Leifer
Senior Member.
Claims often are: 'Harmful chemicals (toxins) are being sprayed from planes and airliners in the form of supposed "chemtrails".....and these toxins are making the human population sick.' (or dying)
BACKGROUND:
Taking a distance step back from this idea, and looking at this from an overall perspective, one might look at, or compare different segments of the population.......their location(s), and also consider how much outdoor air they are exposed to. (or unfiltered indoor air)
Plus, the shear amount of air intake, by aerobic athletes, as compared to not as much air-intake by non-athletes.
If this were a clinical study, it might survey and compare results from different population segments (over years), and a highlighted separation of those who exercise in a "cardiovascular" routine (high heart rate, therefore breathe more air) on a regular basis.....vs. those who do not exercise in that manner, or who live without exercise.
These types could be discounted, because of too many variables:
*those who spend an above average daily time outdoors. (indoor air is normally filter-free)
*those who spend an above average time indoors in a highly filtered air environment (a very small segment).
*those who may engage in both (inconclusive results).
To me, the significant variables to compare are:
*people that practice athletics that require a large intake of air, as in heavy cardiovascular (aerobic) activities.
*people who do not engage in heavy/deep cardiovascular activities. (normal, non exercising persons).
* where (location) of the above two groups live (areas of industrial pollution, or rural areas, free of most industrial pollution (city) locations.
The difference being measured...."How much volume of air is being digested, between the two groups".
And if the volume of air intake on a daily or weekly basis is higher in one group over another, shouldn't the higher air intake group exhibit more toxicity, if indeed there is a widespread chemical release via "chemtrail" emissions ?? If this was so, shouldn't we see an increase in ailments among aerobic athletes, over those that are not ?
I think it is wise to discern the groups between "city" and "rural", because of automobile, truck, and other industrial emissions often found in congestive cities.
However....in the idea of "chemtrails".....the lines in the sky are seen equally over rural locations or oceans.....and sometimes even less over major cities.
The point being, I have yet to find any increase or "spike", where aerobic athletes have succumbed to health problems specifically related to the claimed toxins because of "trails in the sky"......as athletes would be the most vulnerable, if it were true.
More results of the healthiness of aerobic exercise can be found....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aerobic exercise&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=
BACKGROUND:
Taking a distance step back from this idea, and looking at this from an overall perspective, one might look at, or compare different segments of the population.......their location(s), and also consider how much outdoor air they are exposed to. (or unfiltered indoor air)
Plus, the shear amount of air intake, by aerobic athletes, as compared to not as much air-intake by non-athletes.
If this were a clinical study, it might survey and compare results from different population segments (over years), and a highlighted separation of those who exercise in a "cardiovascular" routine (high heart rate, therefore breathe more air) on a regular basis.....vs. those who do not exercise in that manner, or who live without exercise.
These types could be discounted, because of too many variables:
*those who spend an above average daily time outdoors. (indoor air is normally filter-free)
*those who spend an above average time indoors in a highly filtered air environment (a very small segment).
*those who may engage in both (inconclusive results).
To me, the significant variables to compare are:
*people that practice athletics that require a large intake of air, as in heavy cardiovascular (aerobic) activities.
*people who do not engage in heavy/deep cardiovascular activities. (normal, non exercising persons).
* where (location) of the above two groups live (areas of industrial pollution, or rural areas, free of most industrial pollution (city) locations.
The difference being measured...."How much volume of air is being digested, between the two groups".
And if the volume of air intake on a daily or weekly basis is higher in one group over another, shouldn't the higher air intake group exhibit more toxicity, if indeed there is a widespread chemical release via "chemtrail" emissions ?? If this was so, shouldn't we see an increase in ailments among aerobic athletes, over those that are not ?
I think it is wise to discern the groups between "city" and "rural", because of automobile, truck, and other industrial emissions often found in congestive cities.
External Quote:At certain times of the year, Utah has some of the worst air quality in the nation. In fact, three of Utah's major metropolitan areas are ranked in the top 25 cities most polluted by short-term air particle pollution (PM2.5), including Logan (5th), Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield (7th), and Provo-Orem (19th).1 Poor air quality not only compromises the aesthetics of our beautiful state, it also significantly endangers the health of Utah's citizens. Cyclists and other outdoor athletes breathe more air on a daily basis than the average Utah citizen, and thus riders exercising outside in Utah's metropolitan areas face a unique and increased risk of air-pollution induced health problems. There are more than 2000 scientific studies published during the last decade that clearly show that levels of air pollution routinely found along the Wasatch Front lead to thousands of strokes, cases of heart disease, respiratory ailments and premature deaths each year.
http://www.cyclingutah.com/fitness/health/air-quality-and-cycling-what-utah-riders-need-to-know/
The above quotes specify city pollution, because cities are the most obvious source, with all the vehicle combustion emissions, and/or cities that don't meterologically refresh their volume of city air, like SLC, Utah.External Quote:Dr. Kenneth Rundell, the director of the Human Performance Laboratory at Marywood University in Scranton, Pennsylvania, said, "Athletes typically take in 10 to 20 times as much air," and thus pollutants, with every breath as sedentary people do. He was the chairman, in May, of a scientific session on air pollution and athletes at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine.
http://www.active.com/running/articles/exercising-outdoors-how-does-pollution-affect-athletes
However....in the idea of "chemtrails".....the lines in the sky are seen equally over rural locations or oceans.....and sometimes even less over major cities.
The point being, I have yet to find any increase or "spike", where aerobic athletes have succumbed to health problems specifically related to the claimed toxins because of "trails in the sky"......as athletes would be the most vulnerable, if it were true.
More results of the healthiness of aerobic exercise can be found....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aerobic exercise&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=
Last edited: