Just been looking at the website http://www.chemtrailsproject.com/ and noticed that there is a distinct east-west divide. Most of the rainwater tests East of a N-S line just to the East of Fort Worth, Texas do not show any Aluminium, Barium or Strontium. Most of the rainwater tests West of the N-S line show some Aluminium, Barium, or Strontium. Funny old world, isn't it?
Something else I found Isn't natural geology fascinating? It's one of the things I learned researching the KSLA "news" story about "chemtrails". Barium is the 14th most common crustal element, and some areas of the country have Ba, Al, and Sr is absolutely everywhere......including the area where that particular story was broadcast. Found this in my research....it's a complete mineralogical survey of the US, broken down by element.http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1270/pdf/PP1270_508.pdf It's from 1984, but there have been very few geological events that would change crustal distribution since then. Between the natural mineral being in the air and (possibly) water in these areas, and the basic facts so often ignored by "chemtrailers", that barium is in many different products including those used with medical need, it seems it would be more surprising if Ba was not found in someone's tests. LOL at one thing I forgot to mention......if you look at the USGS mineral map online right now, only the east half of the US is shown. So unless there is no mineral deposits at all in the western US, which is just stupid, there is a glitch. Which is usually leapt upon by "chemtrail" believers as confirmation of their views.
Probably because West of that line, it is arid and often dusty. East of there, much more vegetation, more rain, so less airborne soil aerosols as a result.
Thank you Firepilot. Having never been further west than Iona, I never really thought about it in those terms. Thought they may have used 2 different labs using slightly different testing methods.
Especially in feb-may, West Texas, New Mexico, Colorado are quite windy. I am in southern NM right now and its windy, and I clean dust off of the airplane windows daily. Just more wind, more arid sandy soil, and less vegetation to hold it all down. Thats why it is perplexing that in these same sandy, dusty windy areas that are ripe for higher amounts of aerosols, chemtrail belief is higher. You would think it is obvious that there is so much more exposed soil/sand to be blown around, especially in higher elevation areas with wind, than out east where the ground is covered in vegetation for the most part.
Out east, they are lucky that their rain is more showery and leaves a car cleaner than it was before the rain. Compare to out west, where you can get a sprinkle or short duration rain, that lasts long enough to just grab dust out of the air, and then your car is dirtier than it was before it rained.
The alkaline earth metals magnesium, calcium, strontium and barium are depleted in US eastern soils, and the soil pH is much lower there, both due to higher rainfall depleting these from soils. Also, much of the western soils developed as part of a great basin, while much of eastern US soils developed from a granite substrate.
Any thought that it may be pollution coming over the pacific from China? Having flown over Guam many times on my way to Japan, the pollution over the Pacific at the same latitudes as China is something to behold.
Sure, depite Dane Wgington's claims to the contrary, asian dust is frequent and does contain aluminum and barium. The second largest generator of dust, right behind North Africa, are the central asian deserts. Asian pollution makes it across the Pacific and has a signaure which has ben studied along the west coat snd nationwide for many years. Strontium is found in ordinary marine salt spray coming across the Pacific. Citations: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGr5lxdqOvvfsUSD0OJr4uJznqI-A http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ict/docs/asian-dust02.pdf http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/aerosol/Case_studies/20010413_epac/ http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002900/a002957/chinadust-60.m2v Dane Wigington, prepare yourself to be exposed.
Here is a "result" from the UK. Don't know where they got the "safe levels" as there are no units for them, but it looks like there is nothing for them to worry about.... so they are. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/pages/Chemtrails-Project-Scotland/153521064756595 [h=6]Olga Raffa [/h][h=6]Chemtrails Project UK: Rainwater test results with safe levels noted Olga Raffa Product: Rainwater Frampton Mansell ... Gloucestershire U.K. TEST RESULT UNITS pH 6.11 Aluminium (Al) <10.00 μg/L Safe level .2 Barium (Ba) <10.00 μg/L '' Safe level .7 not tested for strontium or Titanium Strontium (Sr) <0 mg/L Titanium (Ti) <0 mg/L Manganese (Mn) 2.0 μg/L '' Safe level .3 Iron (Fe) <10.0 μg/L '' Safe level .3 Copper (Cu) 40.0 μg/L Safe level 2. Zinc (Zn) <10.0 μg/L Arsenic (As) <0.1 μg/L Notes: < means ‘is less than’ > means ‘is greater than’ N/A means ‘not applicable’ [/h]
I think those "Safe Levels" are in mg/L, like the Aluminum, 0.2 mg/L comes from here: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm So that would be 200 ug/L. So a level of <10ug is perfectly safe. Of course it's even more safe than that, as there is NO SAFE LIMIT for aluminum in water, seeing as it's not actually really toxic. The EPA limit is just for water color and taste.
