Debunked: "Rainwater Samples From Alachua County Florida Test Positive for Aluminum"

[Mick West]

Rainwater Samples From Alachua County Florida Test Positive for Aluminum and Barium:

(The above was the original title of the video, which was deleted and re-uploaded titled "CHEMTRAILS:? Florida Rainwater Sample Tests Positive for Aluminum and Barium", and then later as "Aluminum and Barium Should Not Be Found in Rainwater Lab Tests")



Well, yes they do. Harold Saive of Gainesville Florida has been testing his rain water and has been reporting the amount of Aluminum found in the water. This was the first test where he included barium in the specified tests.

The first six times he tested, there was actually no barium listed as it was not tested for.

So what are we to make of these results. Let's take the highest values, 196 ug/L of aluminum, and 28.5 ug/L of barium. The implication of Saive's video is that these are unusually high levels. However historical tests do not back this up. Take these tests from 1967:

So his samples actually show perfectly normal levels of Aluminum, actually below the low value of 520 ug/L found in these test. As for the barium, most of the time he finds ZERO barium, and the one time there happens to be some, it's just 28.5 ug/L, vastly lower than the EPA's limit for drinking water of 2000 ug/L

Where does this aluminum and barium come from? It's simply dust. Aluminum and barium compounds like alumina or barite are minerals naturally found in the ground, and hence get in the air. Random amounts of dust gets in the water because of his collection system, which is something like a dust magnet.

The very small quantities of water collected in the tubs are concentrated into a bottle, and strained through a "drain filter, to eliminate twigs or leafs".

The fact that twigs and leaves need eliminating suggests that there's quite a bit of potential for contamination of the water with things other than just rainfall. It's surprising that the levels of aluminum are not higher. I would not be at all surprised if much higher values are occasionally reported in the future, depending on what random objects happen to fall into the tubs.

Of course, the rain itself will also collect dust on it's way from cloud to ground, as shown in the above study. But the collection method used here make it impossible to tell what is in the rain, and what is simply from dust and debris that ended up in the tubs.


For more discussion on this topic, see:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/23...next-cause-celebre-for-aluminium-in-Rainwater

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I like the way google has picked up on this. Almost any search for Alachua aluminum and barium directs to your debunking.
Very effective!

 

[Harold saive]

You have posted copyrighted material without permission. Remove this post immediately.
Harold Saive - Owner of illegally posted materials

 

[Mick West]

Harold,

I have simply embedded your video, which is explicitly allowed based on your embedding settings on YouTube, I also posted four low quality screen grabs from your video.

These are used under the fair use provision of the US copyright law (title 17, section 107). Particularly that I use them in a non-commercial, non-profit, educational manner, for criticism and comment. The original work itself is not commercial. I use only a small segment of the work. I quote here the relevant section, emphasis mine.

§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I would ask you to review applicable copyright law, and familiarize yourself with the fair-use doctrine and its interpretation by the courts before making further request. I refer you to:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
[...]
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

If you still feel that this does NOT constitute fair use, then please submit a DMCA Notice as per our DMCA policy:
https://www.metabunk.org/content/127-Digital-Millennium-Copyright-Act-Policy

Note that in order to receive damages you will need to demonstrate that your work has commercial intent. Specifically that you intended to make money from this video.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Harold Saive has this posted all over the net. He wants publicity for his work. He just doesn't want anyone to know that it is debunked.
I wrote Harold Saive and told him exactly what was wrong back in mid-August. Harold Saive has been given ample information about this. If he wants to be angry about something, he should direct his ire towards Michael J. Murphy, G. Edward Griffin, Dane Wigington, Francis Mangels, Rose Taylor Casebeer, and Mauro Martins de Oliveira who set him up for a fall by giving him false information to start with.

You need to also understand, Harold, that long before you became informed in August, Michael J. Murphy knew that he was promoting false material in his movie and interviews. He just doesn't care that he has been lying to you, Harold, or that he has been lying to each and every one of his interviewers and their audiences. He doesn't care how silly you look when you repeat what he has told you. He doesn't care about you or anyone else. He cares about Michael J Murphy, that is all.

