1. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    "Rainwater" is in quotes in the title because this sample was taken from a roof via the downpipes!!

    I have made a comment about the level of strontium measured - 0.0084g/m^3 is about 1/1000th the mean seawater concentration reported on wiki of about 8mg/l - so they must be very pleased to have such a low level. (I actualy made 2 - I got the units wrong in my first comment and corrected them in my 2nd)

    I don't expect my comment to be published because they routinely disappear without trace and I have had a couple of disparaging comments mae about me by the site owner - whereas Ross Marsden seems to get prerferential treatment as the pet ddebunker that they all love to hate! :)

    But apart from all that - is is discouraging to see such poor collection practices still being used. The poster says they have collected more water in a clean glass jar - it will be interesting to see if there is any difference - this area of New Zealand, along with most of the rest of the country, has just come out of a 2-3 month dry spell and drought.
     
  2. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    A wonder how 'clean' the jar is. If you want the state to test your soil, you have to use their properly prepared containers.

    I believe that to clean a jar properly, you have to wash it, then rinse it multiple times with sterilized distilled water.
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Funnily enough, that's exactly how homeopathic remedies are "potentized".



    Skip to 1:55
     
  4. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Indeed.

    And as Mike points out, the sample itself was collected from rain run-off off a roof, after a period of relatively little rain, so it's not only the rainwater they're sampling, but whatever dust has settled up there since the last decent downpour, as well as particles of the roof (and downpipes) as well. I'm actually surprised the readings are as low as they are.

    This comment on the Chemtrails over NZ facebook page made me laugh.

    rainwater.
    In other words, despite the dodgy sampling method, and the low levels found in that sample regardless, it still proves they're spraying. Reminds me of...

    10919_original.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Folks don't realize how much dust and even pollen can land on their roof. Some years ago, I set up a 10x20 pavilion at a show in Oklahoma, late afternoon on Thurs. Friday was windy. It rained on Sat and I watched dirty water come off the top of my brand new pavilion.

    Several times, after camping out, I have needed to dust the pollen off my tent and pavilion. One doesn't normally think about pine pollen.
     
  6. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    *bangs head against wall*. Isn't this sort of thing frustrating? In similar circumstances I always get blocked when I ask for a description of the area so as to be able to exclude sources. The first thing I thought of was from the sea and fertilisers. However most seem to find that sort of information irrelevant. The levels for Al and Ba seem to be what may be expected.

    After describing various sources for the metals as well as links to other data, I have changed my tack. I just challenge people to get this stuff published and put out there for review. Even a local paper would be a start.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. hemi

    hemi Active Member


    Takaka's right next to the sea. It's a lovely wee village at the top of South Island. I stopped in there with the family at the start of this year before doing one of NZ's 'Great Walks' (in this instance, the Heaphy Track - I recommend it!).


    One of the locals had a shuttle service for people to the start of the track, and he gave us a little tiki tour before we started. As we drove, one of the things he talked about was the quarry that produces agricultural lime for NZ (and, I was told, 'THE WORLD'). He was very proud of it. I didn't think much of it at the time, but Biggerdave's comment got me thinking...


    [ex=http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/QM/August-September+2010/Good+enough+to+eat.html]As with all lime quarries, the fine dust from the pulverised marble is ever present – as claggy, grey mud in winter and a white coating during summer. “The mud is the most annoying and makes the roads slippery,” says Mark.


    “I prefer the dust. It blows away and we have a good extraction system with the crusher. Nor does it affect your health in any way. It’s just pure calcium and that just makes your bones nice and strong.”[/ex]


    Now, I don't know, maybe it is just calcium blowing away in that dust, but given Takaka's proximity to the sea, and what would seem to be a fairly large industrial-scale open-air mining operation, what are the chances that both are adding a little 'something' to any rainfall samples taken in the region?
     
  8. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Strontium in fertilisers come from those produced from natural sources i.e. rocks, so it would take no leap.of the imagination to join the dots if there is a quarry nearby.
     
  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Folks don't really realize what is in 'outside dust'. One of the stones I love to work with is amber. Amber is fossilized tree sap, basically a resin, so it is very soft. The show in Oklahoma was always a headache to us, since the dust there was from a sandy soil and thus was high in quartz. If we did not wash the amber right after it, the dust on it would scratch it dull the finish. One very dusty show, I washed the amber before I left and left it wrapped in towels.
     
