Dane Wigington's speech


Senior Member.
There is a point raised in part three, regarding the UV index, that I had never heard mentioned before.

The speaker suggests that the change in the UV index scale is an indication of an increase in UV radiation. He goes on to say that "they" (presumably the EPA) never offered an explanation for why they changed the UV index.

Part 3 - Aluminum Dispersed in our Atmosphere 1:06

...and another consequence that is even perhaps more insidious, that no one disputes about geo-engineering is that it will decimate the ozone layer. If the sun feels hot on your face of late ... I mean... certainly if you have all the scientific data that states that will be a consequence. They've raised the scale of UV from 1 - 10 to 1 - 15, and no one's given an explanation for why that was necessary."

A four minute internet search (I'm not kidding... I timed it... it took four minutes) lead to this document published by the EPA. In it, they explain that in order to avoid confusion and provide consistent reporting of UV exposure, they have abandoned their own UV reporting index and adopted one that adheres to world wide standards. The document was published in May of 2004, around the time the new standard was adopted.

Beginning in May 2004, EPA and NWS will report the UV Index consistent with guidelines recommended jointly in 2002 by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. These organizations recommended a Global Solar UV Index in order to bring worldwide consistency to UV reporting and public health messaging.
The same explanation can be found from the World Health Organization...

An internationally harmonized UV Index

The UVI was developed through an international effort by WHO in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Since its initial publication in 1995, many countries have been using the UVI to promote sun protection along with the weather forecast in newspapers, TV and radio. However, most people have not fully understood its meaning or usefulness, and UVI reporting and associated protection messages differed greatly between countries, creating confusion.

So despite Mr. Wigington's claims, it seems the EPA did explain why they decided to change the UV index.

Next, let's take a look at the notion that the new UV index was created to reflect a dramatic increase in UV radiation. Not surprisingly, this idea is parroted by Rosalind Peterson:

In 2003, the EPA began to note that their old UV Rating System was inadequate due to ever-increasing UV readings. It should be noted that the old system went from 1 (Low) to 11+ (Extreme). Thus, a new rating system was devised, and without any real public notification, was changed from 10+ to 15. This is a staggering increase in UV radiation being found in the United States and around the world.

Once again, the EPA did not change their old UV rating system because it was no longer able to reflect increasing UV levels. They changed it to adhere to a global standard. Furthermore, Rosalind is wrong on another basic point. The old system typically showed a scale with levels from 0 to 10+ Where as the new system typically will show a scale from 1 to 11+. Both standards, however, are capable of showing calculated UV index readings from 0 to 15 and higher.

The contention that because the old scale went from 1 to 10 and the new scale goes from 1 to 15, means we're being exposed to a staggering increase UV radiation is factually incorrect, devoid of logic and demonstrates an embarrassing lack of comprehension.

It's like Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel arguing that his amplifier is louder because his volume goes up to 11... it's one louder.

Here's the EPA's clarification on the new index and how it represent UV level exposure.

Although the categories have been reorganized and labeled, actual UV levels associated with the exposure categories in the Global Solar UV Index have not changed. In other words, a UV index report of 6 represents the same intensity UV radiation on both the old and new scales, even if 6 is called “Moderate” on the old scale and “High” on the new scale.


So, in a word, they might have changed the labels and colors and shuffled the categories, but what has not changed is that every one unit in the UV index still represents 25 Milliwatts per Meter Cubed. This is true whether you use the old EPA standard (as show in this document from 1997) or the UVI standard.

In no way does the change in the UV index reporting standard reflect an increase in UV radiation.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Thanks for helping, good analysis.

For the most part, Wigington is telling the audience that they can "connect the dots" for themselves, but he is essentially guiding them through the CT connections of disparate, inaccurate and conflated issues to conclude as he has that it is not possible for his lab test results to come from anywhere but something being sprayed from an airplane. To do this, he uses an example:

Here is an example:
Dane Wigington said:
At 3:00 I have been at a high level EPA meeting in Sacramento, and been told in no uncertain terms that none of these contaminants are being tested for, that there's a specific list of contaminants that these agencies test for, and the heavy metals that are involved in these programs are not on there.

