Wangen(1981) noticed the same thingAside from the iron values, all the other ranges are so huge that "Herndon's method of coal fly ash recognition" would identify Earth's crust and virtually all rocks and all soils as made of coal fly ash.
Your comment has been published. I gave it thumb up.An interesting development. Yesterday, Jeffrey Beale posted on Herndon's IJ article, and it is being critically examined by others......
I have commented referencing this thread which should prove interesting.
View attachment 14672
I agree - when biologists talk about "mobile" or "available" aluminum, it generally refers to aluminum that is in a soluble form that will move with water and can be absorbed by plants and other living things. The solubility of both plant micronutrients and other molecules & elements in the soil (such as aluminum) will vary with pH (image source):It's unclear what he actually means by "chemically mobile aluminum". A quick search for "mobile aluminum" and "water" largely returns results about Herndon's articles.
Where "Mobile Aluminum" is actually used in the scientific literature seems to be synonymous with bioavailable aluminum, i.e. Al(III) (Al3+), the ion of aluminum that forms in acidic water. But this is a function of acidity, not aluminum (which is ubiquitous in soil).
https://books.google.com/books?id=08JkCSXX_14C&lpg=PA36&ots=1hOt4HwIwX&dq="mobile aluminum" water&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q="mobile aluminum" water&f=false
Al3+ is generally measured in very small amounts, like 1ppm (1 mg/L, or 1,000 µg/L) - because anything higher would indicate such a high acidity level that you'd have far more serious issues than aluminum toxicity.
Herndon instead seems to loosely use the term to mean very small particles of aluminum.
He is not aware of that. He argues that the rainwater samples are filtered through a fine filter in the laboratory before analysis, so there cannot be any solids in there.It seems to me that Herndon cannot make the claim that what he is finding in the rainwater is "mobile" using EPA 200.8 because that test is a "Total Metals" test, NOT a soluble metals test.
And some really useful evidence would be photographs of the "ash" being sprayed from one of the planes over San Diego. Herndon could very easily take a close-up photo of one of the planes with a relatively cheap camera like the Nikon Coolpix P900.The "identification" of "chemtrail" substances allows testing these substances for their capability of persistent trail formation. If it indeed were coal fly ash, an experimental demonstration of the persistence of a trail formed upon spraying the actual said substance in the air would be the strongest possible evidence for its use in the alleged geoengineering activity. However, so far, neither Herndon, nor his supporters have come with the (positive) results of such a simple experiment.
This is a standard practice when sampling for total Al in surface waters, because otherwise there is often an issue with aluminum compounds adsorbing or precipitating on the wall of the container. However, it is generally not done when the goal is to determine the amount of dissolved aluminum, because an acid preservative will change solubility.The Jigyasu paper Herndon references in CS describes their analysis as:
Which appears like it would dissolve aluminum with the nitric acid before filtering. I'm not sure how they can say they are measuring dissolved aluminum when they will dissolve additional aluminum from suspended solids with their test procedure?
Most tripods allow you to pan along one axis while the other axes are locked, but it's hard to move smoothly unless you have a more expensive tripod with some damping. you can either be quick, as Dierdre says, or use something like a monopod which steadies the camera but doesn't keep you from moving it.But how do you move it around to follow the plane when it's on a tripod? You can see I'm a total moron when it comes to cameras.
i see Micks infographic got 22 thumbs up over there.. he only got 5 here. Guess he's hanging with the wrong crewToday, something has appeared which comes close to an official statement from MDPI:
No one likes retractions, so I guess they're dragging their feet. But I've never seen a journal distance itself from a paper because of 'controversy' alone, so it looks like they're already convinced it's probably bunk.This note was recently attached to Herndon's paper:
I would think that's not a major concern of the Journal. They want to try to salvage their reputation somewhat.That said, if they do eventually retract it, that could turn many chemmies against the scientific establishment itself, so it may be politically pragmatic to avoid that.
Absolutely. To hard-core "chemtrail" believers:...the chemtrail believers will continue to think the paper is correct (largely without actually reading it, or the objections listed here).
Agreed. The true believers will blame the retraction on the machinations of the "global power structure" and their minions.Absolutely. To hard-core "chemtrail" believers:
A) MDPI publishing Herndon's Coal-Fly-Ash paper = "We are proved right!" and
B) MDPI retracting Herndon's Coal-Fly-Ash paper = "We are proved right!"
"All roads lead to our belief!" But for the marginal folks, this could be significant:
The big "proof" chemtrailers have been saying makes their case, shown to be bad science