Aviation fuel additives

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Can anyone provide me with a list of the following:
  1. Fuel types currently in use: Jet A, Jet B, JP-8, etc
  2. A full list of additives currently in those fuels (they have to be approved by someone right?)
  3. A list of other potential chemicals that have the possibility of ending up burnt in the exhaust (have read about lubricants ending up burnt)

In 1989, the Propulsion Directorate began evaluating jet fuel additives to reduce coking and maintenance costs in aircraft engines and fuel systems. In 1994, the directorate selected an additive, designated SPECxAID 8Q462, to test on F-16s with Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engines. The resultant additized fuel, designated JP-8+100, raises the fuel’s thermal stability up to 100∞ F hotter without increasing its propensity to form coke. The two-year test program using JP-8+100 resulted in a significant reduction in coke-related maintenance. To date, thousands of Air Force aircraft, as well as numerous aircraft of allied nations, successfully use JP-8+100. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently approved the use of the Betz Dearborn SPEC×AID 8Q462 fuel additive and its commercial equivalents for all Pratt & Whitney commercial aircraft turbine engines.
Content from External Source
Source: Operation Clarity

And: AMRL Evaluation of the JP-8+100 Jet Fuel Thermal Stability Additive

Image of SPEC×AID 8Q462 fuel additive MSDS with Trade Secret ingredient:

spec-aid-8q462-fuel-stabilizer.png

Is this additive still in use?

Also I have heard about DINNSA:

King Industries committed two sponsoring four chemicals as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. These chemicals include diisononylnaphthalene (CAS No. 63512-64-1); dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid (CAS No. 25322-17-2); dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, calcium salt (CAS. 57855-77-3); dinonylnaphthalene and sulfonic acid , barium salt (CAS. 25619-56-1). As part of King Industries‘ commitment, Exponent has assembled available data and prepared a test plan to Develop additional screening level data on human health effects, environmental fate and effects, and physicochemical properties of the dinonylnaphthalene category.
Content from External Source
Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid is a component of Stadis 450 which is an antistatic agent added to distillate fuels, solvents, commercial jet fuels, and to the military JP-8 fuel to increase the electrical conductivity of the fluid. Fluids with increased conductivity more readily dissipate static charges to mitigate the risk of explosions or fires due to Static Discharge Ignitions
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic_acid

I am trying to figure out What in the World are they Adding... but am having trouble finding that out. Figured I would ask the experts.

Btw someone sent me the FunVax DoD fake vid, and thanks to your debunk on this forum, I gladly ignored the hell out of that video. Thanks =)
 
Please remit deposit of $300 for my research services on this matter.
Debunking free, truth will cost me?

Your inaction is either due to your assumption as to what I will do with this information or you don't know. If you can't list every chemical currently burnt in jet exhaust, then you too have no clue What in the World are they Spraying. lol
Either you are about the truth or not, and this is checkmate boys.

If you don't know, say so. If you do, spit it out. Or, look shadier than you already do by refusing to just tell the truth... what's in the gas?


"A Debunk can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
 
Debunking free, truth will cost me?

Your inaction is either due to your assumption as to what I will do with this information or you don't know. If you can't list every chemical currently burnt in jet exhaust, then you too have no clue What in the World are they Spraying. lol
Either you are about the truth or not, and this is checkmate boys.

If you don't know, say so. If you do, spit it out. Or, look shadier than you already do by refusing to just tell the truth... what's in the gas?


"A Debunk can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain

No, just are just asking people to do research for you. Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?

And debunking IS truth, if done right.
 
Debunking free, truth will cost me?

Your inaction is either due to your assumption as to what I will do with this information or you don't know. If you can't list every chemical currently burnt in jet exhaust, then you too have no clue What in the World are they Spraying. lol
Either you are about the truth or not, and this is checkmate boys.

If you don't know, say so. If you do, spit it out. Or, look shadier than you already do by refusing to just tell the truth... what's in the gas?


"A Debunk can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

That should start you off. It took 6 seconds to type jet fuel into Wikipedia.
 