 

[truth finder]

I don't buy your bullshit mike. you and your masters are failing and when the time will come no one will give a shit about you

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I don't buy your bullshit mike. you and your masters are failing and when the time will come no one will give a shit about you

So, you couldn't find anything factual to say?
You sound like another person angry because he was set up for a fail by Michael J. Murphy and the Mt. Shasta bunch.
There's a lot of that going around, maybe you should hold his feet to the fire, since Michael J. Murphy is the one that caused you to believe in a hoax.....
Pity, that.

 

[Unregistered]

You know what wasnt in any of the tests then and now-Silver Iodide- AGI Its because its not done anywhere in US not in any tests offered or available for soil, water, air, or human, and animal medicine! If they dont test for it is it shown to cause harm...hmmm dont scoff before you know all the facts about exactly what is in that pretty shiny silvery glare that glows in the dark with a myriad of rainbows...Go back to your periodic table and get out your notes and compare the problems an only negatively charged nanoparticle which is a neurotoxin and can cross the blood brain barrier carrying other toxins in with it. As all neurologic disorders, adhd, autism, als, dystonia, alzheimers, etc. skyrocket, and fungal, bacterial problems grow deadly-Just look to the domino effect of what comes of broadcasting something no one does really see-who looks up and is curious enough to know why things have changed so drastically in the last couple of years especially.... yet pay attention its choking out the atmosphere and everything around you, excessive in their daily barrage of flyovers christmas eve, christmas, easter, and fourth of july night behind the fireworks i could see them laying stripes to the south-who is paying for this anyway-jet fuel, jets, pilots, and silver iodide to make it 'rain' isnt cheap! Ouch the glare has grown out of control and is getting people killed, and the severe weather, and resulting fires as well....all a Direct result of using silver iodide in the spraying over our green city. Pray for the people involved in the Paynes Prarie crash, as my friend was one of the ones who came up on it. Please dont spew negative remarks about test results just realize you missed that part too and hating on people who have noticed the change and are only reporting what is a HUGE Problem and warn us of dangers from a Huge Blatant Secret-I just happened to not stop till I got to the complete and admitted to breakdown on their chemical composition in their weather modification program and compared it to the periodic table, available tests, meterology, history, and trending health, weather, and ag issues, and medical data...it leads to it All! Do your own research and itll be painfully obvious...Peace

 

[Mick West]

Most of the silver in the environment does not come from cloud seeding. You might find this interesting:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146-c5.pdf

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Interesting that hysteria about weather modification using silver iodide is a subject of the latest Michael J. Murphy movie.
More interesting is that G. Edward Griffin hasn't followed Michael J. Murphy into this latest enterprise.


SILVER LUNGS!
The high pH colloidal silver generator and lung delivery system! Warranty - FAQ - Contact Us

"I have been using colloidal silver for over twenty years. It has served my family well for the control of every kind of infection imaginable. I even use it as a deodorant, because of its ability to kill odor-causing bacteria. In the past, I made this product at home with a device that cost more than SilverLungs but only produced a liquid form. Now I use the vaporizer, which delivers the silver directly to the lungs for faster absorption and where it goes directly to the location of respiratory infections. That is exactly what I want in the event of exposure to the flu - any kind."

- G. Edward Griffin http://www.silverlungs.com/reviews.html

​

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Most of the silver in the environment does not come from cloud seeding. You might find this interesting:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146-c5.pdf

Actually, that research is a bit dated. One of the fastest growing sources of silver namoparticle pollution is from, guess what?
Socks and other textiles!
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=13362.php
http://thougtforce.hubpages.com/hub/Do-not-by-clothes-with-silver-ions

 

[Mick West]

Silver has long been a popular alternative medicine. And it does actually work as an anti-bacterial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver

[Broken External Image]:http://www.discountwholesaleonline.com/images/products/big/784850.jpg

But one might as well inhale the fumes from a public swimming pool as what GEG is suggesting.

