Aluminium value in rainwater

GrandVizor

New Member
Lectori salutem,

I'm from the Netherlands, Europe.
Excuse me if my English is not 100% correct.

I'm in a debate with a lot of chemtrail believers in which I am the scepticus.

I use this website as a resource for a few months now and I thank you all for the helpful explanations and references.

Recently a rainwater test result popped up and I need to know what the acceptable value for Aluminium is. I've looked around for it and learned a lot about it, but the answer is still inconclusive to me.

In will enclose a picture of the results for your assessment.

I thank you in advance for any provided help in this matter.

The Aluminum level is 2700 µg/l
FB_IMG_1429737938559.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Rainwater essentially has random amounts of aluminum in it, depending on how much dust there is in it, and the type of dust. So there is no real "acceptable value". Plus the collection methods can have quite an impact. If done poorly then the majority of the aluminum can actually come from deposition - i.e. the settling of dust, and not from the rain.

The EPA sets a cosmetic limit for drinking water of 2000 µg/L, and your test shows slightly higher. But this is simply for taste and clarity.

Update, actually 200 µg/L, for color. No limit for health.
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
What is the source of the picture and of the test? The listing of aluminum seems out of place it's in bold.

( scepticus - I like that)
 

GrandVizor

New Member
Mick, I have the same reservations to the conditions of the test.

Thanks for the 2000 µg/L . I've encountered numbers like 6 ppm. Which would be 6000 µg/L . Right?

But I can't find any official confirmation at EPA. Only 750 µg/L for ambient water.

SR1419, That's the first thing I noticed as well. Odd.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
What is the source of the picture and of the test? The listing of aluminum seems out of place it's in bold.

( scepticus - I like that)
its also out of alphabetical order. weird.
what language is that. maybe 'aluminum' is like 'zytvatavik' in that language, so they just changed it for ease of read?
 

Chew

Senior Member.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the CDC publishes the "Minimal Risk Levels" (MRLs) for various chemicals.

From page 2 here: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-22.pdf

A 70 kg person could drink 26 liters of that rainwater each and every day and they would suffer no ill effect from the aluminum. Of course, drinking that much water would kill you.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
its also out of alphabetical order. weird.
what language is that. maybe 'aluminum' is like 'zytvatavik' in that language, so they just changed it for ease of read?
perhaps the OP can clarify on this one.
I tried an online translator and used both Dutch (OP said from Netherlands) and from German with interestingly mixed results.
German produced a better match for many of the other elements like Antimony, chromium Selenium etc, but Dutch produced a better match for Zware metalen (heavy metals) and diversen water.
Both languages just translated as aluminium, but online translators will just pop the same word in if it can't find a match.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
What is the source of the picture and of the test? The listing of aluminum seems out of place it's in bold.

( scepticus - I like that)
The main list of metals is heavy metals (zware metalen). Aluminium is not a heavy metal, so I assume that is why it is listed separately. The list is in the original Dutch: the Dutch word for aluminium is the same as the (British) English.
 
Last edited:

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
The question you should ask, is why have the testers not tested for silicon. Silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust. (Aluminium is the third most abundant.) The average ratio of silicon to aluminum is 3.4 to 1. Of course, that will vary considerably from place to place, and sample to sample. But if you have a number of samples, and the silicon to aluminum ratio is somewhere close to the average, that is a pretty strong indicator that you are sampling normal dust from the earth's crust. On the other hand, if you do not get any silicon, that is an indication of possibly an artificial source of aluminum. I have done this test five times. The lowest ratio I got was 2.6 parts silicon to one part aluminum. You might want to check this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-shasta-snow-and-water-aluminum-tests.137/page-2
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
There are many instances on the internet, of the rumor that "there should be zero, or near zero" aluminum (or any other substance found in these tests). This is an absolutely false notion that has been passed from one person to another, on the internet. You will never find that idea in any textbook, in any university, or among working meteorologists or other atmospheric scientists.
I don't know if these believers you are in communication with, are claiming this false theory......but they sometimes do.

Simply one test result by one person, in one area....is not enough to come to a conclusion to become meaningful data.
There are too many ways to get an "abnormal" test result, especially if proper procedures are not followed.
To begin to assemble meaningful data, repeated tests should be preformed properly and documented (photos/video).
Then, the results can be more significant, and trusted. If something is registering "high" in these series of tests....they should start looking for the source >>>>beginning at the test procedure, the area immediately around the test site....and outwards.
Was the test preformed properly ?
Was dust allowed to accumulate in the sample(s) ?
Is the test site near a dusty field?....or near a construction site, or a busy street, under a roof or tree ?