No, just are just asking people to do research for you. Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?

And debunking IS truth, if done right.

I expect it because your crew happens to be the only group that I know of constantly attacking a community that's concerned about persistent contrails filled with trade secret chemicals.

I don't care if the additives add up to 0.1% of the chemicals present in exhaust... I just want to know what's in there, just like everyone else.

It is laughable that you have an entire website devoted to debunking chemtrails, a forum devoted to debunking chemtrails, yet you actually don't know what's in the gas either.
I don't believe you Mick. I think you do know, and everyone else in the community agrees. You are a talented liar of omissions...

Further, I am not asking you to research for me, as my timeline is almost complete. I simply requested additional info from a community devoted to "i know everything about jet exhaust" only to get "Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?"

Well Mick, unlike you, I am a stickler for the facts. In less than two weeks, I will have a complete list of fuel ingredients and additives from 1980-present, and the information will be public. I don't need your help, I was giving you one last chance to save face.
 
I expect it because your crew happens to be the only group that I know of constantly attacking a community that's concerned about persistent contrails filled with trade secret chemicals.

I don't care if the additives add up to 0.1% of the chemicals present in exhaust... I just want to know what's in there, just like everyone else.

It is laughable that you have an entire website devoted to debunking chemtrails, a forum devoted to debunking chemtrails, yet you actually don't know what's in the gas either.
I don't believe you Mick. I think you do know, and everyone else in the community agrees. You are a talented liar of omissions...

Further, I am not asking you to research for me, as my timeline is almost complete. I simply requested additional info from a community devoted to "i know everything about jet exhaust" only to get "Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?"

Well Mick, unlike you, I am a stickler for the facts. In less than two weeks, I will have a complete list of fuel ingredients and additives from 1980-present, and the information will be public. I don't need your help, I was giving you one last chance to save face.

There is a theory that the lines we see in the sky are either contrails, which dissipate quickly, or chemtrails, which persist. Most of us think that theory is bunk and therefore we debunk it. No one doubts that jet exhaust has pollutants which are a byproduct of burning jet fuel. Most of us do not believe that we are being deliberately sprayed.
 
I expect it because your crew happens to be the only group that I know of constantly attacking a community that's concerned about persistent contrails filled with trade secret chemicals.

I don't care if the additives add up to 0.1% of the chemicals present in exhaust... I just want to know what's in there, just like everyone else.

It is laughable that you have an entire website devoted to debunking chemtrails, a forum devoted to debunking chemtrails, yet you actually don't know what's in the gas either.
I don't believe you Mick. I think you do know, and everyone else in the community agrees. You are a talented liar of omissions...

Further, I am not asking you to research for me, as my timeline is almost complete. I simply requested additional info from a community devoted to "i know everything about jet exhaust" only to get "Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?"

Well Mick, unlike you, I am a stickler for the facts. In less than two weeks, I will have a complete list of fuel ingredients and additives from 1980-present, and the information will be public. I don't need your help, I was giving you one last chance to save face.

Can"t wait to see it!! Please be sure to start a new thread appropriately titled so we don't miss it!

Will it include the "trade secret chemicals?"
 
You still won't know Jim, unless you sample the fuel itself maybe 10 times at 10 locations using documented lab tests with a chain of custody. That will cost you money, but chemtrails advocates like Michael J. Murphy make money off the hoax every day. You should ask him. He already made a movie about it!
 
just because it isnt posted public doesnt mean it isnt know.
just because it isnt posted public doesnt mean it isnt safe
just because it isnt posted public doesnt mean you cant find out
just because it isnt posted public doesnt mean it isnt studied
just because it isnt posted public doesnt mean its being covered up

Youd have a moderately hard time finding out whats even in household cleaners from a chemical standpoint. msds/epa/safety data is openly out there, but IUPAC names, ratios, and formulations, forget it. does that mean that gorilla glue is part of a UN conspiracy to kill babies?

