Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations
- Thread starter Jay Reynolds
- Start date
firepilot
Senior Member.
Well those that actually want to talk about the topic at hand, with some degree of intellectual honesty, are the exception, not the rule. And this guy is no exception. Anyone who claims contrails can not make clouds, and that refuses to believe that aluminum actually comes from the ground, before leaving in a huff...
There are those who are willing to listen and engage honestly. They do not usually stay chemmies for long though. Some of the biggest debunkers, are former chemtrailers who actually would think about thinks honestly. And eventually, they realize they were had by the chemtrail promoters.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
A well done video explaining some of the reasons that contrail frequency and persistence has increased.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQz3aZtbF-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQz3aZtbF-c
D
daveb
Guest
aluminum in soil
I came across this by accident, but it's in my realm, so thought I might make a correction if that's ok
Someone said this when debating the effects of aluminum on soil ph, Mick I think:
I think i understand why the guy/girl left. He/she wqs certainly right about your argument being 'partial' because it's partially right apart from saying: 'Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything'. Which is wrong - 3 x if you want!
Actually, adding more aluminum will change a lot of things - including toxicity -
here's some examples of how adding aluminum does change things
Your guy/girl was right in broad sense about the symbiotic relationship between ph and Al - it works both ways, different ph levels mean different uptakes of toxicity, increased toxicity may precipitate ph changes. He/she was also right about the difficulty of 'living systems' - there are so many variables, offshoots, exceptions - it's not easy, and it can't be understood with a couple fo flicks out into the internet.
Essentially, you cannot say that 'Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything' - this is 100% incorrect and I think the other guy/girl knew a bit more than you on this one. You were right about Al being in soil, it's actually about 8% of the earth's crust - but there is also a dfference between what occurs naturally and what has been through a manufacturing process. We know that uranium occurs naturally, but you wouldn't really want to put it on your vegetable garden. Knowledge is one thing separate from information: we can get things terribly wrong if we have information but not the requisite knowledge to put it into practice. I think you might do well to take some notice of that.
I came across this by accident, but it's in my realm, so thought I might make a correction if that's ok
Someone said this when debating the effects of aluminum on soil ph, Mick I think:
I think i understand why the guy/girl left. He/she wqs certainly right about your argument being 'partial' because it's partially right apart from saying: 'Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything'. Which is wrong - 3 x if you want!
Actually, adding more aluminum will change a lot of things - including toxicity -
here's some examples of how adding aluminum does change things
Your guy/girl was right in broad sense about the symbiotic relationship between ph and Al - it works both ways, different ph levels mean different uptakes of toxicity, increased toxicity may precipitate ph changes. He/she was also right about the difficulty of 'living systems' - there are so many variables, offshoots, exceptions - it's not easy, and it can't be understood with a couple fo flicks out into the internet.
Essentially, you cannot say that 'Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything' - this is 100% incorrect and I think the other guy/girl knew a bit more than you on this one. You were right about Al being in soil, it's actually about 8% of the earth's crust - but there is also a dfference between what occurs naturally and what has been through a manufacturing process. We know that uranium occurs naturally, but you wouldn't really want to put it on your vegetable garden. Knowledge is one thing separate from information: we can get things terribly wrong if we have information but not the requisite knowledge to put it into practice. I think you might do well to take some notice of that.
daveb, thanks for the references, those are all very interesting (I added the links to the original papers).
It was perhaps a bit broad to say that adding more aluminum will not change anything - obviously if you replaced all the soil in your garden with pure alum, then it's not going to help. I was thinking along the lines of the amount of aluminum that could be delivered by contrails - a fine mist sprayed from 30,000 feet over thousands of square miles. Adding 1ppm of aluminum oxide to soil which is 70,000 ppm is not going to do anything.
Obviously too, if you add aluminum in its toxic form (Al3+), then it's toxic - but you'd need to be spraying it as acid.
I think something that needs clarifying here is what form of aluminum is being claimed to sprayed? Metallic Aluminum? Aluminum Oxide? Aluminum Sulfate? Aluminum nano-particles? Aluminum coated fiberglass? Al/AlO2 nano-disks? AL3+ in sulphuric acid?
I think I'll stand by my basic point though. It's not the aluminum, it's the acid. All of your references say Al toxicity is only a problem in acid soil. So the only way you can make the toxicity worse if if you lower the pH of the soil. There's nothing in the papers you list that says "Aluminum" by itself will lower the pH of the soil. In all cases the papers say that an increase in acidity causes the increase in toxicity, and not the other way around. Please point me at the relevant text if I'm wrong here.
So what do you suggest is happening, at the chemical level? What is being sprayed? What is it doing to the soil?
It was perhaps a bit broad to say that adding more aluminum will not change anything - obviously if you replaced all the soil in your garden with pure alum, then it's not going to help. I was thinking along the lines of the amount of aluminum that could be delivered by contrails - a fine mist sprayed from 30,000 feet over thousands of square miles. Adding 1ppm of aluminum oxide to soil which is 70,000 ppm is not going to do anything.