 

[Mick West]

Actually, that research is a bit dated. One of the fastest growing sources of silver namoparticle pollution is from, guess what?
Socks and other textiles!
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=13362.php
http://thougtforce.hubpages.com/hub/Do-not-by-clothes-with-silver-ions

Socks have been suggested as a vector for the Morgellons pathogen. Coincidence? (..... yes).

 

[Jay Reynolds]

In addition to being an effective bactericide, silver nanoparticles are also toxic to mammalian cells
in vitro (in test tube studies). Hussain et al found that silver nanoparticles were highly toxic to BRL
3A rat liver cells.19 Mitochondrial function, an indicator of energy available to the cells decreased
and LDH or lactic hydrogenase function increased significantly in cells exposed to silver
nanoparticles at 5–50 μg/ml. Other metal oxides (magnetite, aluminium, molybdenum trioxide and
titanium dioxide) had no measurable effect at these doses. The LDH function is commonly used
to indicate cell death and the release of cytoplasm parts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...4ti0CA&usg=AFQjCNEoXekgQlrr72lEFe1TTTnFt8OFIQ

....

 

[Jay Reynolds]

But one might as well inhale the fumes from a public swimming pool as what GEG is suggesting.

I actually doubt that there is any silver generated by that device. They certainly don't offer any testing results. But what if it did, how does the user know what he is getting? Could he get an overdose?
Who really knows, and they are suggesting inhaling the vapor!

Buyer beware.

 

[firepilot]

Interesting that hysteria about weather modification using silver iodide is a subject of the latest Michael J. Murphy movie.
More interesting is that G. Edward Griffin hasn't followed Michael J. Murphy into this latest enterprise.

Oh goody, lets hope sometime I can get a chance to argue MJM, since I actually have performed cloud seeding flights using silver iodide, and I know exactly how it is meant to work, the quantities used, and what kinds of aircraft are used in it.

 

[Steve Funk]

By the way, how did barium and strontium become known as geoengineering chemicals? I have never seen them referred to outside of the conspiracy sites. This 2009 paper by Caldeira, et al, has a short section on potential substances to use as geoengineering aerosols. It mentions aluminum, and sulfur (as h2so4), and mentions several other molecules in passing. But there is no reference to any barium or strontium compounds. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.5140.pdf

I wonder if they just worked backward and assumed that if they find what the think are abnormal amounts, it must be the chemtrails.

 

[Mick West]

The Barium suggestion comes from a variety of places. David Keith's self-levitating nano-disks being one geoengineering connection (though relatively recent, 2009):

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16428.full

[h=3]An Idealized Example.[/h] As a specific example, consider a thin disk with radius ∼5 μm and thickness 50 nm composed of three layers: 5 nm aluminum oxide, 30 nm of metallic aluminum, and finally 15 nm of barium titanate

But the Barium connection goes way back, to William Thomas and AC Griffith. The suggestion at the time seems more to do with HAARP type conspiracies - RF ducting, ionospheric modification. It just got folded into the geoengineering later. see Rense 2000:

http://www.rense.com/general/chemchronup.htm

Florescent black light reveals filaments - LOTS OF THEM - which glow blue, red/orange. Contain barium titanate, a dielectric used to keep electricity flowing. Barium titanate can be used to: trap moisture to create clouds; build up earth pressures to cause earthquakes, tornados, volcanic eruptions; to create extra tension and stress in humans. The fibers are in a twisted ribbon shape ~3-5 microns thick by ~10 to 13 microns wide. They have imperfections that manifest as small clumps of polymer whiskers ~.5 to 1 micron in diameter by ~5 to 10 microns long. They are large enough by themselves and in sufficient quantity to cause possible long-lasting lung disease. WHERE ARE YOU AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION??

Strontium I think got a boost with the Fukushima fallout concerns, with all the easily worried people worrying about radioactive strontium. It was pretty obscure before that - sometimes mentioned but just as a generic heavy metal toxin.