I would go into the list of reasons why, as i am very familiar with them being an avid amateur/home chemist, but i foresee only descent. Suffice to say its simply because anyone who really needs to know will have to tools to find out, and if you dont, you prolly dont need to know, and want to know for nefarious reasons. as has been shown, for $50 you can get a whole book of em, if thats too serious of a requirement for you, you prolly have no valid reason to know whats in it.

This problem plagued me when i was younger before i started buying chemicals from suppliers and learned how to properly source pure/technical grade chemicals OTC. it took me 3 weeks to find H2SO4 to make TNP from asprin when i was 12 because it was never on the label, only "ABCcleaner super200 20% concentrate" or some needlessly vague line. turns out the stuff i used had buffers in it(was also pitch black >.<) which decomposed at nitration temp leading to a run away that turned rather violent! So i slowed down, read a whole lot more, and learned better what i was doing and how to do it right.

Lastly as per the one you did mention, i dont see how you can pick on something that is added to a flammable liquid that is handled around ppl for its antistatic effects...
 
[h=1]Air Pollution in Airports[/h]
Ultrafine particles, solutions and successful cooperation.
Persons working close to exhaust from aircraft and/or diesel engines in airports are exposed to a complex mixture of potentially health damaging air pollution. The National Board of Industrial Injures in Denmark has now recognized several cancer cases, most likely caused by air pollution in airports. The pollution is a serious and overseen work-related threat. This booklet presents a new exhaustive study focusing on air pollution in Danish airports, pollution sources, employee exposure to ultrafine particles and actions to limit the pollution. The main aim of the booklet is to inspire decision makers and other key stakeholders in national and international organizations and in every airport to take action to reduce employee exposure to air pollution with ultrafine particles from aircraft and diesel engines.

By Kåre Press-Kristensen
The Danish Ecological Council, April 2012, Booklet, 28 pages
Content from External Source
http://www.winkas.dk/wkwebshop/varedetaljer.asp?shopid=851152&funique=210&kat&hkat&varegruppe

Air Pollution in Airports.png
PDF: http://www.ecocouncil.dk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=990&Itemid=990

For decades the key focus has been on particulate mass, predominantly coarse and fine particles. The main reason for this is that these larger particles have been easy to measure and because there is a connection between particulate mass and health effects. However, several newer investigations report that ultrafine particles (PM0.1) measured in numbers seem to be a better indicator of harmful air pollution from local exhaust. This is explained by the fact that ultrafine particles have a large surface area available for sorption of toxic compounds (PAHs, VOCs etc.), and that they have a high deposition rate in the finest and most critical parts of the lungs (the alveolar). A part of the deposited ultrafine particles containing the toxic compounds will be transferred from the alveolar directly to the blood and be transported around the body. Furthermore, newer investigations find that nanoparticles might be assimilated directly through the nasal mucous membrane and reach the brain.

Finally, the chemical composition of the ultrafine particles is believed to be crucial for their toxic properties as well. Particles with a high content of soot (black carbon) are believed to be the most dangerous particles, while inorganic sulphate particles are believed to be the least harmful. However, the inhaled particles will often be a complex mixture since organic and inorganic particles aggregate after leaving the engines, and because PAHs and VOCs will be sorbed to the particle surfaces.
Content from External Source
Chemtrails, Carcinogens, and guys like you that say none of this matters.
 
And there is a warning for silicosis on a box of ceramic tile. Does that mean that that the lady who was my ER nurse the other night, who had just finished laying her last tile is going to come down with it?
 
And there is a warning for silicosis on a box of ceramic tile. Does that mean that that the lady who was my ER nurse the other night, who had just finished laying her last tile is going to come down with it?

/facepalm

Box 1: Billions of ultrafine particlesIf a baggage handler inhales air containing 65,000 ultrafine
particles per cm3 on average (Table 5), and inhales 0.5 litre of air
per breath 15 times per minute (quiet work), the result will be
inhalation of 500 million particles per minute. This equates to
240 billion ultrafine particles per workday, of which a significant
part are deposited in the most critical parts of the lungs
(the alveoli), allowing release of some of the toxic compounds
sorbed to the particle surface directly into the bloodstream.
The health effects are difficult to quantify and predict, but this
exposure is definitely not healthy.
Content from External Source
 
I was trying to point out the difference in someone that WORKS in a field and those that only have a casual exposure to it.