Obviously too, if you add aluminum in its toxic form (Al3+), then it's toxic - but you'd need to be spraying it as acid.
I think something that needs clarifying here is what form of aluminum is being claimed to sprayed? Metallic Aluminum? Aluminum Oxide? Aluminum Sulfate? Aluminum nano-particles? Aluminum coated fiberglass? Al/AlO2 nano-disks? AL3+ in sulphuric acid?
I think I'll stand by my basic point though. It's not the aluminum, it's the acid. All of your references say Al toxicity is only a problem in acid soil. So the only way you can make the toxicity worse if if you lower the pH of the soil. There's nothing in the papers you list that says "Aluminum" by itself will lower the pH of the soil. In all cases the papers say that an increase in acidity causes the increase in toxicity, and not the other way around. Please point me at the relevant text if I'm wrong here.
So what do you suggest is happening, at the chemical level? What is being sprayed? What is it doing to the soil?
Jay, see a discussion of that here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/226-Engine-Efficiency-High-Bypass-and-Contrail-Frequency-How-much
Last edited:
D
daveb
Guest
some refs to al to ph etc
Hi Mick
Ok. I have some interest in what you're discussing here, and would descibe my knowledge of it as 'passing'. I've had a little look around and getting more familiar with the subject.
With regard to the Al/ph content I can say this: It's really not enough to say: 'It was perhaps a bit broad to say that adding more aluminum will not change anything..' when the answer to that, if you take it to its logical conclusion, must be the opposite. Adding aluminum in many of its different forms, will change a lot of things - toxicity is one of them; ph can be another. Here's an example: from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52830869/4/Acidity-alkalinity-pH
Aluminum sulphate (alum)
Aluminum sulphate (code FAS - common names Alum or Sulphate of Alumina) can be obtained inliquid or granulated forms and is commonly used as a coagulant. The granular form (chemicalformula - Al2 (SO4)3.n H2O with n typically between 14-18) is most commonly used by Oxfambecause it is relatively easy to freight (as it is not classified as a hazardous chemical), simple totransport by land in sacks and is widely available in all but the remotest areas of the world. It can beadded to water and shaken or stirred vigorously to produce a solution which is suitable for dosing intothe raw water in treatment processes. It does, however, have some detrimental health effects whenused in the long term and its prolonged use is not recommended.Aluminum sulphate coagulates best in a pH range between 6.5 and 7.5 as its solubility depends on thepH of the raw water and is lower outside this range. pH adjustment can be made to improvecoagulation. The addition of acid, usually sulphuric, would be required to reduce the pH, while theaddition of lime or soda ash will increase the pH. Aluminum ions combine with hydroxide ionsduring flocculation, and the addition of alum decreases the pH of the water. The addition of lime (analkaline) will increase the pH and is useful to keep the pH within the optimum range.The dose of aluminum sulphate required for coagulation of any surface water will vary, but willprobably be in the range of 25 - 150mg/litre or 25 - 150g/m
3
(this is the weight of alum, of which only25% of this weight is aluminum sulphate, the rest is water). The correct dose of alum will flocculatesuspended solids in the water together into large “fluffy” lumps. These will then be heavy enough tosettle out the water naturally within an hour or two. The settled water at the top should then be veryclear, i.e. <5 NTU to permit effective chlorination.Under or over dosing can result in inefficient flocculation and lead to aluminium residuals in theproduct water which exceed current WHO quality recommendations (WHO recommend aluminium<0.2 mg/l). For this reason and to ensure the use of an economical dose, it is normal practice to carryout a series of jar tests to determine the optimum dose. A simplified version of this test has beendesigned for Oxfam work in the field, where the normal “laboratory” support will not be available.// end quote
So, here we can see that Al sulfate is used help reach the desired ph in water (and soil, btw). That is unequivocal. It also states: Aluminum ions combine with hydroxide ions during flocculation, and the addition of alum decreases the pH of the water. end//
So you were partially right about the Al ions being part of the problem for plants in Al rich, acid soils.
I don't think it's a good argument to say that it's the sulfate part that makes the change - Al is the primary constituent and Al is toxic, period. Write it out in as many different forms as you like; different manifestations have differing toxicities. I think the previous papers linked showed very clearly the toxic effects of Al on aquatic/plant/bacterial organisms. The same is true of all human and animal life - there are many papers about detrimental effects of Al - even the industry admit it's a problem.
Like this: From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130287/
The toxicology of aluminum in the brain: a review.
Yokel RA.