  10. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    It goes a bit deeper than the content of dust but also the source. Many do not realise how far pollutants can travel from source. Many can go hundreds of miles and although many understand pollutants been ejected in the atmosphere by an explosion and travelling long distances they do noemt think the same for everyday processes. There is a good case study from the '80's I have been trying to track down on the net. I have an abstract here

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v312/n5989/abs/312058a0.html

    Essentially in 1984 they found black snow deposits in the Cairngorms in Scotland. While been acidic and high in carbon and metals and obviously down to pollution they initially put the source as industry in the South East of Scotland, less than 100 miles away. After analysis, some time later, they pinpointed some of the particles to have come from the coal fired power stations in the Trent Valley in England nearly 400 miles away. Now admittedly the Trent Valley is known as "Megawatt Alley" for its number of power stations, and has the largest coal fired station in Europe, Drax, but it does suggest that there are few places in mainland UK where a sample of rainwater will not be contaminated by some form of industrial process.

    Now I can only assume that the same will be for the rest of the world. I know the UK is a little eccentric but we have yet to defy the laws of physics. But the whole rainwater sampling really is a red herring.
     
  11. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    They have found damage to corals in the Caribbean from dust carried from the Sahara. I believe that it carries a bacteria that is a problem.
     
  12. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    the amounts recorded seem quite low so it seems unlike there's any great contamination from nearby lime quarries! :)

    However FWIW the Ngarua mine near Takaka supplies "Dolomite" to the New Zealand Agricultural industry - Dolomite being:

     
  13. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Any the end of the day Mike all you have is 1 stand alone sample which is ultimately worthless. Without a historical context it is hard to say whether levels are low or high. I had a quick look at the UK data available from DEFRA and there are some statistically dramatic differences between the sites.

    http://pollutantdeposition.defra.go...ra.gov.uk/files/Heavy_Metals_Annual_Means.xls

    I have a methodology that I cut and paste to give any results any validity and hopefully one day 1 chemtrail page will not delete it or block me.
     
  14. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The followup is in - and......OMG - there is still aluminium, barium and strontium in the water!

    The levels are only a small fraction of the previous tests - possibly highlighting the contamination caused by previously taking the sample off the roof??

    And strontium is less than the detectable limit!!

    Note that they aren't actually talking about the levels being high at all - they are simply saying that the elements are there at all:

    I'm not sure whether the strontium test counts as "positive" or not - does a score less than the detectable limit means "there is some but we can't measure it", or does it mean "we didn't find any but it might be there at less than the limit"?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. hemi

    hemi Active Member

  16. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Hey Clare actually posted my comment on the 2nd article that the level of strontium is less than the detectable limit - the first time I have gotten one through in over a year I think! :)

    Plus someone called Rosemary helped her to a possible conclusion as to what that might mean :)
     
  17. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Pfft. 'Rosemary'!? Bet it's a pseudonym. ;-)

    See they're now getting freaked out about the spider ballooning season? Good times in the NZ chemtrail community.
     
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Maybe not -Rose from Con-trail is "Rose from Kaikoura" - "The Con-trail" site used to be called "Pacific Chemtrail" (see this article on chemtrails northland that introduces her talking about the Christchurch Earthquake). She banned me for daring to suggest that red skies at night were a natural phenomena - the only post I ever made, and always seems to sign herself as "Rose" not Rosemary.

    Rosemary's comments are far more sensible than those of the Rose I have encountered, who is a hard core chemtrail/HAARP/everything else believer.

    Edit: this post was in response to one by George B suggesting "Rosemary" might be Rose from "The con-trail" website - but George seems to have deleted it, leaving this one a bit of an orphan apparently in reply to Hemi's preceding one, and thereby a bit non-sensical!
     
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Oh no...I's bin done caught by da man......

    TCWNCTW.

    It's not like Clare doesn't actually "know" who I am - but thanks for the infamy :)
     
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Clare seems to be getting quite reasonable lately - going so far as to teach her correspondants some science:


    filter.
     
  21. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    I'm intrigued.

    The sample in question shows very low levels of the very ingredients that are supposed to be found in high quantities after 'spraying'. The water in question was collected in the days immediately after heavy 'spraying' in the region in question (of course, whether anything sprayed at the relevant altitudes would come down the next day or two is another story altogether, but is consistent with what chemtrail theorists believe, at least).

    So I'm wondering how Clare and her followers marry these two disparate facts together? Discard the aluminium/barium/strontium theory and move on? Or just ignore it?
     
  22. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    No, make a claim with no evidence like, "but if the lab (sic) are filtering the water before doing the testing, what's the point?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Kind of being the snarky tattler there, Joe.
     
  24. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    Yes, I've noticed how Joe's is usually the sole 'thank' when anybody posts evidence of one of these bizarre statements linking users to Metabunk, or Metabunk posters to their other online presence.

    Perhaps you can explain why you think this kind of thing is constructive Joe?
     
  25. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    3 views.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  26. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    More from Clare...

    http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....arium-strontium-found-in-whangarei-rainwater/

    Yet again, the levels are very low, and the lab has now started including guidelines as to acceptable levels (to be found in drinking water) for aluminium and barium...