When they do their tests, they generally now ONLY test for those three things. Or course they end up finding some, which continues to reinforce their beliefs.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Barium and strontium got into chemtrails in 2000, as Mick says Barium by A.C. Griffith and strontium just by specuation f Clifford Carnicom. Here is the complete history:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

As you can see, barium in chemtrails predated the Keith paper by 9 years, and was part of an evident hoax by someone. Either Griffith made it up, or his anonymous source did. Griffith was an enlisted man and knew a bit about radio from his service, but actually, higher tech communications have made much of what he was claiming about radar and radio frequency propagation an obsolete anachronism.

As of a few years afer Griffith pulled his stunt and I exposed it, all the members of his group disbanded and thus far he never came back with anything else. His legacy lives on, however, perpetuated by folks who find ordinary amounts of barium everywhere in the environment.

 

[Unregistered]

So it's been a year and no-one has touched this subject on your site. [...] the levels of aluminum, strontium and barium in the metro Phoenix area are over 6000% above normally safe levels as the EPA has suggested.

The northern polar caps are melting at an astronomical rate, and the methane expulsion as a result threatens life as we know it on planet earth.[...] no matter the complete loss of visibility over vast vistas of land, the browning of EVERYTHING green, the sudden and clinically proven lurches in COPD, MS, asthma, ALS here and everywhere else that gets bombarded with this crap.

[...]

 

[Cairenn]

Can we see your proof of that claim, please?

 

[MikeC]

Or even evidence - "proof" is a somewhat loaded word ...

 

[jvnk08]

no matter the complete loss of visibility over vast vistas of land, the browning of EVERYTHING green, the sudden and clinically proven lurches in COPD, MS, asthma, ALS here and everywhere else that gets bombarded with this crap.

[...]

I'd love to see the statistics that back this up

 

[David Fraser]

6000 times does seem quite high. A number of years ago there was a water pollution incident in the UK involving aluminium sulphate and at its peak levels of 620,000 ug/l, that's over 3000 times the recommended limit by WHO for drinking water. There were reports of a fish kill of up to 60,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelford_water_pollution_incident

Now a lot of people became very ill and animals died, so one would expect there to be a large number of animal deaths, especially birds and small mammals, if levels were at over 6000 times in rainwater.

 

[Belfrey]

Presumably this is referring to the Arizona Skywatch air samples, which are covered very well in this contrailscience page. Basically, they didn't understand how to do a proper air sample. They pumped air through a filter for some indeterminate length of time, and then had the dust that had collected in the filter tested. So, what their results showed was the proportion of those elements in dust, not the concentration of them in the air.

 

[David Fraser]

This is slightly off topic but I did not want to start a new thread.

I have a great deal of time on my hands and I have been compiling as much information and data about aluminium and barium levels in the environment and food chain. This is more a personal interest thing for me but I hope to present as much information and historical data on a webpage as a sort of one-stop shop for anyone interested. I often use the apparent lack of elevated levels of the metals in my arguments and I have been contacted by a few chemtrailers who have asked for more information. However all the information I have at the moment is for the UK and I am looking at expanding it to cover as many countries as possible. I would be grateful if people could PM me any links they may feel are useful if they come across any, ideally any documents like these;

http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0807bnao-e-e.pdf


http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtds200808.pdf


cheers

 

[Mick West]

This is slightly off topic but I did not want to start a new thread.

I have a great deal of time on my hands and I have been compiling as much information and data about aluminium and barium levels in the environment and food chain. This is more a personal interest thing for me but I hope to present as much information and historical data on a webpage as a sort of one-stop shop for anyone interested. I often use the apparent lack of elevated levels of the metals in my arguments and I have been contacted by a few chemtrailers who have asked for more information. However all the information I have at the moment is for the UK and I am looking at expanding it to cover as many countries as possible. I would be grateful if people could PM me any links they may feel are useful if they come across any, ideally any documents like these;

http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0807bnao-e-e.pdf


http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtds200808.pdf


cheers

There's quite a bit of that sort of thing scattered around Metabunk:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/247-What-are-the-normal-levels-of-Barium-in-Soil-and-Water
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/703-Normal-and-Toxic-Levels-of-Aluminum-in-Blood-Serum
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/14...m-Barium-Strontium-Manganese-and-Varium-tests
and several others.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:metabunk.org+normal+levels+of+aluminum

 

[Jay Reynolds]

This is more a personal interest thing for me but I hope to present as much information and historical data on a webpage as a sort of one-stop shop for anyone interested.