Do you have a link for the study that says that "nanoparticles might be assimilated directly through the nasal mucous membrane and reach the brain." ?
 
I expect it because your crew happens to be the only group that I know of constantly attacking a community that's concerned about persistent contrails filled with trade secret chemicals.

Last I looked, your community was concerned about contrails filled with aluminium, barium and strontium... none of which are added to jet fuel. The trade secrets will be very small proportions of chemicals designed to reduce the freezing point, increase the lubricity or reduce the amount of coking and other deposits in the fuel.
 
Last I looked, your community was concerned about contrails filled with aluminium, barium and strontium... none of which are added to jet fuel. The trade secrets will be very small proportions of chemicals designed to reduce the freezing point, increase the lubricity or reduce the amount of coking and other deposits in the fuel.

You guys are a community. I, Jim Lee, an individual person, interested in pollution, and have little care for the conspiracies. I am not a "chemtrail conspiracy" afficianado.

aluminum and barium are in the exhaust per IPCC reports...

IPCC Special Reports on Climate Change - Complete online versions
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Aviation and the Global Atmosphere[/FONT]

3.2.3. Soot and Metal Particles

3.2.3.2 Metal Particles
Content from External Source

Aircraft jet engines also directly emit metal particles. Their sources include engine erosion and the combustion of fuel containing trace metal impurities or metal particles that enter the exhaust with the fuel (Chapter 7). Metal particles-comprising elements such as Al, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ba-are estimated to be present at the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) level at nozzle exit planes (CIAP, 1975; Fordyce and Sheibley, 1975). The corresponding concentrations of 107​ to 108​ particles/kg fuel (assuming 1-mm radius; see below) are much smaller than for soot. Although metals have been found as residuals in cirrus and contrail ice particles (Chen et al., 1998; Petzold et al., 1998; Twohy and Gandrud, 1998), their number and associated mass are considered too small to affect the formation or properties of more abundant volatile and soot plume aerosol particles.
Content from External Source


You were saying? For those who don't know, Al is aluminum and Ba is barium.

Barium is from additives like DINNSA among others...


Not surprisingly, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) only makes casual mention of these metal particles, and fails to provide any information as to their role in atmospheric aerosol formation. source

King Industries committed two sponsoring four chemicals as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. These chemicals include diisononylnaphthalene (CAS No. 63512-64-1); dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid (CAS No. 25322-17-2); dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, calcium salt (CAS. 57855-77-3); dinonylnaphthalene and sulfonic acid , barium salt (CAS. 25619-56-1). As part of King Industries‘ commitment, Exponent has assembled available data and prepared a test plan to Develop additional screening level data on human health effects, environmental fate and effects, and physicochemical properties of the dinonylnaphthalene category.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was trying to point out the difference in someone that WORKS in a field and those that only have a casual exposure to it.

Do you have a link for the study that says that "nanoparticles might be assimilated directly through the nasal mucous membrane and reach the brain." ?

Yes, 2010
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-211-98811-4_65

Nanoparticles are small sized (1–100 nm) particles derived from transition metals, silver, copper, aluminum, silicon, carbon and metal oxides that can easily cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and/or produce damage to the barrier integrity by altering endothelial cell membrane permeability. However, the influence of nanoparticles on BBB integrity is still not well-known. In this investigation, effect of nanoparticles derived from Ag, Al and Cu (50–60 nm) on BBB permeability in relation to brain edema formation was examined in a rat model. Intravenous (30 mg/kg), intraperitoneal (50 mg/kg) or intracerebral (20 µg in 10 µL) administration of Ag, Cu or Al nanoparticles disrupted the BBB function to Evans blue albumin (EBA) and radioiodine in rats 24 h after administration and induced brain edema formation. The leakage of Evans blue dye was observed largely in the ventral surface of brain and in the proximal frontal cortex. The dorsal surfaces of cerebellum showed mild to moderate EBA staining. These effects were most pronounced in animals that received Ag or Cu nanoparticles compared to Al nanoparticles through intravenous routes. These observations are the first to suggest that nanoparticles can induce brain edema formation by influencing BBB breakdown in vivo.
Content from External Source
Authors
Author Affiliations
  • 1. Laboratory of Cerebrovascular Research, Department of Surgical Science, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, Frodingsgatan 12:28, Uppsala, SE-75421, Sweden
  • 2. Neurochemistry Laboratory, Division of Neurotoxicology, National Centre for Toxicological Research/FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA
  • 3. Applied Biotechnology Branch, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH, USA
  • 4. Neurochemistry Laboratory, Division of Neurotoxicology, National Centre for Toxicological Research/FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA
Content from External Source