Source
College of Pharmacy and Graduate Center for Toxicology, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, USA. ryokel1@pop.uky.edu
Abstract
Aluminum is environmentally ubiquitous, providing human exposure. Usual human exposure is primarily dietary. The potential for significant Al absorption from the nasal cavity and direct distribution into the brain should be further investigated. Decreased renal function increases human risk of Al-induced accumulation and toxicity. Brain Al entry from blood may involve transferrin-receptor mediated endocytosis and a more rapid process transporting small molecular weight Al species. There appears to be Al efflux from the brain, probably as Al citrate. There is prolonged retention of a fraction of Al that enters the brain, suggesting the potential for accumulation with repeated exposure. Al is a neurotoxicant in animals and humans. It has been implicated in the etiology of sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders, although this is highly controversial. This controversy has not been resolved by epidemiological studies, as only some found a small association between increased incidence of dementia and drinking water Al concentration. Studies of brain Al in AD have not produced consistent findings and have not resolved the controversy. Injections of Al to animals produce behavioral, neuropathological and neurochemical changes that partially model AD. Aluminum has the ability to produce neurotoxicity by many mechanisms. Excess, insoluble amyloid beta protein (A beta) contributes to AD. Aluminum promotes formation and accumulation of insoluble A beta and hyperphosphorylated tau. To some extent, Al mimics the deficit of cortical cholinergic neurotransmission seen in AD. Al increases Fe-induced oxidative injury. The toxicity of Al to plants, aquatic life and humans may share common mechanisms, including disruption of the inositol phosphate system and Ca regulation. Facilitation of Fe-induced oxidative injury and disruption of basic cell processes may mediate primary molecular mechanisms of Al-induced neurotoxicity. Avoidance of Al exposure, when practical, seems prudent.
Re: your assessment of quantity
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. 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.
I'm having a closer look at this argument as it's not as clear cut as you might think, in my opinion. I think there might be another point to that as well - there is one other thing that stands out in your disagreement with unreg (I'll stand up a bit for the other as they're not here): the elements to this argument encompass many 'disciplines', science is only one. I do agree with that. If I think I have anything more to say, then I'll come back to you. In meantime, hope that's helped to clear up some misconceptions on the sub-matter discussed here.
If - and I mean if - there is some sort of 'aerosol operation' going on? Well, I'm sure I don't need to tell you there are also thousands of epidemiological reports on the effects of particulates on health. All particulates are harmful, toxic or not (depends on size, but toxic is worse, ofcourse). So if any are being released, it's a very bad idea.
best
Dave
Hi Mick
Ok. I have some interest in what you're discussing here, and would descibe my knowledge of it as 'passing'. I've had a little look around and getting more familiar with the subject.
With regard to the Al/ph content I can say this: It's really not enough to say: 'It was perhaps a bit broad to say that adding more aluminum will not change anything..' when the answer to that, if you take it to its logical conclusion, must be the opposite. Adding aluminum in many of its different forms, will change a lot of things - toxicity is one of them; ph can be another. Here's an example: from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52830869/4/Acidity-alkalinity-pH
Aluminum sulphate (alum)
Aluminum sulphate (code FAS - common names Alum or Sulphate of Alumina) can be obtained inliquid or granulated forms and is commonly used as a coagulant. The granular form (chemicalformula - Al2 (SO4)3.n H2O with n typically between 14-18) is most commonly used by Oxfambecause it is relatively easy to freight (as it is not classified as a hazardous chemical), simple totransport by land in sacks and is widely available in all but the remotest areas of the world. It can beadded to water and shaken or stirred vigorously to produce a solution which is suitable for dosing intothe raw water in treatment processes. It does, however, have some detrimental health effects whenused in the long term and its prolonged use is not recommended.Aluminum sulphate coagulates best in a pH range between 6.5 and 7.5 as its solubility depends on thepH of the raw water and is lower outside this range. pH adjustment can be made to improvecoagulation. The addition of acid, usually sulphuric, would be required to reduce the pH, while theaddition of lime or soda ash will increase the pH. Aluminum ions combine with hydroxide ionsduring flocculation, and the addition of alum decreases the pH of the water. The addition of lime (analkaline) will increase the pH and is useful to keep the pH within the optimum range.The dose of aluminum sulphate required for coagulation of any surface water will vary, but willprobably be in the range of 25 - 150mg/litre or 25 - 150g/m
3
(this is the weight of alum, of which only25% of this weight is aluminum sulphate, the rest is water). The correct dose of alum will flocculatesuspended solids in the water together into large “fluffy” lumps. These will then be heavy enough tosettle out the water naturally within an hour or two. The settled water at the top should then be veryclear, i.e. <5 NTU to permit effective chlorination.Under or over dosing can result in inefficient flocculation and lead to aluminium residuals in theproduct water which exceed current WHO quality recommendations (WHO recommend aluminium<0.2 mg/l). For this reason and to ensure the use of an economical dose, it is normal practice to carryout a series of jar tests to determine the optimum dose. A simplified version of this test has beendesigned for Oxfam work in the field, where the normal “laboratory” support will not be available.// end quote
So, here we can see that Al sulfate is used help reach the desired ph in water (and soil, btw). That is unequivocal. It also states: Aluminum ions combine with hydroxide ions during flocculation, and the addition of alum decreases the pH of the water. end//
So you were partially right about the Al ions being part of the problem for plants in Al rich, acid soils.