    Aluminium: 0.027 g/m3 (27% of guideline limit)
    Barium: 0.0024 g/m3 (0.3% of guideline limit)
    Strontium: 0.0063 g/m3
    Fluoride: below detection threshold
     
  27. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Yes - and no actual comment from Clare as to what she thinks of these.
     
  28. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Quite. I think she must realise these aren't the sorts of results she was hoping for, and is just throwing them out there in the hope that 'aluminium, barium and strontium FOUND in rainwater samples' is enough.
     
  29. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Ah, someone has forced her hand. In the comments...


    [EX=http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/aluminium-barium-strontium-found-in-whangarei-rainwater/#comment-16086]This provides more scientific evidence to support our contention that geoengineering is occurring and that it is poisoning the environment in New Zealand.

    Heavy metals should not be in the rainwater, period. That statement comes from Frances Mangels, a soil biologist who has been investigating the cumulative effect of geoengineering on the plant and animal life in Mt Shasta, California. There are two links to his work at the end of the post. In Mt Shasta, ecosystems are crashing, trees are dying and the environmental problems started when aerosol trails became a common site.

    They are spraying nanotech -free-form aluminium, not the kind of aluminium that is found in the soil. The poison they are putting into the environment is very harmful.


    Evidence indicates that aluminium, barium and strontium are used with weather modification programs to induce drought/floods etc. Watch: Why In The World Are They Spraying? free online.

    What is in the rain, is in the air. Inhaling aluminium oxide damages the brain. It causes memory loss and so forth. Listen to the talk I posted recently from Dr Russell Blaylock talking about the effect of breathing in chemtrail particulates.

    Kristen Meghan, a whistleblower who worked for the US Air Force as an Environmental Specialist, has gone public about the aluminium oxide, strontium and barium that arrived at a base she worked at from a contractor that was not listed. Listen to what she says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxXyMAmBMs
    [/EX]

    I think I can confidently say that every single one of the assertions (with regards to what you should and shouldn't find in the air) she makes is incorrect.
     
  30. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    And there they are using Kristen Meghan to support them.
     
  31. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    "Free form aluminium"? what is that? elemental aluminium perhaps - which cannot exist in contact with air?? Ionic aluminium - which will always exist in water?
     
  32. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Exactly. And not that she has any proof at all that the aluminium in her samples is "free-form" or "nanotech", whatever that actually means.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    all atoms and most molecules are "nano" scale by definition - every water molecule she ingests is "nano"-hydrogen and -oxygen, every second she breathes in "nano" nitrogen, CO2, Argon, and dust as well....

    apart from any suspended solids -

    - source
    -this is perfectly normal ionic behaviour, and all of those molecules and ions are "nano" too.

    I posted that extract as a comment on the article - it didn't even come up as "your comment is under moderation" as previous ones have usually done so perhaps I'm not longer allowed there even when I do post facts??!!
     
  34. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Nano is a tech word that they seem to have latched onto. They may no real idea of it's meaning, but it makes them sound like they do.
     
  35. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    • Like Like x 1
  36. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Ross knows that when you close in on the target, you will start receiving flak.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    FYI, the Carnicom article that Clare claims as "proof" that contrails are not chemtrails appears to be this one from 1999 - basically Carnicom states that because the AVERAGE daily humidity is somewhat low at 30,000 feet (data is given as is the source, but no links, and I'm not sure the data is sill available - I haven't been able to find it on the NOAA site), therefore the trails shown cannot be contrails.

    This, of course, completely ignores the meaning of "average", and also ignores altitudes other than 30,000 feet - he makes no effort to show what altitude the contrails are actually at.
     
  38. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Well, that's interesting. The 'Chemtrails over NZ' facebook group has gone 'closed', meaning only members of the group can see posts made to it.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/115931788428301/?fref=ts

    Presumably they're a bit tired of outsiders debunking their efforts from afar?

    It also means that the only two NZ-specific forums for discussing chemtrails (the other being Rose's 'The CONTrail' site), are now completely closed to the outside world: there's no ability to be found by search and no-one can browse their photos or 'research'. They've become entirely insular little echo chambers. I'm not sure how this plays into their goals of educating and 'waking up' the public (aka the 'sheeple'), but, well, there ya go.

    All that's left in the public-facing world is Clare's blog! And we know how much she loves open debate on the subject!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  39. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Does anyone have links on the "proper method" to collect rainwater ? (to send to a lab)
    And the "baselines" to compare the rainwater results to ? (or will the lab provide these?)
     
  40. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I would say contact the lab and or the chemistry dept of a local college or university. One thing that would be important would be have some control samples analyzed as well. All the samples would need to be 'blind labeled' as well.

    You still have the problem of chain of custody, who had access to the sample before hand, etc.

    I wonder if this would be a good experiment for an environmental club or school? Done under the direction of a teacher. Maybe not under the aura of chemtrails, but to find out what chemicals are in their local rain.