Dane Wigington said:
at 1:45 Again, the source. Many people would rightly consider that these aerosols might be migrating from China, certainly a lot of bad things are coming from Asia, there is no question about that. California Air Quality Reseources Board has studied the aerosols from China, aluminum, barium and other heavy metals are not amongst them. It's not like merucry, if many of you are familiar with mercury, it's showing up everywhere, mercury converts to almost a gaseous state and it can migrate across oceans, but not heavy metals. A report was done about a week ago by a very large organization on whales, from every corner of the globe, they just almost on a whim tsted for inorganics instead of the organics that they usually test for. These whales were full of heavy metals, including aluminum and barium. The statement in this report was jaw-dropping results of these metals being present.

here are his claims:
1. Aluminum, barium, and strontium are not being tested for by EPA.
2. California Air Quality Resources Board studied the aerosols from China, and these metals were not among them.
3. Heavy metals cannot migrate across oceans.
4. Whales are full of heavy metals, including aluminum and barium

First of all, let me discuss the term "heavy metals". The term is "meaningless". There is no strict definition of heavy metals. The term could include metals, semi-metals, even metals which are essential nutrients such as iron could be considered "heavy", which can be toxic at high levels. This is discussed here, and here.

Claim 1. Aluminum, barium, and strontium are not being tested for by EPA.
FALSE- EPA has tested for all three of these.
see Table 2.2 Average PM10 Composition (ug/m3) in Selected Urban and Non-Urban U.S. Areas

Claim 2. California Air Quality Resources Board studied the aerosols from China, and these metals were not among them.
FALSE- CARB found these in asian dust
see:Asian aerosols in North America:
Frequency and concentration of fine dust
Richard A. VanCuren
Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, USA

Asian aerosols in North America: Extracting the chemical composition
and mass concentration of the Asian continental aerosol plume from
long-term aerosol records in the western United States
Richard A. VanCuren
Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, USA

Claim 3. Heavy metals cannot migrate across oceans.
FALSE- Ibid.

Claim 4. Whales are full of heavy metals, including aluminum and barium
I have not found anything on this. The speech was given sometimne before July 2010, and Wigington mentions this news coming several weeks before


Senior Member.
For the most part, Wigington is telling the audience that they can "connect the dots" for themselves, but he is essentially guiding them through the CT connections of disparate, inaccurate and conflated issues...

Ha, you beat me to it. I was just about to post a similar remark:

Part 2 7:54 First question during the Q&A

Q: Do you have any idea where the major portion of the funding for this type of stuff is coming from...?

A: I would have no way to speculate on such funding but... it would be... it would seem clear that it would certainly have to be DOD related.

He can't speculate... but he'll go ahead and speculate anyway.

It seems to be the theme of the entire presentation. "I can't speculate... I'm just saying... I'll let you connect the dots..."

Mick West

Staff member


updated 6/24/2010 2:58:36 PM ET

AGADIR, Morocco — American scientists who spent five years shooting nearly 1,000 sperm whales with tissue-sampling darts discovered stunningly high levels of toxic heavy metals in the animals, according to a report obtained Thursday.

The levels of cadmium, aluminum, chromium, lead, silver, mercury and titanium together are the highest ever found in marine mammals, the scientists say, warning that the health of both ocean life and the people who consume seafood could be at risk.

No barium.

On wonders how much aluminum oxide you'd have to spray to make a difference in whales.