I don't think it's a good argument to say that it's the sulfate part that makes the change - Al is the primary constituent and Al is toxic, period. Write it out in as many different forms as you like; different manifestations have differing toxicities. I think the previous papers linked showed very clearly the toxic effects of Al on aquatic/plant/bacterial organisms. The same is true of all human and animal life - there are many papers about detrimental effects of Al - even the industry admit it's a problem.
Like this: From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130287/
The toxicology of aluminum in the brain: a review.
Yokel RA.
Source
College of Pharmacy and Graduate Center for Toxicology, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, USA. ryokel1@pop.uky.edu
Abstract
Aluminum is environmentally ubiquitous, providing human exposure. Usual human exposure is primarily dietary. The potential for significant Al absorption from the nasal cavity and direct distribution into the brain should be further investigated. Decreased renal function increases human risk of Al-induced accumulation and toxicity. Brain Al entry from blood may involve transferrin-receptor mediated endocytosis and a more rapid process transporting small molecular weight Al species. There appears to be Al efflux from the brain, probably as Al citrate. There is prolonged retention of a fraction of Al that enters the brain, suggesting the potential for accumulation with repeated exposure. Al is a neurotoxicant in animals and humans. It has been implicated in the etiology of sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders, although this is highly controversial. This controversy has not been resolved by epidemiological studies, as only some found a small association between increased incidence of dementia and drinking water Al concentration. Studies of brain Al in AD have not produced consistent findings and have not resolved the controversy. Injections of Al to animals produce behavioral, neuropathological and neurochemical changes that partially model AD. Aluminum has the ability to produce neurotoxicity by many mechanisms. Excess, insoluble amyloid beta protein (A beta) contributes to AD. Aluminum promotes formation and accumulation of insoluble A beta and hyperphosphorylated tau. To some extent, Al mimics the deficit of cortical cholinergic neurotransmission seen in AD. Al increases Fe-induced oxidative injury. The toxicity of Al to plants, aquatic life and humans may share common mechanisms, including disruption of the inositol phosphate system and Ca regulation. Facilitation of Fe-induced oxidative injury and disruption of basic cell processes may mediate primary molecular mechanisms of Al-induced neurotoxicity. Avoidance of Al exposure, when practical, seems prudent.
Re: your assessment of quantity
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. 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.
I'm having a closer look at this argument as it's not as clear cut as you might think, in my opinion. I think there might be another point to that as well - there is one other thing that stands out in your disagreement with unreg (I'll stand up a bit for the other as they're not here): the elements to this argument encompass many 'disciplines', science is only one. I do agree with that. If I think I have anything more to say, then I'll come back to you. In meantime, hope that's helped to clear up some misconceptions on the sub-matter discussed here.
If - and I mean if - there is some sort of 'aerosol operation' going on? Well, I'm sure I don't need to tell you there are also thousands of epidemiological reports on the effects of particulates on health. All particulates are harmful, toxic or not (depends on size, but toxic is worse, ofcourse). So if any are being released, it's a very bad idea.
best
Dave
As I already explained, it's not the aluminum in Aluminum sulphate that increases the acidity. It's the Sulphur, which creates sulphuric acid. You might as well use that example as proof that adding oxygen (in various forms) to soil will decrease the pH, since Aluminum sulphate also contains a lot of oxygen.
Show me how adding aluminum decrease the pH.
Anything is toxic in sufficient quantity. PURE Aluminum is used for soda cans and cooking foil, so it's hardly the most poisonous thing in the world. And since it makes up 8% of the ground, then why aren't we all dead?
I think your example misses the fact that the soil is already 8% aluminum. Drinkable water is not 8% salt, it's more like 0.001% salt. A better analogy would be sprinkling a bit of salt on water that already had 8% salt in it. No major difference.
More to the point - is there any evidence that pH has decreased in the soil anywhere? California has been having bumper tomato crops - surely if the soil were getting too acidic, then we'd have seen some drop-off in yield?
Lot of places test soil pH. Why has nobody reported an unusual increase?
Show me how adding aluminum decrease the pH.
Anything is toxic in sufficient quantity. PURE Aluminum is used for soda cans and cooking foil, so it's hardly the most poisonous thing in the world. And since it makes up 8% of the ground, then why aren't we all dead?
I think your example misses the fact that the soil is already 8% aluminum. Drinkable water is not 8% salt, it's more like 0.001% salt. A better analogy would be sprinkling a bit of salt on water that already had 8% salt in it. No major difference.
More to the point - is there any evidence that pH has decreased in the soil anywhere? California has been having bumper tomato crops - surely if the soil were getting too acidic, then we'd have seen some drop-off in yield?
Lot of places test soil pH. Why has nobody reported an unusual increase?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
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.