You look for clues from the test site, and work outwards, to find the source.......you don't start looking outwards (far away).....even if you suspect the source might be far away. It's first a process of elimination.

If you haven't noticed already, the lack of people posting test results of normal or low levels of aluminum. The VAST majority of these tests show extremely low levels. People do not boast about their low/normal tests.

See the low levels found here.....
http://www.chemtrailsprojectuk.com/evidence/rainwater-test-kit-results-map/
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
What is interesting about this result is a high value for Zinc, 37% of the Aluminium value. If it were a normal dust, I would expect the ratio Al/Zn being about ten times higher. On the other hand, the values of other major contaminants, Lead and Copper, give expected ratios relative Zinc. I'd say that this water sample probably was very dirty, but the relative Aluminium content of this dirt was very low.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/storyboard51-jpg.887/
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
It's also important to stress that the results do not mean that there is metallic aluminium present in the water.

Note the testing technique detailed at the top: ISO 17294-2, ICP-MS.

That is an international standard test method (you can read the abstract at http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36127) which uses a technique called ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry).

How this works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass: http://crustal.usgs.gov/laboratories/icpms/intro.html

So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions.

A claim we often hear is "aluminium isn't found in its elemental form in nature, so it shouldn't be in our soil/water!" It isn't!


A further point: ISO 17294-2 should only be used for (relatively clean) water samples. It is not designed for samples containing large amounts of solids and sludge. We don't know how clean these water samples were, but judging by the results for other metals, not very! See this extract from a report by a member of the Dutch National Institute of Public Health:

upload_2015-4-23_10-26-53.png
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
What is interesting about this result is a high value for Zinc, 37% of the Aluminium value. If it were a normal dust, I would expect the ratio Al/Zn being about ten times higher. On the other hand, the values of other major contaminants, Lead and Copper, give expected ratios relative Zinc. I'd say that this water sample probably was very dirty, but the relative Aluminium content of this dirt was very low.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/storyboard51-jpg.887/

Interesting. Assuming that the address at the top of the analysis is the location the samples were taken from, I had a look to see if it had a zinc roof or anything like that. Not that I can see, but it is less than two miles from a local galvanising factory, which of course uses zinc. I wonder if there might be as link?

upload_2015-4-23_10-46-46.png


http://www.sherart.nl/en/

upload_2015-4-23_10-47-42.png
upload_2015-4-23_10-49-19.png


I may be veering off topic here, but thought it was worth mentioning!
 

GrandVizor

New Member
perhaps the OP can clarify on this one.
I tried an online translator and used both Dutch (OP said from Netherlands) and from German with interestingly mixed results.
German produced a better match for many of the other elements like Antimony, chromium Selenium etc, but Dutch produced a better match for Zware metalen (heavy metals) and diversen water.
Both languages just translated as aluminium, but online translators will just pop the same word in if it can't find a match.

Yes the report is in Dutch, which is not German. (I know, it's confusing).

Aluminium is Aluminum. The extra 'i' being the only difference.

Why the Al result is so out of place, remains odd.

I've now found a value for secondary drinking water = 0.05 - 0.2 ppm on the EPA site. So the test value would be 13.5 times higher. That sounds alarming.

Now, I'm going to dig in deeper about the test conditions and the validity of this report.

So far it looks like a Word document that I could have produced myself.

Thanks all and to be continued.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
Lectori salutem,
In will enclose a picture of the results for your assessment.

The Aluminum level is 2700 µg/l
View attachment 12438
Ask him to upload the full report (with 'blanks' where he thinks it is necessary.)
So at least the full report can be seen. (e.g. what does "Q" mean and why is it missing for the aluminum level?)

Also he collected the sample on 24 march, but it took a week to get it analysed. What was the container he caught the water with? Where was the sample taken etc etc.
I'm a little short in time right now, but here is another report (2007) on rainwater and certain elements present (all in Dutch)
http://www.riool.net/documents/10180/2bae3a4e-95b2-4fcb-8246-c3a407b3af7d
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've now found a value for secondary drinking water = 0.05 - 0.2 ppm on the EPA site. So the test value would be 13.5 times higher. That sounds alarming.

I'd incorrectly said 2ppm before, but that was the level for barium.

The 0.2ppm EPA level is a secondary contamination level, and is just for visual appearance of the water. The EPA sets no limit for health.

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
I remember a discussion I had about a similar (but with different values) report from "Chemtrail Benelux".


This 2 year old sample (this was snow) looks pretty much the same, but you can see what the original sample was at "Monsteromschrijving". Why is that left out?

This report also describes what the "Q" means. (sorry no time to translate right now).
They were also shouting the levels were much too high for this 2013 report. However if you compare them you can see ALL levels have raised very much.