Just found out where the "safe levels" came from. The Australian Analysis in update #2 3/14/2010 on one of your pages over at contrailscience.com Mick. http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/comment-page-9/#comment-147107
A "reporting limit" is the lowest detectable amount, not some safe limit. The EPA safe limit for barium is 2000 ppb, and for aluminum the cosmetic limit is 200 ppb, but no safe limit, as it's not toxic in oxide form (which is the only way it's in water). http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm
I was going to mention that same exact point. Reporting point is in regards to the equipment, not in reporting it to the authorities.
They like to use Basic Labs, and their reports look like this: They describe the Reporting level (RL) as "Minimum Level of Quantitation", which might have led to the confusion, as quantitation is simply the act of measurement, so this is "smallest level that can be measured. Instead they prefer to look at the next line "Maximum Contamination Level/Action Level", despite the fact that they don't actually list an MCL/AL (There's also the MDL, which is the method detection limit, meaning they can detect it at all if it's below this limit. Between MDL and RL is a grey area of increasing accuracy.
Today I went through the Chemtrails Project data at: http://www.chemtrailsproject.com/ I listed all the sample results and converted them to common units of ug/L (micrograms/liter) Several of the listings had anomalous levels far higher than the others, but in each case those listings were in either ppm or mg/L, so I believe those were cases where the units were listed incorrectly, and separated them out until actual lab reports are available to confirm the validity of the units listed. Here are the results:
For comparison, aluminum levels found in rain and snow during 1967 were a high of 1120, a low of 520 and an average of 800 ug/L: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow in 1973, an average was 350 ug/L in Nebraska: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1281
well done guys Thats a really ugly data set tho cause of all those zero's in the pile. Typically you'd throw out the high and the low, but thats a ton of zero's, I'm not sure what I'd do with that but I guess if it was bellow detectable limits then its a count within the average. With that many zero's I'd question there methodology. What a mess. Oh and those anomalous highs are definitely not worth counting. If it was my study I'd be doing multiple samples from each site so as to avoid those kinda spurious data.
They tried that, and for aluminum got results which varied from 15 to 82 ug/L from the same rain event. http://geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/newyork/GeoengineerDataNewYork.doc
I have just read this and I cannot believe the analysis. I may fall foul of the politeness policy but I cannot see how anyone with any form of environmental based degree can make such a piss poor interpretation. Forgive me if I am wrong as I do not know the area very well, but is Long Island not far from New York which is just slightly urbanised? Where is the discussion about the citys air quality, traffic or industry, or the fact it is 21st in the US for pollution?http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html Where are the nearest coal or oil fired power stations? I did a quick Google and NY has absolutely shedloads of air quality data such as this http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29306.html (I think that covers Long Island), as well as tracking down installations such as power stations http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/default.htm The area seems to have an airport near by as well. For a "scientist" to come out with such a statement is not just ridiculous but insulting to the wider science community. Is this the type of interpretation that is provided for all the data sent in? I notice the UK mob send their data off to Mangels to be "analysed" and if this is the type of reply they are receiving no wonder they are not approachable. God help anyone who thinks that Mangels has any form of credibility in science. This is not something even I find laughable. The guy should be ashamed of himself.
Who did that test and where on LI? And who has made these asinine comments? If finding iron and manganese is a surprise to this person, they can't possibly know anything about the island. I moved to a rural area of the island (yes we still have very rural areas we are not all NYC) 25 years ago that was not hooked up to town water. The first thing I noticed was all my wash came out brown. Talked to the neighbors they all had water filters. When my water tested it had very high levels of iron and manganese. I have a friend from Hampton Bays on the South Fork with a well and no water filter. If you fill a gallon jug with water, the iron will fall to the bottom if you let it sit. I once did a taste test of the water from the filtered fridge and the tap, that was when you really detected the iron taste. Without the comparison you got used to it. As Biggerdave says this person should be ashamed of themselves. While the test says it was of rainwater, and my testing was groundwater, I have to believe that the rainwater passed through dust and particulate from the ground. Also, I have no faith in CTers methods of testing. They don't seem to have the most rigorous scientific controls. For all I know the person who supplied the same got it from the tap and said they collected it from a rainfall. They've already shown they're willing to photoshop photos of and forge letters on the letterhead of public agencies to get the word out.
