Not all of them though. It's worth a go.
Not all of them though. It's worth a go.
Actually it's more the other way around. Soil is naturally around 7% aluminum. When the soils are too acidic, then the aluminum is disolved, and aluminum ions poison the plant. Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything.
1) Rana temporaria tadpoles were raised to metamorphosis at 6 levels of pH (pH 3.6-6.5) and 2 levels of aluminium (800 and 1,600 μg l-1) at pH 4.4. Treatments involved both chronic and acute exposure to depressed pH. Decreasing pH reduced maximum body size and delayed metamorphosis. Growth was depressed and metamorphosis delayed by 800 μg l-1 Al, and several tadpoles died at foreleg emergence. At 1,600 μg l-1 Al, small tadpoles suffered arrested growth and development and eventually died, while larger tadpoles metamorphosed without delay, though at a very small size. There was no mortality among controls. The levels of pH and inorganic monomeric aluminium measured in the experiments were similar to field levels at a site in Scotland, and it is concluded that individual tadpoles will, in certain types of water body, be adversely affected by both acidity and aluminium. The impact of these factors on populations remains to be determined.
2) The investigation of the toxic effects and the uptake of aluminium by Escherichia coli in growth medium (GM) and in physiological solution (PS) have been studied. The toxicity was quantitatively determined according to the decrease of the colony forming units (CFU) in the physiological solution, that is its growth inhibition in the growth medium, vs. the aluminium concentration and incubation time, at pH 5.2, 6.2 and 7.2. The uptake of aluminium was investigated by determining the intracellular aluminium in dry weights (DW), by graphite fumace atomic absorption spectrophotometry, considering that aluminium adsorbed to the cell surface was removed by washing with EDTA solution. The results show that toxicity and accumulation increase with the increase of the aluminium concentration and incubation time. However, the linearity of these functions was lost at higher values, which indicate dependence on time and concentration saturation. The effect of pH was specific, and correlated with the form of aluminium in solution. The increase in toxicity as the pH decreases, suggests that the Al(H2O)6(3+) ion is the major toxic form, among the remaining present ones aluminium in aqueous media.
3. Induction of Al tolerance and its characterization are also reviewed. The cytogenetic effects of aluminium on plants are discussed in depth. Efforts have been made to compare the relative sensitivity
of various plant species including micro- and macro-flora to aluminium, and uptake and transport of aluminium are
taken into account with phytotoxicity and their interactions with nutrients. Present knowledge concerning the physiolo-
gy and biochemistry of aluminium with regard to phytotoxicity is discussed and offers some ways for increasing the Al
tolerance. This review shows the complexity of the toxicity mechanisms of trace elements.
4. Metal toxicity in plants has been reported by many workers [29–31, 38, 58–60, 75, 82]. Aluminium (Al) is not regarded as an essential nutrient, but low concentrations can sometimes increase plant growth or induce other desirable
effects [61, 69, 75]. Aluminium toxicity is an important growth-limiting factor for plants in acid soils below pH 5.0 but can occur at pH levels as high as 5.5 in minespoils [3, 28, 37, 59, 60, 63, 64,108, 163]. Generally, Al interferes with cell divi-
sion in root tips and lateral roots, increases cell wall rigidity by cross linking pectins, reduces DNA replication by increasing the rigidity of the DNA double helix, fixes phosphorous in less available forms in soils and on root surfaces, decreases root respiration, interferes with enzyme activity governing sugar phosphorylation and the deposition of cell wall polysaccharides, and the uptake, transport, and also use of several essential nutrients.
Jay, see a discussion of that here:
I think you're making a basic error here. You seem to be suggesting that simply adding more Al wouldn't matter as there is already lots there naturally. Well, if you added a very small amount of salt (there naturally) to water (also natural) then you would affect a great change in the qualities of both elements, particularly the water, to the point that you wouldn't want to drink it (also changes conductivity etc etc). So, you see, it's not as simple as you make it sound.