Senior Member.
Claim 4. Whales are full of heavy metals, including aluminum and barium
I have not found anything on this. The speech was given sometimne before July 2010, and Wigington mentions this news coming several weeks before

Here's an article dated June 25, 2010


New York, Jun 25 (THAINDIAN NEWS) American Scientists say they have discovered high levels of toxic metals and heavy metals in whales.The toxic metals include cadmium, aluminum, lead, chromium, silver, mercury and titanium which are all very dangerous, if found in high levels. Scientists say the toxic metals pose a health threat to the ocean mammals and even to the millions who consume them. Scientists blame the contamination on pollution.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.


No barium.
One wonders how much aluminum oxide you'd have to spray to make a difference in whales.

Actually, if the claim is that aluminum were being introduced into the water, through the atmosphere, you would see it in an analysis of the water AND the atmosphere, not just in the whale's blubber.

The Ocean Alliance sampling was done between 2000 and 2005. I was able to find their executive summary here:

There is quite a bit of discussion on the metals found in the blubber. They did find aluminum, barium, and strontium, along with many other metals- copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, zinc, selenium, chromium, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead, gold, silver, and titanium. The summary focused their contextualizing on selenium, mercury and chromium, especially in contextualizing chromium, which they found at very high levels. The metals discussion starts on page 14.

The chromium is the only one I was able to find published:

When you get to the conclusions, you find that since this was the largest and only such blubber study done, the data is considered a baseline, and is only comparable to a few others which mainly focused on liver. Interesting was that whale liver biopsies showed far lower chromium levels than blubber, yet rodent liver bopsies showed highest concentrations in the liver. They also found that some sperm whales had non-detectable levels of chromium, while the mean was 8.8 ppm, and that other species of sperm whales did not have high chromium in the blubber.

Here is the abstract:
Ocean alliance said:
Chromium (Cr) is a well-known human carcinogen and a potential reproductive toxicant, but its contribution to ocean pollution is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to provide a global baseline for Cr as a marine pollutant using the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) as an indicator species. Biopsies were collected from free-ranging whales around the globe during the voyage of the research vessel The Odyssey.

Total Cr levels were measured in 361 sperm whales collected from 16 regions around the globe detectable levels ranged from 0.9 to 122.6 lg Cr g tissue1 with a global mean of 8.8 ± 0.9 lg g1. Two whales had undetectable levels. The highest levels were found in sperm whales sampled in the waters near the Islands of Kiribati in the Pacific (mean = 44.3 ± 14.4) and the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean (mean = 19.5 ± 5.4 lg g1). The lowest mean levels were found in whales near the Canary Islands (mean = 3.7 ± 0.8 lg g1) and off of the coast of Sri Lanka (mean = 3.3 ± 0.4 lg g1). The global mean Cr level in whale skin was 28-times higher than mean Cr skin levels in humans without occupational exposure.

The whale levels were more similar to levels only observed previously in human lung tissue from workers who died of Cr-induced lung cancer. We conclude that Cr pollution in the marine environment is significant and that further study is urgently needed.

This is of interest:
Ocean Alliance said:
It is possible that whales normally have such high Cr levels due to some novel adaptation of whale physiology. We believe this outcome is unlikely as there is no evidence to support it. In addition, we found that detectable levels of Cr spanned almost a 200-fold range and that many whales had relatively low levels (<1 ppm), which would then suggest that they might be Cr deficient. A Cr deficient state has not been readily achievable in humans or rodents (Keen, 1996). Moreover, Cr levels in bowhead, gray and other sperm whales were also much lower (<0.55 ppm), which is not consistent with an ability for cetaceans to greatly accumulate Cr. Instead, the levels are more consistent with a conclusion they come from environmental sources and not a novel adaptation. Of course, further work is needed to fully support this conclusion.

From what I know, the diet of sperm whales is mainly squid.
Could there be something about this diet that amounts to an environmental source?

I have to note that Ocean Alliance could best be described as an "advocacy group" whose function
is pretty clear.

As for aluminum being relevant to Wigington's claim, the summary says:
Ocean Alliance said:
Aluminum and Its Uses
The metal element aluminum(Al) is used extensively in packaging, transportation, water treatment, cooking utensils, and many other applications.