Nanoparticles causing brain swelling due to transmission through the brain's protective shield. Aluminum and Silver are listed. Wright-Patterson is a member of the Weather Modification Association. Silver Iodide is the preferred cloud-seeding agent in America. Are they testing the safety of inhalation of silver nanoparticles? Yes.

http://www.weathermodification.org/corporateroster.php


NASIC/DEKA
Attn: Gregory T. Marx
4180 Watson Way
FL 2830 Technical Library
WPAFB, OH 45433
Ph: 937-522-3607
Fax: 937-522-2315
E-m: gtm567@gmail.com
Content from External Source



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, 2010
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-211-98811-4_65

Nanoparticles are small sized (1–100 nm) particles derived from transition metals, silver, copper, aluminum, silicon, carbon and metal oxides that can easily cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and/or produce damage to the barrier integrity by altering endothelial cell membrane permeability. However, the influence of nanoparticles on BBB integrity is still not well-known. In this investigation, effect of nanoparticles derived from Ag, Al and Cu (50–60 nm) on BBB permeability in relation to brain edema formation was examined in a rat model. Intravenous (30 mg/kg), intraperitoneal (50 mg/kg) or intracerebral (20 µg in 10 µL) administration of Ag, Cu or Al nanoparticles disrupted the BBB function to Evans blue albumin (EBA) and radioiodine in rats 24 h after administration and induced brain edema formation. The leakage of Evans blue dye was observed largely in the ventral surface of brain and in the proximal frontal cortex. The dorsal surfaces of cerebellum showed mild to moderate EBA staining. These effects were most pronounced in animals that received Ag or Cu nanoparticles compared to Al nanoparticles through intravenous routes. These observations are the first to suggest that nanoparticles can induce brain edema formation by influencing BBB breakdown in vivo.
Content from External Source
Authors
Author Affiliations
  • 1. Laboratory of Cerebrovascular Research, Department of Surgical Science, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, Frodingsgatan 12:28, Uppsala, SE-75421, Sweden
  • 2. Neurochemistry Laboratory, Division of Neurotoxicology, National Centre for Toxicological Research/FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA
  • 3. Applied Biotechnology Branch, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH, USA
  • 4. Neurochemistry Laboratory, Division of Neurotoxicology, National Centre for Toxicological Research/FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA
Content from External Source

Nanoparticles causing brain swelling due to transmission through the brain's protective shield. Aluminum and Silver are listed. Wright-Patterson is a member of the Weather Modification Association. Silver Iodide is the preferred cloud-seeding agent in America. Are they testing the safety of inhalation of silver nanoparticles? Yes.

http://www.weathermodification.org/corporateroster.php


NASIC/DEKA
Attn: Gregory T. Marx
4180 Watson Way
FL 2830 Technical Library
WPAFB, OH 45433
Ph: 937-522-3607
Fax: 937-522-2315
E-m: gtm567@gmail.com
Content from External Source



Interesting. . . .does anyone know the concentration threshold for damage to humans and animals and does anyone know the tonnage dispersed by weather modification and commercial aviation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys are a community. I, Jim Lee, an individual person, interested in pollution, and have little care for the conspiracies. I am not a "chemtrail conspiracy" afficianado."