Mick is certainly correct here, no basic error at all. Take for example Mount Shasta, as currently claimed by chemtrails believers. The rocks at Mt. Shasta which formed the soil there contain 19% aluminum oxide since their formation 1/2 million years ago. 1/2 of that compound is aluminum. A cubic yard of topsoil weighs about 1.5 tons. Roughly 7 feet x 7 feet six inches deep and contains 270 lbs of aluminum. Suppose you wanted to apply aluminum oxide as claimed at 30,000 feet+ from an airplane. How much could you actually increase the aluminum levels in that 7 foot square plot of land? That goes to plausibility. YOU come up with your proposal and we can review it for plausibility. I'll be waiting.I think you're making a basic error here. You seem to be suggesting that simply adding more Al wouldn't matter as there is already lots there naturally.
N, No, and NO. There is no such thing as "Al (in certain forms)" as you say. Aluminum is an element. Aluminum is almost always found as a compound because of its reactivity.So, you see, it's not as simple as you make it sound. It is right to say that Al (in certain forms) plays havoc with ph levels - it makes them go down, dramatically; and then, in that environment it's more likely Al would be taken up by plants at those more acidic levels; so it's a symbiosis in some cases. Also on quantities: if you keep adding more, then there is more available to take up. It's logical to conclude that in those circumstances - more available - that more can be taken up, therefore increasing the likelihood of toxicity. A vicious cycle leading to lethality
Let's narrow this down. I have some specific questions which you need to answer specifically. There is no use being vague or moving the goal posts around, you will eventually have to approach one directly......I did speak about specific Al.
No, the fact is that 1300 gigatons of "fine particle" aerosols are naturally "chucked around" per annum into earths atmosphere. A good percentage of that is aluminum. You people claim that geoegineering is adding more, but until you provide some evidence for your clam, you[ are the ones blowing dust in the wind.re you both saying that as the earth's crust is made up of 8pc al that it's ok to go chucking it around in very fine particles? 'What does it matter, wouldn't have any effect anyway?' Gents, I think you've got too far into this to see it clearly
yeah, right......Mt Shasta - don't know what that is
And how is Al going to raise acidity?
Or are you claiming that aluminum salts are being sprayed, and that's raising the acidity? On what basis are you claiming that?
You know there are thousands of chemical compounds that will raise the acidity of soil. So why aluminum compounds?
What exactly ARE you suggesting might be going on, and what is the chemical reaction that happens?
Ref Al sulfate, we already covered that. Al sulfate is used to help control ph in water and soil. I already said, you can waffle on as much as you like about sulphur, the fact is it is ALUMINUM sulfate and we have a warning about not using Al sulfate over long periods because it is bad for your health: that's the ALUMINUM bit that's not good for your health.And how is Al going to raise acidity?
I'm not claiming it. Where did I claim it?Or are you claiming that aluminum salts are being sprayed, and that's raising the acidity? On what basis are you claiming that?
Yes I do know. And the second question doesn't mean anything to meYou know there are thousands of chemical compounds that will raise the acidity of soil. So why aluminum compounds?
I haven't suggested anything is 'going on', I just saw that you were wrong in your assertions about adding aluminum making no difference, which is what we're talking about now. I think I've shown you were wrong about that - can't you just admit that and move on?What exactly ARE you suggesting might be going on, and what is the chemical reaction that happens?
Yes you did.I haven't suggested anything is 'going on'
Are you both saying that as the earth's crust is made up of 8pc al that it's ok to go chucking it around in very fine particles?
The Al concentration of the soil solution is related to the Al saturation of the effective CEC (cation exchange capacity) of the soil. The concentration of Al in the soil solution is low until the exchangeable Al saturation exceeds 60% and then increases rapidly. When the Al saturation is greater than 60%, the soil solution concentration of Al is greater than 1 ppm and may be as high as 5 or 6 ppm.
If it's trying to explain that Alumium is toxic, and as Mick now confirms (finally) adding Al sulfate to your soil/water makes it acidic.
Given that we've never had any problems with heritage seeds, why would such a patent be desired at this time? If you don't know: elevated levels of aluminium in soil plays havoc with PH levels and causes great difficulty for plants trying to draw nutrients; in short: it's lethal.
Given that we've never had any problems with heritage seeds, why would such a patent be desired at this time?
Well, there is the quote above. Your question got an answer.What are you babbling about? Go find that quote. This really is cretinous; pedantic, semantic but can't process data. Utterly hopeless. Silly question, but...oh what's the point
It strikes me that this confusion between metals and salts is a common component of the chemtrails story. Especially with Barium (which cannot exist outside the lab in metal form), but also here with aluminum.