What Are the Health Effects of Aluminum?The most common health effects for people exposed to aluminum are neurotoxicity and respiratory toxicity. Aluminum may also have detrimental effects on reproduction and development (ATSDR, 2006).

What Is the Aluminum Baseline?We measured aluminum (Al) levels in 298 sperm whales. Aluminum was present at detectable levels in all but one whale. Detectable levels ranged from 6.9 to 1,870 μg Al/g tissue with a global average level equal to 132.8 +/- 10.6 μg/g (ppm). Considered by ocean, the average Pacific Ocean aluminum level in sperm whale skin was 102 +/- 12.9 μg/g; the average Indian Ocean aluminum level was 153.4 +/- 15.6 μg/g; and the average Atlantic Ocean aluminum level was 161 +/- 29.7 μg/g.

Aluminum concentrations were higher in some ocean regions than in others (Figure 4). The highest average aluminum level was found in sperm whales sampled during the Indian Ocean Crossing (478 +/- 296 μg/g). The lowest average aluminum level (23.1 μg/g) was found in a whale from Kiribati; however, that result came from just one whale. The lowest average aluminum level for a group of whales was found in whales off the coast of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean (36.5 +/- 1.5 μg/g).

Considering aluminum levels by individual whales, the highest aluminum level (1,870 μg/g) was found in a whale from the Mediterranean Sea. The lowest aluminum level (6.9 μg/g) was found in a whale from the waters around the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean

How Do Our Aluminum Levels Compare with Those in Studies of Other ‘Large Whales’?We were able to locate only one study of aluminum in other ‘Large Whales.’ That report found an average liver aluminum level of 4.2 μg/g in gray whales from the Pacific Ocean, based on five individual whales (Tilbury et al., 2002). That level is much lower than our global average of 132.8 μg/g, based on 298 whales. It is also much lower than any of the averages we found in our skin biopsies (Figure 4). As mentioned above, our lowest average aluminum level was 23.1 μg/g from a whale from waters near Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean. The lowest average aluminum level for a group of whales was 36.5 μg/g found for whales from the Galapagos in the Pacific Ocean. The lowest individual aluminum skin level we found
was 6.9 μg/g in a whale from the Cocos area in the Indian Ocean, which is closer to, but still not lower than, the level noted in this previous report. The one whale with a nondetectable measurement had a detection limit greater than 6.9 µg/g which leaves the Cocos whale still the lowest whale. The differences between our data and the published levels most likely reflect differences between liver and skin accumulation and in regional exposures to aluminum. Some may also reflect species differences.

How Do Our Aluminum Levels Compare with Those in Studies of Dolphins, Porpoises, and Other Marine Mammals?We were able to locate only one study of aluminum in skin tissue from dolphins, porpoises, and other marine
mammals. That study reported average skin aluminum levels of 2.52 and 0.93 µg/g (data converted from dry weight to wet weight assuming 70% moisture) for two groups of bottlenose dolphins off the Coast of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean (Stavros et al., 2007). These levels are much lower than what we observed in the Atlantic Ocean off the Canary Islands (Figure 4), and thus, may reflect local differences.
We located two studies of aluminum in liver tissue from dolphins, porpoises, and other marine mammals. One report found a range of 5 to 157 μg/g from the dugong (Dugong dugon) in the Pacific Ocean (Haynes et al., 2005). Those levels are consistent with the levels we found in the Pacific Ocean regions, which ranged from 9.16 to 223.29 μg/g wet weight. The second study, from the Wise Laboratory, reported average liver levels of 1.02 and 1.23 μg/g in Steller sea lion pups from the western and eastern Alaska populations, respectively (Holmes et al., 2008). The average level is much lower than what we observed (Figure 4) and may reflect a difference in age (adults versus pups) and diet (e.g., dugons are vegetarians).