However, if you could raise the aluminum content say 10% using aluminum oxide as claimed, there would be absolutely no effect UNLESS the pH of the soil got below 5 and allowed the ordinarily stable oxide to release the aluminum as an ion. No effect whatsoever. The reason is that aluminum oxide is a stable compound which has no ordinary effect on plants or animals.
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.
Which "form" of aluminum are you claiming will "Make them(pH) go down dramatically" causing more aluminum to be taken up by plants??
What a preposterous claim and pack of nonsense, a sign that you haven't one iota of what you are speaking.
Aluminum will not change soil pH at all. Don't believe me? Go ahead, get yourself a pure aluminum container and put pure water in it and tell me if the ph of the water is changed. It will not be.
If you want to speak of specific aluminum compounds, do so. You can't be wishy-washy-squishy-squashy about chemistry, because it is an exact science which uses specific terms to describe specific things. Either you make a claim or you don't.
If you are gong to be another vague rambler, you will end up a loser and a waster. And BTW, reviewing some chemistry would help I don't intend to re-teach what all high school students should have learned.
So, what you need to do is to settle yourself down and study the subject. Once you are ready to ake a claim and show some facts to back it up, then it can be examined. Vague speculation is a useless exercise.
U
Unregistered
Guest
I did speak about specific Al. I didn't speak about Al oxide. I don't know why you're geting so excited. It's quite simple.
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? 'What does it matter, wouldn't have any effect anyway?' Gents, I think you've got too far into this to see it clearly
Mt Shasta - don't know what that is - but bet there's only pine trees and grass, if that. Please take time to read this, if you really want to learn some more about what a difficult issue this is
http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=491F0099-1&offset=9
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? 'What does it matter, wouldn't have any effect anyway?' Gents, I think you've got too far into this to see it clearly
Mt Shasta - don't know what that is - but bet there's only pine trees and grass, if that. Please take time to read this, if you really want to learn some more about what a difficult issue this is
http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=491F0099-1&offset=9
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?
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?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
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......
Answer these questions categorically 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
1. (a)What are you claiming is being done?
and
(b)What is the best evidence do you have to support your claim?
2.
(a)What specific compounds and/or elements are you claiming is being "spread around"?
and
(b) What is the best evidence which leads you to that conclusion?
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.
yeah, right......
http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=491F0099-1&offset=9
The link states that the three salts do not meet the definition of toxic.
3. (a)What is your claim regarding this URL?
and
(b) What is the best evidence you can present supporting your claim?
These are specific enumerated questions and deserve specific answers. If you won't do so you are simply not being honest.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
You need to answer Mick's questions individually as well.
D
daveb
Guest
last one for now
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.
I'm not claiming it. Where did I claim it?
Yes I do know. And the second question doesn't mean anything to me
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?
Aluminum Sulphate (Al2(SO4)3) is a compound that contains aluminum, sulphur and oxygen. When you add it to the soil, it reacts (hydrolyzes) with the water (H2O) in the soil to produce aluminum hydroxide or aluminum oxide, and sulphuric acid.
Al2(SO4)3 + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2SO4
or
Al2(SO4)3 + 3H2O -> Al2O3 + 3H2SO4
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.
Now we've cleared up the chemistry, could you clarify what you are actually suggesting?
Al2(SO4)3 + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2SO4
or
Al2(SO4)3 + 3H2O -> Al2O3 + 3H2SO4
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.
Now we've cleared up the chemistry, could you clarify what you are actually suggesting?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Yes you did.
You slipped up because you have an agenda.
Your chemtrails buddies are probably not impressed.
U
Unregistered
Guest
There ya go
Quote: Saying that adding Aluminum Sulphate to soil increases the acidity is (hence) true.
Now say that aluminum is bad for us - and plants.
As for Jay Reynolds: I haven't said anything about spraying from aircraft - that would be you and Mick; am I not to comment on that?
Quote: You slipped up because you have an agenda.
Really? And what agenda might that be? 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. It's no wonder you never get anywhere if it takes this long to get grudging acceptance of well known things like the toxicity of Al; couple that with paranoid assertions about 'agendas' and, well, what the hell is going on here?
Quote: Saying that adding Aluminum Sulphate to soil increases the acidity is (hence) true.
Now say that aluminum is bad for us - and plants.
As for Jay Reynolds: I haven't said anything about spraying from aircraft - that would be you and Mick; am I not to comment on that?
Quote: You slipped up because you have an agenda.
Really? And what agenda might that be? 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. It's no wonder you never get anywhere if it takes this long to get grudging acceptance of well known things like the toxicity of Al; couple that with paranoid assertions about 'agendas' and, well, what the hell is going on here?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
It's kind of funny, you know.
The chemmies claim that aluminum oxide has raised soil and rain pH, which is false.
Dave had no objection to that, evidently he has debunked Michael J.Murphy et.al.
Dave claims that pH would be increased by the aluminum in aluminum sulfate, which is false, but also debunks Murphy, et.al.