Be sure to let us know when you get this webpage ready, it is valuable work.

Here is another link with references:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/822-Natural-Abundance-Of-Strontium-And-Barium

and you might find my videos of interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJJ5WG_144k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJJ5WG_144k

 

[Wild Bill]

Rainwater Samples From Alachua County Florida Test Positive for Aluminum and Barium:

(The above was the original title of the video, which was deleted and re-uploaded titled "CHEMTRAILS:? Florida Rainwater Sample Tests Positive for Aluminum and Barium")



Well, yes they do. Harold Saive of Gainesville Florida has been testing his rain water and has been reporting the amount of Aluminum found in the water. This was the first test where he included barium in the specified tests.

The first six times he tested, there was actually no barium listed as it was not tested for.

So what are we to make of these results. Let's take the highest values, 196 ug/L of aluminum, and 28.5 ug/L of barium. The implication of Saive's video is that these are unusually high levels. However historical tests do not back this up. Take these tests from 1967:

So his samples actually show perfectly normal levels of Aluminum, actually below the low value of 520 ug/L found in these test. As for the barium, most of the time he finds ZERO barium, and the one time there happens to be some, it's just 28.5 ug/L, vastly lower than the EPA's limit for drinking water of 2000 ug/L

Where does this aluminum and barium come from? It's simply dust. Aluminum and barium compounds like alumina or barite are minerals naturally found in the ground, and hence get in the air. Random amounts of dust gets in the water because of his collection system, which is something like a dust magnet.

The very small quantities of water collected in the tubs are concentrated into a bottle, and strained through a "drain filter, to eliminate twigs or leafs".

The fact that twigs and leaves need eliminating suggests that there's quite a bit of potential for contamination of the water with things other than just rainfall. It's surprising that the levels of aluminum are not higher. I would not be at all surprised if much higher values are occasionally reported in the future, depending on what random objects happen to fall into the tubs.

Of course, the rain itself will also collect dust on it's way from cloud to ground, as shown in the above study. But the collection method used here make it impossible to tell what is in the rain, and what is simply from dust and debris that ended up in the tubs.


For more discussion on this topic, see:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/23...next-cause-celebre-for-aluminium-in-Rainwater

 

[Wild Bill]

O.K... I have no sympathy for the original video here.
I live in the Pacific Northwest where an increase of soil
pH in the forests is well-documented.
..
I am looking for a fairly knowledgeable explanation for this one.
..
The best film I have seen "debunking" "What in the World Are They Spraying" points out that the period in which the soil pH in the Pacific Northwest forests increased corresponds to an increase in the burning of coal in China. It had not occurred to me that this pollution could cross the world's widest ocean and produce this effect.
..
The problem is that the "debunking" film is describing this pollution as "acid rain." The locally observable phenomenon here is that the soil pH is increasing from 5.6 in the forests, which is acidic, to 6.6 which is nearly neutral. In other words, "acid rain" is making the soil if falls on less acidic. This does not make sense to me.

 

[Belfrey]

O.K... I have no sympathy for the original video here.
I live in the Pacific Northwest where an increase of soil
pH in the forests is well-documented.