One thing at a time. I didn't say that aluminium will do the same. I was very specific. No, it isn't 'like saying hydrogen will make you wet' - can't you see that? it's obvious to any sensible person that what I'm saying is Alumunium Sulphate, when added to soil or water (and it is used in the real world), affects ph. It is true! Whether or not you want to believe, the fact remains. It's not required to be qualified by you - you add no value by doing that, in fact you subtract it. You begin to look like a pedant, at best.Saying that adding Aluminum Sulphate to soil increases the acidity is hence true. But it does not mean that adding aluminum will do the same.
What you are saying is like saying hydrogen will make you wet, because water contains hydrogen.
Strictly judging by the grammar used, it appears Case Orange was written by a person for whom English is a second language. I'm guessing he's from the Netherlands, the color of the Dutch Royal family is orange. At the Grand International Chemtrails Symposium, the document was presented by Dr. Coen Vermeeren of the Delft Institute of Technology. He is a UFO 'researcher', and I personally suspect he at a minimum co-authored Case Orange.
Strictly judging by the grammar used, it appears Case Orange was written by a person for whom English is a second language. I'm guessing he's from the Netherlands, the color of the Dutch Royal family is orange.
Again, under the illusion of thinking it might just be an observation, a perceived put-down in 'researcher', you might as well have added the 'he he he'; that followed by, 'I personally suspect he at a minimum co-authored Case Orange.' I'll leave aside the poor punctuation; what about the assertion? Based on what? Did you have a dream? Actually, he specifically stated that the authors should come forward so we can have a proper debate. Fact. I heard him say it. You see, eyewitness accounts do matter.At the Grand International Chemtrails Symposium, the document was presented by Dr. Coen Vermeeren of the Delft Institute of Technology. He is a UFO 'researcher', and I personally suspect he at a minimum co-authored Case Orange.
If you don't know: elevated levels of aluminium in soil plays havoc with PH levels and causes great difficulty for plants trying to draw nutrients; in short: it's lethal.
So, why do you feel the need to be deceptive, to hide behind alias after alias, to be vague and non-committal?
Deception is dishonest, as is hiding behind sock-puppets and being vague on purpose.
What drives you to be a deceiver?
Why not just be honest?
I suspect you have good reason for what you did, and won't be surprised if you concoct yet another deception in response.
You see, your behavior has shown you to be untrustworthy.
An untrustworthy person is of no use to anyone, not even to himself, because in order to deceive others, you have to be deceiving yourself that what you are doing is justifiable.
There is no end to lies, Dave. One begets another and requires the support of yet another, until the liar binds himself in chains of his own making. Few people can sustain such a weight, unless they are psychopaths/sociopaths. Are you one of those?
But before you answer, why should we even bother to trust anything else you say now?
I don't think there are too many scientists out there writing papers on how bad pasta is in the environment - try and find one.
This background report consists of five sections. Section 1 includes the introduction to thereport. Section 2 gives a description of the pasta manufacturing industry. It includes a
characterization of the industry, a description of the different process operations, a characterization of
emission sources and pollutants emitted, and a description of the technology used to control emissions
resulting from these sources. Section 3 is a review of emission data collection (and emission
measurement) procedures. It describes the literature search, the screening of emission data reports, and
the quality rating system for both emission data and emission factors. Section 4 details emission
factor development for pasta manufacturing. It includes the review of specific data sets and a
description of how candidate emission factors were developed.
Why should we trust you when you say that without any evidence?Try to listen: I'm not a believer or a non-believer - and you would certainly not be one I would take a lead from.
No, I don't find intentional lies and deception better than truth and honesty.That is patently not the case, and it's been useful and interesting to me, and, let's face it, this thread had what? three turgid assessments when I got here. I think the conversation got a whole lot better after I arrived. Don't you?
No, I don't find intentional lies and deception better than truth and honesty.
My how you have gone down further and further in my estimation. Sinking lower as I predicted.
This is a good example of what I predicted you were going to do in your own shallow self deceived mind.
Now you have shown how you were able in a twisted way to internally justify dishonesty.
There is no reason or justification for it. You are proving bit by bit sociopathic behavior, you know that?
No conscience, able to justify deception. Classic.