I can't find what the weather was around Helmond but I think we had some rain the last week of March.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But again, the aluminum in rainwater comes from dust. Depending on where you live, the dust can have as much as 10% aluminum. So really you are not measuring aluminum contamination, but rather how dusty your rain water sample is. This dust is largely removed during drinking water treatment.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
But again, the aluminum in rainwater comes from dust.
Yes, that is why I'm curious about what it says about what kind of sample it was (the "monsteromschrijving"). I'm wondering why it is left out, maybe they would type this sample as 'sludge'.

Also the time between sample and analysing it might be an indication it is maybe a sample left outside for multiple days to collect. (which of course could be a cause of all numbers being large, collecting a lot of dust..).
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I've now found a value for secondary drinking water = 0.05 - 0.2 ppm on the EPA site. So the test value would be 13.5 times higher. That sounds alarming.

It's really not alarming at all. It's comparing dirty rain water with the limits for treated drinking water.

2700 micrograms per litre is 2.7 parts per million.

Bearing in mind that soil is around 7% to 8% aluminium, this equates to around 35 parts per million of soil in the water, or 0.0035% of soil contamination.

In other words, take a pint of water (~500ml) and drop in 17 milligrams (less than one thousandth of an ounce) of soil.
 
Last edited:

solrey

Senior Member.
Here's the relevant section:

It's just an electrode made of aluminum.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Yes the report is in Dutch, which is not German. (I know, it's confusing).
not really confusing I assumed it was Dutch, but an online translator didn't translate most of the other elements the same as on the list, when i told it to translate to Dutch but did when I asked for German instead. Being British, I spell aluminium with a second I as well.
Important to note that the World Health organisation is FAR more concerned with Aluminium in our FOOD, particularly from some food additives and is estimating we take in between 5 and 7mg of Al a day from food. this does seem quite a high figure for the water sample but as there is no real chain of custody and we don;t actually know exactly how the sample was taken or exactly where from it doesn't really show us anything. Average values for all these elements do seem to be being taken on a regular basis and do not show anything untoward.
 

GrandVizor

New Member
I asked the tester in private (on FB) how he did his test, what procedure he followed and what it all costed.

12 hours ago. No reply yet.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
I've now found a value for secondary drinking water = 0.05 - 0.2 ppm on the EPA site. So the test value would be 13.5 times higher. That sounds alarming.
No, why would it be? It's not drinking water. Applying drinking water standards to rainwater is meaningless.
 

G Weil

New Member
I apologize for dredging up this old post, but researching allowable "aluminum content in rainwater" led me to the group. I'm intrigued by the great posts here and joined.

If I may ask, I'm wondering if any opinions have changed in the 3+ years since the thread was started?

For me, I've purchased a tester to begin monitoring the AL 3+ content in my rainwater here in in the National Park area of NE Ohio. I've read a lot of posts about dust and industry, but my belief is that in my specific area, the ppm value of ionic Aluminum in our rainwater should approach zero.

I'm early in the process as have only taken a few samples. We've had days of rain here which to my (maybe naive) way of thinking should have washed any "dust" away. I guess there is the possiblity that dust was dry downstream weather-wise and rose into to atmoshphere, condensed and dropped on me dozens or hundreds of miles away (I'm also researching industry downwind of me, but again early on in my quest).

What I did notice is that when posters seemed concerned above, moderators or senior menbers seemed to quickly try to quell any fears of aluminum in the air.

Posts cite:
- how much was safe
- even large amounts are safe
- how much you could weigh so heavier is better (as I guess it dilutes your exposure)
- dust can rise from the ground into the atmosphere
- factory smokestack emmissions can rise into the atmosphere
- there should be zero (or low amounts) of aluminum in rainwater is an "internet rumor"
- that the reports made were suspect being too small, data rounded up, etc
- that no strontium in the reports somehow mitigates the other elements present as inaccurate
- the repetition that "the aluminum in rainwater comes from dust"
- that the presence of aluminum is "really not alarming at all"
- applying drinking water standards is meaningless as if that somehow translates to don't be concerned about it in rainwater

I'm concerned I'm getting .19 to .21 ppm readings in my tiny 2-day, 2-sample foray into this arena

[... Off topic material removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For me, I've purchased a tester to begin monitoring the AL 3+ content in my rainwater here in in the National Park area of NE Ohio. I've read a lot of posts about dust and industry, but my belief is that in my specific area, the ppm value of ionic Aluminum in our rainwater should approach zero.
I'm concerned I'm getting .19 to .21 ppm readings in my tiny 2-day, 2-sample foray into this arena
Can you explain what you are basing the "approach zero" claim on?
Also, what's the make and model of your tester?
 