Unfortunately though, the chemtrail community seems not to have realized that:

http://aircrap.org/truther-girls-an...w-chemtrails-haarp-and-geoengineering/336509/
Tonight on Truther Girls radio my guest is the mind-blowing Jim Lee, who has worked tirelessly for the past two years to put together a 3D map of Radiation, Chemtrails and all kinds of earth changes.
Content from External Source
Regardless, why are you posting this here? Are you suggesting there's a link behind additives and persistent contrails? Any evidence?
 
Interesting. . . .does anyone know the concentration threshold for damage to humans and animals and does anyone know the tonnage dispersed by weather modification and commercial aviation?

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#Impact_on_environment_and_health

With an NFPA 704 rating of Blue 2, silver iodide can cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury to humans and mammals with intense or continued but not chronic exposure. However, there have been several detailed ecological studies that showed negligible environmental and health impacts.[13][14][15] The toxicity of silver and silver compounds (from silver iodide) was shown to be of low order in some studies. These findings likely result from the minute amounts of silver generated by cloud seeding, which are 100 times less than industry emissions into the atmosphere in many parts of the world, or individual exposure from tooth fillings.[16]Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background.[17] A 1995 environmental assessment in the Sierra Nevada of California[18] and a 2004 independent panel of experts (an overview only is presented in the executive summary of the research) in Australia confirmed these earlier findings.
Cloud seeding over Kosciuszko National Park - a Biosphere Reserve - is problematic in that several rapid changes of environmental legislation were made to enable the "trial." Environmentalists are concerned about the uptake of elemental silver in a highly sensitive environment affecting the pygmy possum amongst other species as well as recent high level algal blooms in once pristine glacial lakes. The ABC program Earthbeat on July 14, 2004 heard that not every cloud has a silver lining where concerns for the health of the pygmy possums was raised. Research 50 years ago and analysis by the former Snowy Mountains Authority led to the cessation of the cloud seeding program in the 1950s with non-definitive results. Formerly, cloud seeding was rejected in Australia on environmental grounds because of concerns about the protected species, the pygmy possum. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver is the cloud seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact are disputed by peer-reviewed research as summarized by the international Weather Modification Association.
Content from External Source
 
Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#Impact_on_environment_and_health

With an NFPA 704 rating of Blue 2, silver iodide can cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury to humans and mammals with intense or continued but not chronic exposure. However, there have been several detailed ecological studies that showed negligible environmental and health impacts.[13][14][15] The toxicity of silver and silver compounds (from silver iodide) was shown to be of low order in some studies. These findings likely result from the minute amounts of silver generated by cloud seeding, which are 100 times less than industry emissions into the atmosphere in many parts of the world, or individual exposure from tooth fillings.[16]Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background.[17] A 1995 environmental assessment in the Sierra Nevada of California[18] and a 2004 independent panel of experts (an overview only is presented in the executive summary of the research) in Australia confirmed these earlier findings.
Cloud seeding over Kosciuszko National Park - a Biosphere Reserve - is problematic in that several rapid changes of environmental legislation were made to enable the "trial." Environmentalists are concerned about the uptake of elemental silver in a highly sensitive environment affecting the pygmy possum amongst other species as well as recent high level algal blooms in once pristine glacial lakes. The ABC program Earthbeat on July 14, 2004 heard that not every cloud has a silver lining where concerns for the health of the pygmy possums was raised. Research 50 years ago and analysis by the former Snowy Mountains Authority led to the cessation of the cloud seeding program in the 1950s with non-definitive results. Formerly, cloud seeding was rejected in Australia on environmental grounds because of concerns about the protected species, the pygmy possum. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver is the cloud seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact are disputed by peer-reviewed research as summarized by the international Weather Modification Association.
Content from External Source
Hmmm . . . Thanks Mick . . .I had read that before but still wondered if Jim Lee had a different set of data or approach . . .
 