Instead he is quite full of himself. He made a pubic challenge to debate, when I accepted, he refused. More: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-claims-of-francis-mangels-a-factual-examination.154/
The test says snow sample. Sometimes they take snow that's laying on the ground, but even if we assume they measured falling snow those results are not at all out of line with expected results given dust contamination.
How many conspiracies / scare stories have had their credibility (for want of a better word) damaged when it's shown they used a partisan 'laboratory' or 'expert' that is invested in providing results that confirm what those paying for them want to hear too? It's MMR all over again.
I believe most of them who decide to test, are genuinely doing it because they believe they will actually find something shocking. Can they do the test incorrectly ? .....sure. Can they spike the sample? sure. I have a feeling many chemtrail believers still have an area of doubt, and therefore they try to do the test as correctly as possible. It's their way of satisfying this doubt. But they need to be schooled on how to interpret the results correctly......and be aware of what constitutes an average, expected result, even if there were no lines in the sky. I support the rainwater testing.....it just may very well change some minds, and at the very least, help eliminate one fallacy to the conspiracy. After all, aren't we the ones asking them for real evidence ? If they indeed make the effort to go get some, and find they were incorrect in their prior beliefs....we should thank them politely, and move on to the next fallacy. I do wonder how many have done such a test, not returning "high levels"..... and won't post those results for others to see.
I used to support the idea of testing until I experienced the intransigence of those presenting the results. For the result to prove chemtrails you have to first eliminate every other explanation (and there are many). I have only been debunking a short while but I have yet to meet anyone that is willing to put in that basic work. The meme from Mangels and Wigington is that rainwater should not contain any of the metals they claim. That claim has no basis in real life, unless you wish to claim that you never saw dust outside until 1997. Christ knows what happened to air pollution, and I know they taught it in schools in the '70's, but obviously that does not exist any more.
I had a bit of time today, so I went through the map and made an updated table of the data currently displayed. But I included only those results reported as "rainwater" (not soil, snow, tap water, etc.). These are shown as ug/L, although in a handful of cases there were no units listed, and I had to guess. I generally guessed generously that they were reported in mg/L, and converted accordingly. Out of 60 samples, 45 (75%) reported aluminum below detection levels. Of the 57 samples that indicated that they tested for barium, 35 (61.4%) were reported as "not detected". The sample from Ewel C. from Colorado was a clear outlier, and I suspect that he took figures reported in ug/L and incorrectly submitted them as "PPM". The only other unusual sample was from Dane W. (presumably Wigington), showing 3,450 ug/L from a thunder storm - and as reported in the historical literature, higher amounts of Al tend to be found in water from rapid storms (see Struempler, AW. 1975. Trace metals in rain and snow during 1973 at Chadron, Nebraska). Leaving out that one outlier from CO, and treating "not detected" samples as zero, I get a mean of 114.78 ug/L aluminum, and 8.72 ug/L barium. Even if one removes all of the "ND" results, the average is 444.79 ug/L aluminum, and 22.6 ug/L barium - not at all unusual compared to what has been reported in the scientific literature. Note the one sample from Dr. I.S. Perlingieri in Maine - both Al and Ba were "ND". Numerous people also tested for arsenic, but all had an "ND" result. In retrospect, I should have included the pH results.
I think you have too much time on your hands Belfrey To be frank outside of looking at possible clusters for some data there is nothing there. I was considering doing a statistical analysis of the data based on the hypothesis that Al or Ba would be present. At the end of the day the chemtrailers claim is that rainwater does not contain any of the elements they claim, therefore every sample they took should have those substances in them. You don't need a Masters in Statistics and the latest edition of SPSS or STATA to be able to realise that if 75% of my sample has no content in all probability my hypothesis is shit. Any analysis on the quantities of those samples that do is entirely irrelevant. Firstly you could not discount over 50 or 75% of your data and secondly their claim is simple, it has a yes or no answer. A thank you to both you and Jay for the tables. I do intend to copy them and use them in arguments.
You are welcome. We probably won't get any thanks from the Chemtrails Project, but I thank them for giving us their own petard.
Why is the CIA funding geoengineering ? http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-07/spooks-look-mad-science-global-warming-solution Wow sounds like a chemtrail ? Everytime they mention geoengineering in any story its the same ? Good thing they are only studying it ? Why has Florida had the coolest summer and wettest in 24 years iv been here while the rest of the US is having a heat wave ?
Nasa needs to stick with space not Earth or so called climate change . Nasa has become a big joke down here lately .
No, that's what they do. Study the world geopolitical situation. Climate is an important part of that: https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html
