Athletes would be affected the most by air toxicity (spraying), but are they ?


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)

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.

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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
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. 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" athletes would be the most vulnerable, if it were true.

More results of the healthiness of aerobic exercise can be found.... exercise&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=
Last edited:
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" athletes would be the most vulnerable, if it were true.

Indeed. As would the average "jogger"...a commonplace activity, has been for several decades by now.

Yet? No statistical correlation to disease, as a result. (the exact opposite is considered, for those who over-all health improvement).

Excellent work, well thought-out!
During the BP spill in the Gulf, folks were reporting 'health problems' from the 'fumes'. I kept pointing out that there are several greyhound tracks along the Gulf coast, and they never lost a day of racing.

Greyhounds, have very little body fat and they are known to be sensitive to toxins that will not bother other breeds of dogs.
Bird loss is sometimes a sign of toxicity, yet no bird loss has been attributed (by ornithologists) to trails in the sky.....that I am aware of.
Last edited:
Pilots themselves would be the most affected due to the highly increased concentrations at altitude yet there's no obvious medical problems with that group.
I'm not claiming definitively that the "white trails" are not toxic to "exercising humans" or birds, I'm saying the evidence is not there, and may contribute to the null hypothesis.
Dammit!! and I thought there was going to be a really good excuse for staying in your mum;s basement on the internet all day instead of getting out and getting some air!!! :p
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" athletes would be the most vulnerable, if it were true.
I don't know. I think you need ALOT more data here.

are there studies showing athletes specifically suffer more health issues from regular pollution?
Both controlled human studies and observational studies suggest that air pollution adversely affects athletic performance during both training and competition. The air pollution dosage during exercise is much higher than during rest because of a higher ventilatory rate and both nasal and oral breathing in the former case. For example, sulfur dioxide, which is a highly water-soluble gas, is almost entirely absorbed in the upper respiratory tract during nasal breathing. However, with oral pharyngeal breathing, the amount of sulfur dioxide that is absorbed is significantly less, and with exercise and oral pharyngeal breathing a significant decrease in upper airway absorption occurs, resulting in a significantly larger dosage of this pollutant being delivered to the tracheobronchial tree.
Content from External Source

Objectives—To establish by literature survey: (a) levels at which air pollutants are considered damaging to human health and to exercisers in particular; (b) the current ambient levels experienced in the United Kingdom; (c) whether athletes are especially at risk.

Methods—Six major urban air pollutants were examined: carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOX); ozone (O3); particulate matter (PM10); sulphur dioxide (SO2); volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Results—CO is detrimental to athletic performance. NO2 is of concern to human health, but outdoor levels are low. O3 poses a potentially serious risk to exercising athletes. Decrements in lung function result from exposure, and there is evidence that athletic performance may be affected.
Content from External Source
Air pollution may affect athletic performance. In Los Angeles, contaminants include carbon monoxide, ozone, peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN) and nitrogen oxides, whereas in older European cities, such as Sarajevo, "reducing smog" of sulfur dioxide is the main hazard. The carbon monoxide and ozone levels expected in Los Angeles this summer could affect the athletes' performance in endurance events at the Olympic Games. Carbon monoxide may also impair psychomotor abilities, and PAN causes visual disturbances. The only likely physiologic consequence from reducing smog is an increase in the workload of the respiratory system and thus a decrease in endurance performance.
Content from External Source
Last edited:
cool. now They just have to show that athletic performance is worse when ( or after) contrails are present : )

and that its not due to lack of sleep, poor hydration, muscle pain type stuff, blood sugar levels.
small study but at least it's an actual health issue
The prevalence of physician diagnosed asthma is high in elite athletes and an association with the competitive event is suggested with long distance runners having a greater risk of developing asthma than speed and power athletes. This may be due to prolonged hyperventilation and increased exposure to inhalant allergens and irritants during endurance training and competition.
Content from External Source
....and that any health effects cannot necessarily be associated with such singular events as, say..... a two-week period of Olympic Games in smog-filled cities, such as Beijing, or Mexico City. Results need to be quantified in the area in which the athletes train, throughout the year.
....or better, the area where the average aerobic athlete resides and exercises on a regular basis.
I was interviewed for a 1 year job in Shanghai, China. (not known for many trails in the sky, but some)
Because of the city's heavy industrial and automotive pollution, it was strongly recommended that if I intended to exercise at all, that it be indoors, where the air is filtered -- because of the well acknowledged outdoor air pollution.
...a few links and quotes for the 2016 Olympics......and a place not too known for "chemtrails" or it's claimed problems....

RIO DE JANEIRO, Dec 24 2012 (IPS) - Environmental authorities in this southeastern Brazilian city are installing more air quality control stations in the locations where competitions are to be held during the 2016 Olympic Games, so that air pollution will not hurt the athletes’ performance. The 16 new air quality monitoring stations in Rio de Janeiro, which will cost 14 million dollars, will carry out a constant check on emissions of polluting gases like carbon monoxide.

They will also transmit real-time meteorological data minute by minute to a computerised centre at the State Environmental Institute (INEA). The monitoring stations, added to the five that already exist in the city, form part of the “environmental commitment” signed by the government and the Brazilian Olympic Committee, Carlos Minc, the environment secretary for the state of Rio de Janeiro, told IPS.

“Some air pollutants affect athlete performance. Ozone is one of them,” he said. Minc’s interview with IPS took place during the installation of a monitoring centre at the Rodrigo de Freitas lagoon, where rowing and other aquatic competitions will be held.

According to Minc, a very small increase in the concentration of ozone (a pollutant and respiratory hazard at ground level) is enough to prevent an athlete setting a new record in a sport such as a marathon or a swimming race.
Content from External Source
Oct. 21 (2013) - Sao Paulo, host city of the first World Cup soccer match next year, has a major pollution problem. A recent study says air pollution in the southern Brazilian city causes three times more deaths than breast cancer or traffic accidents and costs the state US$160 million per year.
(see video)
Content from External Source