Unfortunately though, the chemtrail community seems not to have realized that:

http://aircrap.org/truther-girls-an...w-chemtrails-haarp-and-geoengineering/336509/
Tonight on Truther Girls radio my guest is the mind-blowing Jim Lee, who has worked tirelessly for the past two years to put together a 3D map of Radiation, Chemtrails and all kinds of earth changes.
Content from External Source
Regardless, why are you posting this here? Are you suggesting there's a link behind additives and persistent contrails? Any evidence?

I am only interested in the effects of aviation pollution on ocean acidification due to acid rain, effects of black carbon deposists on warming the artic due to melting polar ice from "black highways," and the effects of global aerosol pollution on human health.

I'm interested in pollution, not the finer points of how man-made clouds are formed.
I leave that to the AMS and Weather Modification Association.
http://annual.ametsoc.org/2013/inde...planned-and-inadvertent-weather-modification/
 
Interesting. . . .does anyone know the concentration threshold for damage to humans and animals and does anyone know the tonnage dispersed by weather modification and commercial aviation?


http://rezn8d.net/2013/03/23/operation-clarity-the-end-of-chemtrails/
Here we see a breakdown of what actually comes out of the aircraft engines, and how that affects climate, health, and money.“SO” is sulfur and “Csoot” is Carbon Black

A round trip flight from New York to Los Angeles releases as much C02 as one automobile does in an entire year. On a yearly basis all air travel releases 600 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 1 round trip flight from NY to LA = 2,000 pounds of CO2! Neither chemtrail supporters nor debunkers point out the obvious effects aviation has on our climate.
Content from External Source
600 million tons of CO2, how many tons of aluminum, barium, and other nanoparticles per year? Unknown.

Ignore Mick attempting to simplify this to my comment about silver iodide. This is an attempt to divert the conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://rezn8d.net/2013/03/23/operation-clarity-the-end-of-chemtrails/
Here we see a breakdown of what actually comes out of the aircraft engines, and how that affects climate, health, and money.“SO” is sulfur and “Csoot” is Carbon Black

A round trip flight from New York to Los Angeles releases as much C02 as one automobile does in an entire year. On a yearly basis all air travel releases 600 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 1 round trip flight from NY to LA = 2,000 pounds of CO2! Neither chemtrail supporters nor debunkers point out the obvious effects aviation has on our climate.
Content from External Source
600 million tons of CO2, how many tons of aluminum, barium, and other nanoparticles per year? Unknown.

Ignore Mick attempting to simplify this to my comment about silver iodide. This is an attempt to divert the conversation.
No doubt the tonnage from an aircraft is significant and much of it above 30,000 feet but how does it compare with 300 automobiles going from NYC to LA and back?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://rezn8d.net/2013/03/23/operation-clarity-the-end-of-chemtrails/

600 million tons of CO2, how many tons of aluminum, barium, and other nanoparticles per year? Unknown.

Ignore Mick attempting to simplify this to my comment about silver iodide. This is an attempt to divert the conversation.

Er, no it's not.

What goes in must come out. you get 600 million tons of CO2 because that's the primary product of combustion. The emission from jet engine are, at an elemental level, about 99.9% the hydrogen and carbon in the fuel combined with the oxygen in the air.

So the emissions of aluminum, etc, can be calculated for the amount of aluminum, etc, in the fuel. And basically it's trace amounts, measured in parts per billion.

Vastly less than emission from industry.

And any combustion produces nanoparticles of trace elements. When you burn a candle you are producing nanoparticles of metals. You need to look at all these amounts in context.
 
Air Pollution in Airports

Ultrafine particles, solutions and successful cooperation.
Persons working close to exhaust from aircraft and/or diesel engines in airports are exposed to a complex mixture of potentially health damaging air pollution. The National Board of Industrial Injures in Denmark has now recognized several cancer cases, most likely caused by air pollution in airports. The pollution is a serious and overseen work-related threat. This booklet presents a new exhaustive study focusing on air pollution in Danish airports, pollution sources, employee exposure to ultrafine particles and actions to limit the pollution. The main aim of the booklet is to inspire decision makers and other key stakeholders in national and international organizations and in every airport to take action to reduce employee exposure to air pollution with ultrafine particles from aircraft and diesel engines.

