoke suppressant.
How many government documents is it going to take before you can accept you're wrong?
One that gives a bit more detail, and is not just a passing mention based on a laundry list of uses from 50 years ago.
Do you think that jet fuel contains barium?
Why don't you test it? You can buy jet fuel at your local airport. $5-7 a gallon. Have it tested and post the results.
There was also some research in the 1980s into using barium metal to deoxygenate jet fuel. It's filtered out though
It does not appear to actually have been used though.
"It does not appear to have been used" is your proof of non presence?
You said there is only one source. Now I will provide you with a third source.
Barium and its compounds are used in oil and gas drilling muds, automotive paints, plastics stabilizers, case hardening steels, bricks, tiles, lubricating oils, jet fuel, and various types of pesticides. Barium sulfate is sometimes used by doctors, to perform medical tests and take x-rays of the stomach and intestines.
Was that referring back to the other link? Did anyone in Iowa verify that?
It looks to me that they just reworded the government pamphlet
To be that is NOT additional evidence that it is.
Why don't you buy some jet fuel and have it tested?
Which is just a cut and paste of the ATSDR, as is this EPA mention, which gives the reference.
It's all the same source, the same mistake.
Here's a 1975 study that found trace amounts of barium in Jet fuel:
That's not added though, like all those other metals it's just naturally occurring and ambient levels.
More interesting data about Barium: Note the soil concentrations hence content in dust.
For Barium in blood, see:
For barium in soil and water see:
So you just claimed that the statement of barium presence in jet fuel by the government was a mistake, made by 3 different agencies, then you provide a study showing trace amounts of barium in jet fuel.
So there is barium in jet fuel Mick?
It's not USED in jet fuel - i.e. it's not added to jet fuel.
It's in jet fuel in normal background amounts, like it's in everything. There's less barium in jet exhaust than in the air you are breathing right now.
TRACE amounts, not added. That is the difference.
'That's not added though, like all those other metals it's just naturally occurring and ambient levels.'
Many things occur in 'trace amounts'. Take the allowance of 'bug parts' in food. One weevil going through a flour mill will become thousands of parts. The bug parts were not added, they just happen naturally. I didn't understand that either, until a microbiology field trip to the FDA offices and I got to see what a 'bug part' was. I looked through a microscope and got to see a part of a hair from a weevil's leg.
Minuscule amounts compared to the ground in, say, New Mexico. Take a look at the figures I provided above then start worrying about going outside in a high wind, a wind that would disperse any solely aerial barium in jet exhaust but put large amounts in the air from dust.
So does the minuscule amount of barium from jet exhaust not add to the total barium presence in the air?
About as much as farting after a barium enema.
Or dropping a salt shaker of salt in ocean would make it saltier.
Duh!! Not to you Solrey, but really? Barium in a jet engine? Come on!
So barium is in jet fuel. I guess those government links were not errors then?
No, they were in error, because they say it is USED in jet fuel. There's no evidence that it is.
No the links you provided suggest it is being added to the jet fuel. It was tried in the 60s and shown to have caused harm to jet engines.
Is that the same government that you don't trust? Or is it a different government you're referring to?
Compare it to naturally occurring sodium, and to added sodium in the form of salt in food.
We are discussing barium, not trust. Please try to stay on topic.
I think it's perfectly on topic. You cite government documents...written by human beings...who often make mistakes. Most conspiracy theorists don't trust the government, and I'm taking a leap here, but I'm assuming you don't trust the government.
If I'm wrong, you trust the government, you trust the EPA and other organizations regulating jet fuel and the aircraft it is placed into.
There may be barium in jet fuel, in finite amounts, but it's not there to reduce the population, or whatever the conspiracy theorists proclaim.
You're missing his point. What "Pilot" is saying is that you are using a source you have otherwise stated you mistrust to validate a conclusion you've made. It thus puts in question the validity of both your argument and your conclusion.
Please provide me where I stated anything about mistrust.
Why are you trying to frame me into a conversation that doesnt exist?
Is that how this metabunk team operates?
Separate names with a comma.