More analysis of "rainwater" - New Zealand

And they are still doing it - Clare's latest effort even goes so far as to link to this thread, so she's well aware that the quantities reported are less than the health or guideline limits...and yet she's still happy to put up the full analysis that shows that and pretend it's something untoward.

It is quite frightening how someone can post a test showing completely acceptable levels of natural elements in water, and then right next to the picture showing that claim that it is actually high levels, evidence of a crime, etc!!

Just to further pick up on a point from that post.

Master gardener and retired USDA Biologist, Frances Mangels of California has found the that pH of rainwater rises from about 5.5 to about 6.8 in association with a large volume of aerosol geoengineering activity. The pH of rainwater in Whangarei, Northland onFebruary 19th and 20th, 2014, was found to be 6.7-6.8. A pH of 6.2 found in Hamilton is not normal and may have a detrimental effect on plant growth, as Frances Mangels has indicated.
Content from External Source
The figures quoted are approaching that of neutral pH and that of pure water. But are these levels detrimental to plant health? Soil chemistry is quite complex however many soils have a capacity to buffer against pH changes. While some plants may prefer acidic or alkaline soils a general rule is shown with the following:


Most nutrients that plants need can dissolve easily when the pH of the soil solution ranges from 6.0 to 7.5. Below pH 6.0, some nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, are less available. When pH exceeds 7.5, iron, manganese, and phosphorus are less available.
Content from External Source
http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/understanding-ph



pH 6.1 - 7.0
  • Moderately acid soil
  • A pH 6.5 is the best general purpose pH for gardens, allowing a wide range of plants to grow, except lime-hating plants
  • The availability of major nutrients is at its highest and bacterial and earthworm activity is optimum at this pH
  • Action: It is not usually necessary to add anything to improve soil pH at this level
Content from External Source
http://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=239

Anecdotal but I have some tomatoes in pots at pH 6.5 which I find suits them really well.
 
I get the feeling this is all a reflexive response stemming back to the 50s and 60s when lead what 'proven' to be within tolerable and safe limits and that there was "no evidence" that it was detrimental, when in reality there was TONS of research to prove that it was. Now, with all this stuff, its almost the exact opposite... tons of research that says its NOT dangerous and everyone screaming it is. Its a complete crock, given that most of the chemicals people are afraid of dont do what they think they do.
 
Just to further pick up on a point from that post.

Master gardener and retired USDA Biologist, Frances Mangels of California has found the that pH of rainwater rises from about 5.5 to about 6.8 in association with a large volume of aerosol geoengineering activity. The pH of rainwater in Whangarei, Northland onFebruary 19th and 20th, 2014, was found to be 6.7-6.8. A pH of 6.2 found in Hamilton is not normal and may have a detrimental effect on plant growth, as Frances Mangels has indicated.
Content from External Source
The figures quoted are approaching that of neutral pH and that of pure water. But are these levels detrimental to plant health? Soil chemistry is quite complex however many soils have a capacity to buffer against pH changes. While some plants may prefer acidic or alkaline soils a general rule is shown with the following:


Most nutrients that plants need can dissolve easily when the pH of the soil solution ranges from 6.0 to 7.5. Below pH 6.0, some nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, are less available. When pH exceeds 7.5, iron, manganese, and phosphorus are less available.
Content from External Source
http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/understanding-ph



pH 6.1 - 7.0
  • Moderately acid soil
  • A pH 6.5 is the best general purpose pH for gardens, allowing a wide range of plants to grow, except lime-hating plants
  • The availability of major nutrients is at its highest and bacterial and earthworm activity is optimum at this pH
  • Action: It is not usually necessary to add anything to improve soil pH at this level
Content from External Source
http://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=239

Anecdotal but I have some tomatoes in pots at pH 6.5 which I find suits them really well.
It depends on the species. Many forest communities are adapted to fairly low soil pH, and some trees will show symptoms of iron and manganese deficiency (chlorosis - yellowing of leaves or needles) at pH near or above neutral, when those elements tend to be in insoluble forms. This is a common issue with pines on urban landscapes that are frequently irrigated (with higher-pH water) to maintain the turfgrass. I noticed that Mangel's garden had an irrigation setup.
 
It depends on the species. Many forest communities are adapted to fairly low soil pH, and some trees will show symptoms of iron and manganese deficiency (chlorosis - yellowing of leaves or needles) at pH near or above neutral, when those elements tend to be in insoluble forms. This is a common issue with pines on urban landscapes that are frequently irrigated (with higher-pH water) to maintain the turfgrass. I noticed that Mangel's garden had an irrigation setup.
I did briefly mention that plants may prefer acidic or alkaline soils. I added the information if anyone had followed the links from Clare Swinneys site to here. It was meant to be a general illustration as I feel the impression is given that once soil reaches a certain pH the planet will be bereft of plantlife.

I have done very little botany and work with soil but may I pick your brains. If your soil is pH7 what sort of levels would rainwater need to be to shift by over 1 either way? Is it possible to shift soil pH with slight pH differences in rain? I apologise if this seems off topic but it is relevant in the wider picture, especially GM seeds in the wings to save the day.
 
I did briefly mention that plants may prefer acidic or alkaline soils. I added the information if anyone had followed the links from Clare Swinneys site to here. It was meant to be a general illustration as I feel the impression is given that once soil reaches a certain pH the planet will be bereft of plantlife.

I have done very little botany and work with soil but may I pick your brains. If your soil is pH7 what sort of levels would rainwater need to be to shift by over 1 either way? Is it possible to shift soil pH with slight pH differences in rain? I apologise if this seems off topic but it is relevant in the wider picture, especially GM seeds in the wings to save the day.
No straightforward way to answer to that, because the degree to which soils can buffer pH is dependent on a lot of things; soil type/parent material and depth, topography and hydrology, weather, etc.

In any case, you're right that many garden plants and crop species would be happy in the range that Mangels is concerned about. One of the big contradictions in the Wigington/Mangels claims is that they think that soil pH is increasing as a result of the spray, and also that the spray will force everyone to use aluminum-resistant GMO seeds. But soil aluminum toxicity is really only a concern for sensitive plants in very acidic soils, like 5 or below as I recall; much like Fe and Mn, it forms insoluble species at higher pH.
 
New Zealand air gets cleaner - oh dear - apparently kiwi's are dying from air pollution less often.....


Lives are being saved as the quality of air in New Zealand improves through technology that reduces vehicle pollutants and as fewer homes burn wood or coal.
A report published today said there was an 8 per cent fall in the concentration of PM10 – very small airborne particles 10 micrometres or less in diameter – between 2006 and 2012.
PM10 particles are associated with health problems ranging from respiratory irritation to cancer.
A model estimated that deaths from exposure to man-made PM10 were down 14 per cent because of the drop in PM10 concentrations.
Hospital admissions were down an estimated 15 per cent, and days with restricted activity were down an estimated 9 per cent.
The figures were in the 2014 air domain report produced by the Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand.
Content from External Source
2014 Air domain Report - no mention of this on Clare's website yet tho...I wonder if it will ever appear?

of course there are similar reports all over the world from environmental agencies ranging from city to national level, and none of them ever show anything supporting the idea that chemtrails exist.......and they are always studiously ignored by believers - or perhaps written off as "propaganda.
 
The latest report on rainwater from New Zealand shows 0.25g/m^3 - that's 1 parts per 4 million - which is high according to Northland New Zealand Chemtrails watch.
I believe chicoskywatch claims, in their web page and printed literature, that tests of various local sources should show less than 1 ppB to be normal. When I tried to converse with them about that ridiculous statement they called me a shill and refused to discuss it. I just checked- it's still there.

http://www.chicoskywatch.org/pages/water_tests_table_chart.php
 
Last edited:
The latest report on rainwater from New Zealand shows 0.25g/m^3 - that's 1 parts per 4 million - which is high according to Northland New Zealand Chemtrails watch.
I notice a few errors in her analysis. Firstly

As was mentioned in a previous post on this website, the Guideline Value for aluminium in the Drinking Water Standards New Zealand 2005 (DWSNZ) (Revised 2008) is < 0.1 g/m³, which the rainwater sample for May the 8th exceeds by more than two-fold at 0.25 g/m³. The Guideline Value relates to the water’s aesthetic quality -as it might not look attractive to drink if there is too much aluminium in it. Although aluminium is known to be highly neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer’s disease, there is no Maximum Acceptable Value referred to for aluminium in the DWSNZ, which some may wrongly assume means that high concentrations of aluminium are safe to drink, when a vast array of evidence shows otherwise.
Content from External Source
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....d-to-contain-high-levels-of-aluminium-barium/

I will not talk about Alzheimer's and she may be correct that the water standards do not offer safe "concentrations" to drink, however your Food Standards Agency does give a figure for what the total weekly intake of Aluminium should be.


As a result of these data, JECFA withdrew the PTWI of 1 mg/kg bw it had previously
established (JECFA 2007). It established a new PTWI of 2 mg/kg bw based on a NOAEL of
30 mg/kg bw per day and applying a safety factor of 100 for interspecies and intraspecies
differences in sensitivity (JECFA 2011b).
Content from External Source
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Documents/1778-FSANZ_AustDietStudy-web.pdf

As can be seen the Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) has been set at 2mg/kg of body weight per week. Although previously it was 1mg/kg bw it must be noted that at one time it was 7 mg/kg bw. So yes Ms Swinney, there are recommended levels for drinking water when taken in context of the diet as a whole. Note the proviso of drinking water, as compared to rainwater

Another issue is in the comments section.

Great video. I’m guessing that the best time to collect rain which provides evidence of this crime is probably after a drought, as the rain is picking up the particles in the atmosphere as it falls. The first rain after a man-made drought will probably have a relatively high concentration of toxins. Thanks for sharing this and thank-you very much for caring enough to do this work and get the rainwater tested.
Content from External Source
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....d-to-contain-high-levels-of-aluminium-barium/

This has been a bug bear of mine for a while with the chemtrail community. She is correct that there will be more pollutants after a dry spell but by only taking a rainwater sample after a dry spell you are weighting the result in your favour. Rain clears the air of pollutants and the first rainfall will contain more but the sample will be diluted down by the collection of further rain in your sample.In the UK rainwater water samples are collected either for a week or for a month because of this. Thus you get a true picture of what the actual wet deposition is. This also reflects on the claims of unsafe levels in water. If it rains a cupfull of water with double the dosage that is not too clever. But if the next days rain is a cupfull with none in it paints a different picture.

In addition if the spray is happening above raincloud height surely the amount of pollution should, statistically speaking, be consistent throughout?
 
I have another problem with this. It is nonsense to apply a drinking water standard to a completely untreated rainwater sample. I'm not sure if this is an error on the part of the testing lab, or the wrong instructions/information given by the person requesting the test.
 
Back
Top