By Kåre Press-Kristensen
The Danish Ecological Council, April 2012, Booklet, 28 pages
Content from External Source
http://www.winkas.dk/wkwebshop/varedetaljer.asp?shopid=851152&funique=210&kat&hkat&varegruppe

Air Pollution in Airports.png
PDF: http://www.ecocouncil.dk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=990&Itemid=990

For decades the key focus has been on particulate mass, predominantly coarse and fine particles. The main reason for this is that these larger particles have been easy to measure and because there is a connection between particulate mass and health effects. However, several newer investigations report that ultrafine particles (PM0.1) measured in numbers seem to be a better indicator of harmful air pollution from local exhaust. This is explained by the fact that ultrafine particles have a large surface area available for sorption of toxic compounds (PAHs, VOCs etc.), and that they have a high deposition rate in the finest and most critical parts of the lungs (the alveolar). A part of the deposited ultrafine particles containing the toxic compounds will be transferred from the alveolar directly to the blood and be transported around the body. Furthermore, newer investigations find that nanoparticles might be assimilated directly through the nasal mucous membrane and reach the brain.

Finally, the chemical composition of the ultrafine particles is believed to be crucial for their toxic properties as well. Particles with a high content of soot (black carbon) are believed to be the most dangerous particles, while inorganic sulphate particles are believed to be the least harmful. However, the inhaled particles will often be a complex mixture since organic and inorganic particles aggregate after leaving the engines, and because PAHs and VOCs will be sorbed to the particle surfaces.
Content from External Source
Chemtrails, Carcinogens, and guys like you that say none of this matters.


I thought you were talking about planes spraying chemicals (chemtrails) and the purpose was global warming? Is it global warming or carcinogens? Is it chemicals added to exhaust intentionally in order to change the weather/make us sick or is it air pollution you are talking about now, like what comes from car exhaust?
 
600 million tons of CO2, how many tons of aluminum, barium, and other nanoparticles per year? Unknown.

Ignore Mick attempting to simplify this to my comment about silver iodide. This is an attempt to divert the conversation.

THen you ARE talking about chemtrails! Do you have proof that barium and aluminum are added to fuel or sprayed from tanks?
 
What goes in must come out. you get 600 million tons of CO2 because that's the primary product of combustion. The emission from jet engine are, at an elemental level, about 99.9% the hydrogen and carbon in the fuel combined with the oxygen in the air.

So the emissions of aluminum, etc, can be calculated for the amount of aluminum, etc, in the fuel. And basically it's trace amounts, measured in parts per billion.

Vastly less than emission from industry.

And any combustion produces nanoparticles of trace elements. When you burn a candle you are producing nanoparticles of metals. You need to look at all these amounts in context.

This.
 
I mean in this thread. I know he's got a wide variety of theories elsewhere (at least implied theories).

Jim, maybe you could clarify?
 
Skip to 48:24 in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWSZxtGlseI

He calls the cirrostratus clouds and contrails "chemtrails".

At 49:06 he refers to the contrails as "typical metal laden trails of aerosols being spread out vertically into the storm, on the west side of the storm so its pulled right into the eye...".

Then at 50 minutes he says "It looks like they laden it with chemicals. They understand that this stuff affects it."...

That certainly looks to me like he thinks stuff is being sprayed deliberately.

I too would like him to clarify whether he is merely interested in pollution as a byproduct of aviation or if he thinks the pollution is a by-product of stuff added to aviation fuel for non-aviation purposes. I do not have that impression from his videos.

Oh, and by the way, the cirrus clouds at the tropopause around the periphery of tropical cyclones are known as "outflow" cirrus. They are part of air flowing away from the convection at the core of the storm. Air flows toward the cyclone at the surface and away from it aloft such that you have cyclonic flow at the surface and anti-cyclonic flow aloft. Anything coming from an airplane in that layer, contrails or otherwise, flow away from the storm. Additionally, contails are going to form and persist in that environment irrespective of fuel additives.
 
Back
Top