Where can one find this documentation? If you're talking about the "documentation" by Francis Mangels, there is a thread for that here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-claims-of-francis-mangels-a-factual-examination.154/

 

[solrey]

O.K... I have no sympathy for the original video here.
I live in the Pacific Northwest where an increase of soil
pH in the forests is well-documented.
..
I am looking for a fairly knowledgeable explanation for this one.
..
The best film I have seen "debunking" "What in the World Are They Spraying" points out that the period in which the soil pH in the Pacific Northwest forests increased corresponds to an increase in the burning of coal in China. It had not occurred to me that this pollution could cross the world's widest ocean and produce this effect.
..
The problem is that the "debunking" film is describing this pollution as "acid rain." The locally observable phenomenon here is that the soil pH is increasing from 5.6 in the forests, which is acidic, to 6.6 which is nearly neutral. In other words, "acid rain" is making the soil if falls on less acidic. This does not make sense to me.

I live in Corvallis Oregon, my gf is a botanist, we have a large garden ourselves and among our friends and other folks we socialize with are farmers, foresters, mycologists, master gardeners, beekeepers, permaculturists and other botanists. Not a single person we know, either personally or through social media, has mentioned anything about unusual changes in soil pH anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. On our forays into the forests we have not seen widespread problems with plants that would indicate a drastic change in soil pH. The Oregon State University extension service office is just a short walk from here, maybe I'll pop in this week and ask if anybody has reported anything relating to changes in soil pH. Are you aware of any documentation that does not come from Francis Mangels?

 

[jhodgski]

Mick, How did you find you raise water test result from 1967? And was it cherry-picked?

If you are trying to claim it represents typical aluminium levels for 1967, then how do you explain what would be a massive reduction to today's levels?

Also, how do you explain today's high levels of aluminium bearing in the fact the aluminium is rarely found in free form in nature?

 

[MikeC]

If you are trying to claim it represents typical aluminium levels for 1967, then how do you explain what would be a massive reduction to today's levels?

Also, how do you explain today's high levels of aluminium bearing in the fact the aluminium is rarely found in free form in nature?

Your last 2 points are contradicting each other - it can't be a massive reduction to today's levels and also have todays levels as high!!

However the last point about aluminium being rarely found in "free form" in nature is irrelevant - the tests do not measure "free form" aluminium - they measure total aluminium, regardless of what form it is in.

So if you have any dust from, say, soil*, then you are likely to get some aluminium in that - and that will show up in the tests.

*soil is of course a mix of all sorts of stuff, but commonly includes clay and feldspar - both of which have aluminium in their makeup.

 

[Belfrey]

Mick, How did you find you raise water test result from 1967? And was it cherry-picked?

He linked to the source in the OP: A preliminary study of the composition of rainwater in SE Ontario. It's one of many examples from the historical literature which show that the range of Al in rainwater being reported by chemtrails believers is generally similar to what has always occurred.

See much more in this other thread.

 

[Mick West]

Unfortunately @jhodgski has been banned for one week for being excessively impolite.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I believe it is true to say that in terms of "rainwater analysis" by amateurs?

There is a serious lack of proper scientific control methods, to suggest any "result".

I would encourage those who believe in some sort of "metal spraying" to conduct a proper scientific evaluation, that can
be validated after repeated peer review.

This is how science is conducted.

 

[JFDee]

Also, how do you explain today's high levels of aluminium bearing in the fact the aluminium is rarely found in free form in nature?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding with regards to the test results in question.

The test method cracks up all compounds in the sample into their elements. So you get metal readings from minerals.

That bit of information can't be stressed too often or too much.

 

[Mick West]

This is the fundamental misunderstanding with regards to the test results in question.

The test method cracks up all compounds in the sample into their elements. So you get metal readings from minerals.

That bit of information can't be stressed too often or too much.

Probably needs an infographic though.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the fundamental misunderstanding with regards to the test results in question.

The test method cracks up all compounds in the sample into their elements. So you get metal readings from minerals.

That bit of information can't be stressed too often or too much.

Precisely. If you were to do a similar test on a human body (which might require quite a bit of some sample preparation!) you would find about 1kg of calcium. That doesn't mean that there's a kilo of calcium metal in your body - that would be impossible, as calcium reacts violently with water. All the calcium is tied up in compounds, eg hydroxylapatite, Ca5(PO4)3(OH), in your bones.