What Do These Aluminum Levels Mean?First and foremost, these levels indicate that sperm whales are exposed to aluminum. Second, they indicate that aluminum levels are high. In fact, they were much higher than those of any other toxic metal in every region in which we measured them. Third, the data indicate that aluminum levels are more significant in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and in the Mediterranean Sea than in the Pacific Ocean. Finally, the data indicate that aluminum can and has reached even the remotest ocean locations, though we need to conduct more work to determine whether it is carried to these regions by air, by water, or only within the whales’ tissues.

It is difficult to assess how high the internal body aluminum levels actually are because these levels were measured in skin tissue and it is uncertain how skin levels reflect levels elsewhere in the body. Skin tissue levels are usually lower than those in other vital organs such as the liver, kidneys, and lungs; thus, the expectation is that the aluminum level inside the body is probably much higher. The key aluminum levels will be in those organs susceptible to toxicity from exposure to it. It is also difficult to assess whether the aluminum levels we observed are toxic. Aluminum does not serve any known normal function in mammalian physiology. Therefore, its presence in a whale’s body cannot be considered positive.

Aluminum is at best neutral and without effect, and at worst leads to some level of toxicity. The fact that aluminum can induce reproductive and developmental effects raises concerns about its effects on whale reproduction. The fact that levels may be higher in the lung tissue raises concerns about its effects on whale respiration. However, we need to investigatethese concerns more fully before we can draw any firm conclusions. We are of course doing just that. Some of our ongoing and future work is aimed at understanding how skin aluminum levels relate to levels in internal organs. We are also continuing to work to try to understand how aluminum causes toxicity in whales and humans and how much exposure is too much. The full report discusses where the aluminum may be coming from.

I am unable to find the full report.

It would be interesting to find some historical levels of aluminum in sea water over the past 40 years to see what trends emerge.

Mick West

Staff member
All the whale numbers are meaningless without historical data. They say:

Aluminum does not serve any known normal function in mammalian physiology. Therefore, its presence in a whale’s body cannot be considered positive.

Which is the same fallacy used regarding barium in human blood. The reality is that any substance found in the ground will also be found in the air and water due to weathering. Hence it's inevitable that small amounts will be found in our bodies, and also in whales.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I've been doing some reading on aluminum in sea water. Around ~1000 gigatons of aeolian particles move through the air each year. Aluminum is 8% of the crust, so that means 80 million tons of elemental aluminum is transported in dust annually.

That is one flux of aluminum into the sea. The second input is fluvial, from rivers carrying crustal sediments. The ocean surface is enriched in aluminum, the mid ocean is lower, and the deep ocean also enriched. Moving closer to Saharan dust shows higher concentration, moving closer to rivers the same.

Aluminum is removed from the ocean mainly through diagenesis, where plankton adsorb the aluminum and sink to the bottom forming sediments and eventually rock. The process is at steady state and has been for eons. I see no way that any aerial spraying program could come close to changing the levels of aluminum in the oceans.

BTW, the relative abundance of dissolved aluminum, barium, and strontium is reversed in sea water compared to the crust.
Most abundant is strontium 8.1 ppm, followed by barium 0.021 ppm, with aluminum last at
0.001 ppm. This inversion is caused by the similarity of strontium and barium to calcium, which all three cycle through the ecosystem together as calcium is used by marine organisms to form shells and corals. Aluminum, besides not being involved in biogenic processes, is actually scavenged as mentioned above.

BTW2, note my first paragraph and you will see why David Keith found little reason for "epidemiological" concern when he answered Dane Wigington's question in WITWATS. 20 million tons of aluminum oxide is 2% of the annual ~1000 gigatons(1000 million tons) of naturally occurring aeolian dust in the atmosphere. I assume this percentage of Al2​O3 ​varies more than that from year to year.

BTW3, Strontium is being touted as a bone strengthening supplement, joining aluminum oxide in zeolite as two out of three chemtrail "toxins" being sold for human consumption: