Debunked: Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails (Infowars' GMO-Chemtrail Connection)

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


In this article from Infowars, the writer describes a two year old article on farmwars.info as "groundbreaking", when in fact all it is doing is blaming "chemtrails" for problems that have been around (and understood) for many decades.

http://www.infowars.com/is-there-a-gmo-chemtrail-connection/
The Farmwars article is half an apology for getting it wrong about the Aluminum/GMO connection years earlier (in the film What In The World Are They Spraying):
http://farmwars.info/?p=7760
But then they go to suggest that all manner of patents owned by Monsanto are indicative of a connection to "chemtrails"

Here's why this is bunk: like the aluminum-resistant seeds, these "stress tolerant plants" are all designed to combat existing problems - and these are problems that have been around for decades, and in some cases for hundreds or even thousands of years. Consider the list:
The first things on the list (cold, drought, flood, heat, UV stress) are simply weather related. These are problems that farmers have been dealing with since the dawn of civilizations. Crops that are more resistant to these factors are simply crops that will grow in a wider range of weather conditions. We already have a wide range of weather conditions - farmers have been losing crops to cold, drought, flood, heat, and UV stress (too much sun) for thousands of years - so having plants being able to resist those factors is a highly desirable thing.

The next three items on the list (ozone increases, acid rain, pollution) are variants of a more modern problem - low altitude industrial air pollution. This is relatively new, but it's something that's not mysterious, or a symptom of covert geoengineering (which would result in relatively small increases in pollution in the upper atmosphere). Air pollution comes from vehicles, factories, and power stations (as well as some natural like forest fires and volcanoes). So again, having crops that can withstand these factors is a good thing.

The final three factors are salt stress, heavy metals, mineralized soils. Here we get to the one thing that gets Infowars the most excited: "heavy metals".
http://www.infowars.com/is-there-a-gmo-chemtrail-connection/
Yet again though, what is being addressed here is an old problem, not a new problem. And they are problems with known causes, we don't need to invent some mysterious "chemtrail" to get salt or heavy metals into the soil. Salt stress and metal toxicity has been a problem for agriculture for thousands of years - especially since irrigation was invented. Here's a 100 year old article on the subject:
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/192795/1/B053-1906.pdf


And here is an 1893 article discussing the problem of salt build up in irrigated land since ancient time in Egypt:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HotIAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA169&ots=6f-9wB4oD6&dq="Irrigation and agriculture in Egypt:"&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false



"Mineralized soils" is similar, but with more generality than just salt (the most common mineral problem). Some soils are higher in minerals than other. Some times minerals are useful plant nutrients, but as with everything if you have too much, then it becomes toxic.

Heavy metals occur in nature, but the more common problem for agriculture is industrial runoff into rivers that are used for irrigation, and also when treated waste-water is used directly for irrigation. This type of pollution has been around for many decades, and so, like with all the other factors here, it would be a good idea to have crops that could resist it.

Here's a 1974 paper on the heavy metal problem:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/54/1/122.full.pdf


And another from 1979


So in summary - these patents are clearly useful for existing condition - condition that have been a problem in all cases for at least 50 years, and in some cases thousands of years. And in all cases, the causes of the plant stressors are known and understood. There's no need to invent a hypothetical reason (like "chemtrails") for developing plants that are more resistant to these stressors. It's obviously a highly desirable thing to do, and in fact something farmers have been trying to do for hundreds of years with selective breeding techniques. Monsanto has simple expanded upon that long heritage of dealing with these problems by adding the new technique of genetic modification.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
The patent has courted controversy amidst claims of bio-piracy by Monsanto. Recently the patent application was rejected by India, article here http://www.navdanya.org/news/360-mo...-by-the-intellectual-property-appellate-board

Full decision here http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/146-2013.htm

The EU has granted the patents but having a patent and delivering commercial seeds in the present climate are different issues. The EU is not going to change its stance on GM overnight by which time the patents may be close to expiring. Not a good business model.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
It has always puzzled me that chemtrail proponents speak of "heavy metals", but then talk about aluminum. When I ask them why that they mean by "heavy" metals, they just fall silent. It's just something they heard and decided to repeat without knowing what it even means(typical). I see the above article refers to cadmium and lead as "heavy metals". THAT is what the term is meant to mean- certainly not aluminum.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
It has always puzzled me that chemtrail proponents speak of "heavy metals", but then talk about aluminum. When I ask them why that they mean by "heavy" metals, they just fall silent. It's just something they heard and decided to repeat without knowing what it even means(typical). I see the above article refers to cadmium and lead as "heavy metals". THAT is what the term is meant to mean- certainly not aluminum.
DEFRA class aluminium as a heavy metal not by atomic weight etc but due to its potential toxicity.
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/heavy_metals/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Originally the term meant "metals that are denser than iron", but usage has expanded to roughly mean "metal or metalloid of environmental concern", and varies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_(chemistry)
I don't think any of the common heavy metals listed above are in any serious geoengineering proposals.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
DEFRA class aluminium as a heavy metal not by atomic weight etc but due to its potential toxicity.
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/heavy_metals/
With the very high concentration of aluminum compounds in our soil and environment, how can it be included with those others? It simply doesn't have the same toxic potential and doesn't belong. Chemtrail believers don't have a clue about what is toxic, in what amounts, and what is not. They are simply repeating stuff they have heard from other chemmies.
 

Rational Bee

New Member
It has always puzzled me that chemtrail proponents speak of "heavy metals", but then talk about aluminum. When I ask them why that they mean by "heavy" metals, they just fall silent. It's just something they heard and decided to repeat without knowing what it even means(typical). I see the above article refers to cadmium and lead as "heavy metals". THAT is what the term is meant to mean- certainly not aluminum.
It's revealing that Aluminum, Strontium & Barium are rarely referred to as 'Earth Metals' by chemtrail proponents. I guess that's because it (quite rightly) implies that those metals occur naturally in soil etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A very common misunderstanding is thinking that it's actual metal - not a salt or other chemical compound.

Unfortunately though that requires a bit of chemistry. It's best to just explain to them that these metals are found in the ground naturally - and only discuss the metal/compound distinction if they bring it up.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
only discuss the metal/compound distinction if they bring it up.
I'm not sure about this strategy; in my opinion this is the central misunderstanding in the "metal" claims.

Don't you think it would deflate the dramatization considerably if we would explain that the metals are coming in the form of "minerals"?
That term may even evoke positive associations.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure about this strategy; in my opinion this is the central misunderstanding in the "metal" claims.

Don't you think it would deflate the dramatization considerably if we would explain that the metals are coming in the form of "minerals"?
That term may even evoke positive associations.
Yes, but the problem is that many people don't understand the distinction. So it's not helpful to bring it up unless you know they will understand it.

Things like atoms vs. molecules, elements vs. compounds, or metal vs. salt, might seem simple and obvious to you, but to most people it's utterly meaningless. And it's not something you can teach them, especially if it's an adversarial discussion. It's hard enough explaining it in a friendly chat. You have to remember that most people lack even a very basic understanding of science, but do not realize that they do.

This diagram is utterly meaningless to many people:


This one is a bit less so
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
it's not helpful to bring it up unless you know they will understand it.
Even if they don't understand the actual science (at first), my point is that the association may change.

Metal = shiny, 'unnatural', possibly dangerous

Mineral = dull, inert, but sometimes advertised on vitamin supplements and therefore healthy
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"Ions"? That part isn't correct at all.

That would be free-standing Na+ ions and Cl- ions (in aqueous)* or the damn thing would be a crystal of salt. Which?

* I reckon I have a fifty-per-cent chance of getting away with those polarities. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Ions"? That part isn't correct at all.

The would be free-standing Na+ ions and Cl- ions (in aqueous) or the damn thing would be a crystal of salt. Which? :)
The diagram is an oversimplification.

NaCl is an ionic compound, so table salt is a compound of ions held together by ionic forces, you could say water is a compound of molecules, but it's really a compound of atoms held together by molecular forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_compound

Dividing compounds into molecular and ionic bonding (which is probably what the diagram was trying to do) is itself a simplification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound
Once you go down this road, you are opening up a can of complicated worms. I'd stick with "The earth's crust is 8% aluminum" unless it's safe to proceed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Even if they don't understand the actual science (at first), my point is that the association may change.

Metal = shiny, 'unnatural', possibly dangerous

Mineral = dull, inert, but sometimes advertised on vitamin supplements and therefore healthy
But first you've got to get them to agree that aluminum can be an ingredient in a mineral.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
you could say water is a compound of molecules
No, you couldn't. Well, you could, but you'd be terminologically, er, incorrect.

Oh, maybe you mean, like, water being hydrogen hydroxide or some such thing. Gerraway. :)

Well, don't mind me.

Concerning oneself with confronting absolute ignorance is not worth sweating over IMO.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, you couldn't. Well, you could, but you'd be terminologically, er, incorrect.
Which was was my point :) Hence the next bit "but it's really a compound of atoms held together by molecular forces."

Anyway, "keep it simple" is the message here :)
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
But first you've got to get them to agree that aluminum can be an ingredient in a mineral.
That is true, but if we tell people that clay and precious stones like topaz or aquamarine are made partly of Aluminum, they can check this right away. Not an opinion thing, therefore not easily refuted.

Addendum: It's probably not even necessary to mention atoms. When asked, talking about "elements bonding together to form a new substance" might be sufficient. I'm very much in favour of simplification.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
if we tell people that clay and precious stones like topaz or aquamarine are made partly of Aluminum, they can check this right away.
I agree. Maybe just stick with clay though, as it's so common. Otherwise you'll get "yeah, like I've got a backyard full of topaz!"
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
With the very high concentration of aluminum compounds in our soil and environment, how can it be included with those others? It simply doesn't have the same toxic potential and doesn't belong. Chemtrail believers don't have a clue about what is toxic, in what amounts, and what is not. They are simply repeating stuff they have heard from other chemmies.
DEFRA classify due to the toxicity in low pH. This is not so much in soil but in aqueous environments. Mobile aluminium in rain can affect flora and fauna alike, e.g. mosses and invertebrates. Aluminium does put fish under stress as well.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes, they tend to think it's free metallic aluminum being rained down on them and that that is what is found in soil samples. They just don't seem to grasp the concept of aluminum oxide and that that is what is on the sandpaper in their garage.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Debunked: Monsanto wants to replace the bees they are killing with genetically engineered flying ant General Discussion 5
deirdre Debunked: Monsanto to replace honey bees with genetically engineered ants Health and Quackery 5
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Critical Thinker Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign Conspiracy Theories 308
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto and USAF School of Aerospace Medicine chemtrail study 1977 Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Leifer Debunked: Monsanto canteens (cafeterias) serve non-GMO foods Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top