What other chemmie myths is he going to debunk?
I have one oher question for you, Dave. A question that really needs a direct, true, aqnd honest answer.
Do you believe that chemtrails are a fact?
Yes or no.
The chemmies claim that aluminum oxide has raised soil and rain pH, which is false.
Dave had no objection to that, evidently he has debunked Michael J.Murphy et.al.
Dave claims that pH would be increased by the aluminum in aluminum sulfate, which is false, but also debunks Murphy, et.al.
What other chemmie myths is he going to debunk?
I have one oher question for you, Dave. A question that really needs a direct, true, aqnd honest answer.
Do you believe that chemtrails are a fact?
Yes or no.
U
Unregistered
Guest
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. There's also a lack of understanding of the ionic forms of metals, particularly the Al3+, where the measurement of that (toxic in very small amounts) are confused with the measurements of Aluminum in general.
This is understandable to some degree, if you just come from a background of gardening, as the term "Aluminum" is sometimes used when they are referring to Al3+ ions, e.g.
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/acid1.html
Which might lead one to think that an Al level of over 6 ppm would be incredibly high. In reality soil has an aluminum level of 70,000 ppm. (7%)
This page has a good overview of the Aluminum/Acidity problem:
http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation.htm
This is understandable to some degree, if you just come from a background of gardening, as the term "Aluminum" is sometimes used when they are referring to Al3+ ions, e.g.
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/acid1.html
Which might lead one to think that an Al level of over 6 ppm would be incredibly high. In reality soil has an aluminum level of 70,000 ppm. (7%)
This page has a good overview of the Aluminum/Acidity problem:
http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation.htm
MikeC
Closed Account
Okay, so let's say:
A) Aluminum is toxic in sufficient quantity
B) Aluminum sulfate reacts with water to produce sulphuric acid.
And what is your point? Remember you originally said:
Now we've explained the chemistry (it's not elevated level of aluminum that's causing the low pH), can you now see why such a trait might be desirable in plants, and why it has always been desirable?
MikeC
Closed Account
Your premise is wrong - "we" have always had problems with "heritage seeds" - aluminium toxicity has been a known probem since a very long time ago - the earliest known reference I know for it is a paper published in 1921 that Mick has on Contrail Science - and the earliest online reference I can find comes from 1926 - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4554716.
With as much as 40% of the world's arable land affected by aluminium toxicity (http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/toxicity_m/acidsoil_chapter.pdf), the development of aluminium resistance should make a lot of money for farmers and geneticits alike.
Moreover it is not actually restricted to Monsanto either - this article is about identifying aluminium resistent genes in rice - http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/8/2269.short
Increasing crop yields is BIG business that requires nothing more than the profit motive to explain!
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Well, there is the quote above. Your question got an answer.
Stop calling names and answer the questions 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a 3b.
Then answer Mick's questions.
Then the simple yes/no question.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
The misinformation perpetuated by the leadership of chemtrails believers is directly to blame for this sort of confusion. Ditto for the propagandists who ban and exclude rational critical discussion of the facts at all the chemtrail forums which perpetuates and allows other fallacies to remain uncorrected.
Any of you chemtrails believers reading this need to realize just how far down into the lies you have been led. It should be a wake up call to you. You should ask yourselves,
"How were we led so astray that ordinary people can rip our arguments to shreds in mnutes?
Why didn't we get our facts straight before we jumped to conclusions based on false information?
Why wasn't this all corrected long ago?
Who was responsible for telling us these lies?
Can we ever trust them again?
If they were so wrong in these details, what else did they tell me that wasn't correct?"
Then go back and do your homework. Study something other than chemtrailer websites. Read all of contrailscience.com including the informative discussions.
Ask some questions of experts in your town. Verify that what we say is true. Stand on your own two feet and get educated. Education about the unknown takes the fear away and you don't have to go skulking around pretending to be something you aren't. You can become informed and set yourself and others free.
Do it now.
The original "unregistered" and then the daveb/unregistered were, of course, the same person. I'd allowed this, as it originally seemed like a genuine attempt to get away from name calling, and to address the science. Unfortunately he just focussed on vague and meaningless generalizations (adding some compound that happen to contain aluminum to the soil will decrease the pH, as do some that don't, Aluminum, like everything, is toxic in sufficient quantities), and then seemed intent on proving us "wrong".
I still think that that when aluminum was originally incorporated into the chemtrail mythology, the original theorists did not realized the incredible amount of aluminum already in the soil and the air. This has been a bit of an albatross for them ever since. They should have stuck with barium.
I still think that that when aluminum was originally incorporated into the chemtrail mythology, the original theorists did not realized the incredible amount of aluminum already in the soil and the air. This has been a bit of an albatross for them ever since. They should have stuck with barium.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Who would have thought a chemtrail believer could be so dishonest to try and fool us?
Oh, the shame of it all......
D
daveb
Guest
there you go again
The levels of self-delusion here are epic. Assertion after assertion without the necessary knowledge to back it up. Somewhere, deep-down, you know that the argument has two sides, yet you choose to believe what you want to believe; like the religios zealot. It's interesting (for me), but not surprising that you can't see it at all.
I am neither a believer nor a non-believer; but these are the measures you use without hesitation or equivocation. The language is telling.
This goes against my 'professional', and possibly even ethical, boundaries, but I feel compelled to share this with you.
I have conducted a little bit of research - entering your 'discussion' and another on the opposite side of this argument and taking up a fairly reasonable, but contradictory, position to the general flow. This is for my own reasons and they don't need to be divulged here. You'd probably try to tell me I'm wrong, even when there is no right to contrast it.
You do no better than some on the opposing side of this 'discussion', if that's what it is. Generally, and this is the point, those holding the contrary position to yours on this issue are more amenable to a more rounded discourse, less likely to back-track, obfuscate or bend the truth of something that is pointed out - there are many, but best example, imo would be this: while claiming to represent a 'scientific' view, ie. arguing the point on Aluminium (and Al sulphate) ad nauseam, saying that adding more won't make a difference because it's ubiquitous, and to the point where you're almost promoting its use, when all sensible scientists say unnecessary exposure should be avoided, it's toxic to humans, animals, plants and bacteria, and there's a million and one peer reviewed papers to support that fact. You demonstrated great inability to move your position, even in the bright light of overwhelming evidence and generally accepted science, without first trying to 'prove' you were always right. You can't see that your behaviour is no different to the 'crazies', as you so kindly call them in your 'guide to debunking'.
It sometimes surprises me that so-called educated people can behave so - but then I remember religion, and its mindset. Religious institutions are packed with very well educated people, intelligent people - and many of them are more capable of giving and taking in a discussion than you guys. It's the extremists you won't get that from. I'm afraid that's your category too, extreme.
Here's another good example of this: Quote:
Right from the top of your debate - let's have a look at the reality of it:
The first comment:
Let's do a little breakdown of this supposedly unbiased, scientific effort at 'debunking'.
Think I already pointed out why its entitled 'Case Orange', so 'wrong' here; and 'judging by the grammar used' is an obvious put-down masquerading as being a reasonable observation: it's irrelevant. You should be a bit more careful around your own writing before criticising someone else's pal. I'd like to see your translation into Flemish from English, I'm sure you think it would be perfect.
Next:
So, even at the outset, the tone is set. Obviously, pointing this out will make no difference to the devout.
Your plight reminds me of Sysyphus; good luck with that rock
The levels of self-delusion here are epic. Assertion after assertion without the necessary knowledge to back it up. Somewhere, deep-down, you know that the argument has two sides, yet you choose to believe what you want to believe; like the religios zealot. It's interesting (for me), but not surprising that you can't see it at all.
I am neither a believer nor a non-believer; but these are the measures you use without hesitation or equivocation. The language is telling.
This goes against my 'professional', and possibly even ethical, boundaries, but I feel compelled to share this with you.
I have conducted a little bit of research - entering your 'discussion' and another on the opposite side of this argument and taking up a fairly reasonable, but contradictory, position to the general flow. This is for my own reasons and they don't need to be divulged here. You'd probably try to tell me I'm wrong, even when there is no right to contrast it.
You do no better than some on the opposing side of this 'discussion', if that's what it is. Generally, and this is the point, those holding the contrary position to yours on this issue are more amenable to a more rounded discourse, less likely to back-track, obfuscate or bend the truth of something that is pointed out - there are many, but best example, imo would be this: while claiming to represent a 'scientific' view, ie. arguing the point on Aluminium (and Al sulphate) ad nauseam, saying that adding more won't make a difference because it's ubiquitous, and to the point where you're almost promoting its use, when all sensible scientists say unnecessary exposure should be avoided, it's toxic to humans, animals, plants and bacteria, and there's a million and one peer reviewed papers to support that fact. You demonstrated great inability to move your position, even in the bright light of overwhelming evidence and generally accepted science, without first trying to 'prove' you were always right. You can't see that your behaviour is no different to the 'crazies', as you so kindly call them in your 'guide to debunking'.
It sometimes surprises me that so-called educated people can behave so - but then I remember religion, and its mindset. Religious institutions are packed with very well educated people, intelligent people - and many of them are more capable of giving and taking in a discussion than you guys. It's the extremists you won't get that from. I'm afraid that's your category too, extreme.
Here's another good example of this: Quote:
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.
Right from the top of your debate - let's have a look at the reality of it:
The first comment:
Let's do a little breakdown of this supposedly unbiased, scientific effort at 'debunking'.
Think I already pointed out why its entitled 'Case Orange', so 'wrong' here; and 'judging by the grammar used' is an obvious put-down masquerading as being a reasonable observation: it's irrelevant. You should be a bit more careful around your own writing before criticising someone else's pal. I'd like to see your translation into Flemish from English, I'm sure you think it would be perfect.