G Weil

New Member
Thanks Mick,

One that caught my eye was the "Chemtrails Project Data Analysis" image (in post #28 just above) where nearly half (32 of the data points) are 0. What I can't tell for certain is if the positive values are in ppm or ug/L. IF ug/L the values are relatively low, but still many over the EPA's drinking water range of .05 to .20 ppm which might indicate a cause for concern to some. IF ppm, the wide range from 0 to 10,500 (netting out anomalous) is simply confusing. I do understand that particular report was collected by a different person at each location which could introduce methodology differences.

I have a new eXact Micro 20 that has been used only to test rainwater falling into a plastic rain gauge mounted 3 feet off of the ground, and where the mouth of the gauge is higher than the post to avoid interference / contamination.

If I need to change methodology I will be glad to listen to suggestions as this is something I plan to do after every measurable rain. I'm also going to start tracking sample pH.

Thanks again!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One that caught my eye was the "Chemtrails Project Data Analysis" image

I have a new eXact Micro 20

I think those are different tests. Al3+ and Aluminum content are not the same. Al3+ is a dissolved form of aluminum, but the tests above are for total aluminum, which includes suspended solids (dirt) with Aluminum oxide (and theoretically metallic aluminum, but that's unlikely). Still your levels seem high for Al3+. I suspect though that it's quite tricky to get an accurate reading. Rainwater is acidic and will leach Al3+ from any dust in the container.

Can you verify the accuracy of your tester by testing water from the same sample three times in a row? Are you flushing the test cell with acid before the test?
 

skephu

Senior Member.
eXact Micro 20
Not sure what this measures. The instructions say 5 drops of "Al buffer" have to be added to the sample. This buffer may be acidic, so it dissolves the solids. If that is the case then you are in fact measuring the total aluminum. The values seem fine to me. Never understood why rainwater values are compared to drinking water standards.
 

G Weil

New Member
I've cleaned the unit with vendor supplied brush and muriatic acid as specified by eXact and yes, I can verify at 0 to .01 variance between samples. Again, I have a very small sample group so will expand over time.

I'm using the EPA thresholds only because they are all that seem published by an entity that attempts to monitor / control / mitigate bad things in the environment. I just personally don't believe Aluminum would be in their repertoire of things to measure and set limits upon if it was a good thing.

Sharing: my Dad passed on earlier this year with dementia / Alzheimer's. My wife, 4 children and I are in this same environment and I'm looking to mitigate sources of Aluminum from it.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
I'm using the EPA thresholds only because they are all that seem published by an entity that attempts to monitor / control / mitigate bad things in the environment. I just personally don't believe Aluminum would be in their repertoire of things to measure and set limits upon if it was a good thing.

That's for drinking water that comes from your tap though and the limit they set for aluminium is for aesthetics (appearance) and not safety
 

G Weil

New Member
While that opinion may be true, we've recently eliminated aluminum cans, cooking utensils, deodorants and antacids / food containing from our lives. I can't imagine 0 is not better than some positive value.

If it's OK with the group, I'd like to continue to post my future rainwater sample findings here to see if they change, and if they change maybe we can brainstorm why.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
While that opinion may be true

That's not an opinion

https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregu...g-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
MikeC Aluminium nano-particles stunt plant growth - paper Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Leifer Bumblebee Pupae Contain High Levels of Aluminium General Discussion 15
M Aluminium concentrations Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TWCobra Debunked-Max Bliss implying that aluminium can be added to modern turbo-fan engine fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
HappyMonday Aluminium content dissent Contrails and Chemtrails 148
TWCobra Effect of mid-range Mohs (hardness scale) Volcanic Ash on aircraft v Aluminium oxide Contrails and Chemtrails 14
brent_brent facebook friend uploads Aluminium, Strontium & Barium In Brisbane Rainwater LOL Contrails and Chemtrails 16
HappyMonday Chemtrail Aluminium = Alzheimers Contrails and Chemtrails 2
MikeC Alachua County - the next cause celebre for aluminium in Rainwater? Contrails and Chemtrails 6
vaccine papers Aluminum in rainwater, normal levels shown in FLorida 1983 Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TEEJ Patrick Roddie - San Francisco, California, Rainwater sample Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Boston peer reviewed research on aluminum content of rainwater required Contrails and Chemtrails 79
Woody Magnesium and Titanium levels in Rainwater Contrails and Chemtrails 184
MikeC More analysis of "rainwater" - New Zealand Contrails and Chemtrails 89
hemi NZ soil/rainwater analysis Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: "Rainwater Samples From Alachua County Florida Test Positive for Aluminum" Contrails and Chemtrails 51

Related Articles

Top