Next:
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.
So, even at the outset, the tone is set. Obviously, pointing this out will make no difference to the devout.
Your plight reminds me of Sysyphus; good luck with that rock
Adding aluminum sulfate increases acidity in damp soil, and Aluminum is toxic insufficient quantity, like everything else is.
I don't know why you are still pressing this point, since everyone agrees with it.
Iron sulfate does the exact same thing. And iron is MORE toxic than aluminum.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922844
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924400
So what is the point you want to make about aluminum specifically?
Why did you say:
You must realize by now that's totally false.
I don't know why you are still pressing this point, since everyone agrees with it.
Iron sulfate does the exact same thing. And iron is MORE toxic than aluminum.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922844
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924400
So what is the point you want to make about aluminum specifically?
Why did you say:
You must realize by now that's totally false.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
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?
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?
D
daveb
Guest
and again
Look, can't you see that we've covered that single piece of minutiae? I qualified my earlier statement later. You're just engaging in points scoring. Are you addressing the question openly? Taking into account all the possibles, probables and definites? No. You're focusing on something based on intellectual pride. You can't stand the fact that you have proclaimed yourself the master of debunking (in your own mind) and you can't see that you might ever be 'debunked' yourself; that would be a world turned inside out. When you made the statement about 'adding more aluminium won't change anything', or words to that affect, it was an easy opening. It's obvious to most that the opposite is true. Even with that you keep feeling the need to qualify it somehow, by saying that 'anything is toxic' if you have enough. Yup, it's called a truism - too much of anything is bad. You can apply it to pasta. 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. Can you see? Your argument is reduced to dribble, easily.
The fact that I pointed out to you you error has caused some chagrin, it appears. You're like a dog with a bone. You can't help it. Each time you do it, you reinforce what I said in the previous post. 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. Your bias is incontrovertible, it appears.
Look, can't you see that we've covered that single piece of minutiae? I qualified my earlier statement later. You're just engaging in points scoring. Are you addressing the question openly? Taking into account all the possibles, probables and definites? No. You're focusing on something based on intellectual pride. You can't stand the fact that you have proclaimed yourself the master of debunking (in your own mind) and you can't see that you might ever be 'debunked' yourself; that would be a world turned inside out. When you made the statement about 'adding more aluminium won't change anything', or words to that affect, it was an easy opening. It's obvious to most that the opposite is true. Even with that you keep feeling the need to qualify it somehow, by saying that 'anything is toxic' if you have enough. Yup, it's called a truism - too much of anything is bad. You can apply it to pasta. 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. Can you see? Your argument is reduced to dribble, easily.
The fact that I pointed out to you you error has caused some chagrin, it appears. You're like a dog with a bone. You can't help it. Each time you do it, you reinforce what I said in the previous post. 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. Your bias is incontrovertible, it appears.
D
daveb
Guest
it's in the public realm
Listen, it's not personal, how could it be? You guys put yourselves out there and herald your efforts, broadly, as bringing truth to a subject. Am I the not entitled to perform what I would call an experiment in that environment? Your mere presence here suggests you want to challenge, put right, be right. If you are content in the knowledge, why the need to be here? I have as much right to be here and doing what I do - if it exposes flaws, or whatever other reason. You are just as guilty as me of deception, in my opinion, presenting your efforts as even-handed, sensible, correct and logical. 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?
Listen, it's not personal, how could it be? You guys put yourselves out there and herald your efforts, broadly, as bringing truth to a subject. Am I the not entitled to perform what I would call an experiment in that environment? Your mere presence here suggests you want to challenge, put right, be right. If you are content in the knowledge, why the need to be here? I have as much right to be here and doing what I do - if it exposes flaws, or whatever other reason. You are just as guilty as me of deception, in my opinion, presenting your efforts as even-handed, sensible, correct and logical. 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?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Why should we trust you when you say that without any evidence?
You have proven already that you are willing to again and again deceive, lie and pose as another person.
You twist with whatever you want to portray, a formless blob shapeshifter.
Why won't you address enumerated questions?
The reason is because you have boxed yourself in and can't get out, can you?
What good are you to anyone, even to yourself, now?
Can't you see what you've done to yourself?
It's time to come clean.
Start with identifying yourself, with proof, and we can work towards rebuilding trust in you, perhaps, maybe.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
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.
D
daveb
Guest
hmmmm
At least you've got a sense of humour. I hope
At least you've got a sense of humour. I hope
D
daveb
Guest
That's what the 
is for
Anyway, Dave, you made a bunch of points back in post #9
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1135
So now that we've clarified a variety of those, perhaps you'd like to start anew with some new claim or question? What do you think is going on, and what evidence do you base this on?
is forAnyway, Dave, you made a bunch of points back in post #9
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1135
So now that we've clarified a variety of those, perhaps you'd like to start anew with some new claim or question? What do you think is going on, and what evidence do you base this on?
Last edited:
