Debunked: Suffolk County, NY Geoengineering Law

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
MS Cindy Pickoulas and MS Siobhan Ciresi are attempting to get a law passed by the Suffolk County, NY Legislature to ban geoenegineering overhead.

They operate under the name
Long Island Skywatch.

Here is Ciresi's website: "Operation Humanity Transcending"

Here is their promotional flyer.

Long Island Skywatch said:
"We are looking for people to contact their local representatives in Nassau & Suffolk Counties of LongIsland. As most of you are aware, it is very difficult to get our public servants to take the geoengineering issue seriously. That is why LongIslandskywatch has decided to bring this matter to our local legislatures. We have met with Councilman Dan Panico and Legislator Ed Romaine. They have both been very receptive to the "possibility" of Geoengineering. We do not use the word "receptive" lightly. It is the first positive movement we have received from anyone in a government position. Both of these gentlemen guided us on the steps needed to get a resolution on the table to ban geoengineering in Suffolk County. We are in the process of contacting other organizations to get them interested and involved in the hopes of having a substantial number of people requesting a ban. In order to make this happen, we need people to get involved. We are also requesting that individuals attend upcoming meetings where a resolution will be put before the county. We will post these dates so that we can fill the room with concerned citizens. You do not have to live in Suffolk County to attend meetings or contact people. Ed Romaine is in the process of writing a resolution for Suffolk County. We are aware that this will not stop the chemtrails. Our goal is to make the public aware of what is happening in the skies above. We have created a packet that we use when meeting with public officials. I will send a copy to anyone who requires documentation prior to meeting with local officials. The more counties that bring "geoengineering" into the public domain, the more chance we have of informing people who are unaware of this issue. We have numerous samples of surface water throughout Suffolk County. Our latest samples were 8900 ppb. Toxicity is 750 ppb. We can send you copies of these samples to get you started. We advise everyone to take samples of their own. Mr. Romaine is bringing these reports to the Health Department. Please contact us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it to become part of our team. We need people to help us. It is in numbers that we will be taken seriously. I have a list of organizations that need to be made aware of geoengineering. Please email us. WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!"

Three days ago, I contacted Suffolk County Legislator Edward P. Romaine's office and spoke with Lisa Keys, his Legislative Aide, who told me that she had never heard anyone say that chemtrails was a hoax. She requested that I send her some information. This is the email I sent her:

Lisa Keys
Suffok County Legislative Aide to Mr. Edward P.Romaine
423 Griffing Avenue - Suite 2
Riverhead, NY 11901

Re: Information about the Chemtrails Hoax

Dear MS Keys,
Thank you for requesting information about the chemtrails hoax. Chemtrails are simply contrails, produced when water vapor from jet engines hits -40 degree air at high altitudes.

When these contrails form in dry air, they dissipate rapidly, when they form in air with high humidity, they will persist like other high altitude clouds, sometimes for days. Those who believe in "chemtrails"call these persistent contrails "chemtrails", falsely believing that they are composed not of water but are evidence of a global conspiracy for nefarious purposes.

This hoax began in 1997 to promote a book by Richard Finke and Larry Wayne Harris, who had previously pled guilty to obtaining Bubonic Plague bacteria through wire fraud, Harris later caused a panic in Las Vegas when he claimed to be in possession of anthrax. (Link)

Three years later, in 1999, I wrote the first of many articles on the hoax. (Link)

I also tracked the origins of the hoax as far back as I could. (Link)

Over the next ten years, the hoax became a conspiracy theory popularized on late night talk shows and on Internet message boards, and developed a following of core believers as well as a small cottage industry producing books and selling products to protect you from "chemtrails". There are several hundred websites about "chemtrails".

On the way, US Congressman Dennis Kucinich got taken in by some of the chemtrail believers who snuck the term into a bill outlawing space based weapons. Kucinich removed it from the bill after I asked his staff members about it. (Link)

The conspiracy theory later became linked with other conspiracy theories, especially the 9/11 "Truth" movement whose adherents believe that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, that President Bush orchestrated it and that bombs, not planes, brought down the towers.

Cindy Pikoulas' website "Long Island Skywatch" explains 9/11 "Truth": (Link)

In 2010, 9/11 "Truther", Michael J. Murphy produced a movie called "What In The World Are They Spraying?" which was widely promoted using social media and through the 9/11 "Truth" networks. Most likely, Cindy Pikoulas' belief stems from viewing that movie as she dates her first belief to early in 2011. (Link)

The movie says that rainwater samples which have been analyzed in a laboratory contain abnormal amounts of aluminum, barium, and strontium. The movie does not, however, explain that these elements are found in ordinary soils and that the same amounts of the elements shown in the movie were also being found in rainwater 40 years ago. (Link)

The movie comes to the conclusion that the rain water samples prove that these elements are being sprayed to accomplish geoengineering, which has been proposed by some real scientists as a possible means to combat global warming. All of these scientists deny that any such project is underway. The movie claims that "chemtrails" are a "Crime Against Humanity" and are already responsible for illness, disease, death and environmental destruction. (Link)

It appears that Cindy Pikoulas is emulating the movie as she and others in your area have taken rain and pond water samples, all of which show ordinary levels of elements. (Link)

As a result of the movie, some have become radicalized, have made threats against aircraft, and in a recent poll 95% of believers voted that anyone involved be hanged or spend life in prison without parole. (Link)

The situation you find yourself in seems to be rather difficult, because Mr. Romaine has given a certain amount of credence to the hoax by already agreeing to sponsor some ordinance against geoengineering. This has been widely disseminated through the "chemtrail" believer networks. Just google Edward P. Romaine and chemtrails to see. I don't know how they were able to convince you that they had a legitimate concern, but it appears to me that Mr. Romaine was simply being responsive to his constituents, even if they were misguided. There could have been some subterfuge, and they may have hidden some of their motives. I'll let you be the judge of that.

Their real intent, though, is to induce you cooperate by giving the hoax legitimacy, and later they will demand that you enforce the law and stop all persistent contrails. To satisfy that demand, you will have to prove to them that when they see a persistent contrail it is just an ordinary jet contrail, and not geoengineering. Failing that, they will increase their demands and threaten to sue the County for failure to enforce the law. They have already done this in Mohave County, Arizona, as this irate man, Albert Dicicco does in this video. (Link)

It looks like maybe a no-win situation for you at this point. You can go ahead with the ordinance, in which case the believers will hold your feet to the fire and non-believers will point at you otherwise as well, or you can simply refuse any more to do with it. You could also put the onus on the believers to show some proof which can be easily debunked if you can get someone with the expertise to do so. In Alachua County, Florida, that was the way that the County handled Harold Saive, a perennial feature at County General Meetings. (Link)

The difference, however, is that Saive is rather isolated and doesn't seem to have a group to support him. The New york chemtrail believers have actually co-opted the Occupy Wall Street protests in Rockland, and might end up "Occupying" your office some day. (Link)

If you go that route, I'd suggest you get some expertise from a currently flying commercial jet pilot to explain aviation, an environmental scientist who can explain why dust is in the air and rain water, and maybe a psychologist who deals with abnormal phobias. Maybe two psychologists.

As if I haven't given you enough information, here is the best one-stop website explaining what is wrong with the chemtrails hoax claims, and why they are just contrails:

There is a community of folks debunking "chemtrails", including myself, some pilots, meteorologists, scientists, and others from around the world. We'd be happy to answer any specific questions, if the answers are not already found in past discussions here:
I wish you the best of luck.

Jay Reynolds
Last edited by a moderator:
... and a meteorologist to explain the formation and subsequent behaviour of contrails.

Good letter; easy to read, explains the whole meme succinctly.
Excellent work.
Very good. I wish though there was some other word than "hoax" to describe it. As "hoax" makes it seem like it's all just a big joke some is playing, which they could just reveal and it would all go away. In reality thousands of people belive very strongly that it is real, and even if MJM himself were to explain it is not, they would keep believing. It's gone far past hoax and into mature conspiracy theory - but then that's a rather loaded term. So I guess "hoax" it is.
Let’s look at Siobhan Ciresi’s samples.

I am told that her name is a Gaelic form of the name Joan, and is pronounced “shivahn”.

The samples date from 12/3/10 to 9/9/11, and were analyzed by multiple labs, some used EPA method 200.7, some used EPA 200.8. The units used were mg/L, milligrams per liter, I have converted these below to ug/L, micrograms per liter. The converted measurements are penciled in by hand on the scanned lab reports along with some additional description of the sample location. Of the ten samples, three were not tested for strontium.

Of the ten lab reports available, six were taken from ponds, one was potable water from a kitchen sink faucet, one from a pool cover, one from “ground snow”, and one from “free falling snow”. The highest aluminum levels come from ponds, with a maximum of 8700 ug/L. Maximum barium was 280 from “ground snow”. Strontium maximum was from a pond, at 190 ug/L.

There were cases of both pond and snow samples which had non-detectable levels of either aluminum, barium, or strontium. The lowest levels of the three elements were found in the “pool cover” and the “free-falling snow” samples, with only strontium found in the “pool cover”, and non-detectable levels of barium and strontium in the “free-falling snow” sample.

Pond Samples

Pond samples, depending on the turbidity and sampling method, are classified as surface waters, and they continually receive inputs from dry deposition, wet deposition, and ground runoff of varying quality. As such, they would be expected to contain crustal materials which include all three elements tested for, many other elements and both organic and inorganic compounds. Because of these multiple inputs, which could have occurred for decades or centuries and changed over time, no correlation with claimed geoengineering is possible using pond water.
Coalition Against Geoengineering member Mauro Martins de Oliviera has provided an instructional protocol for testing surface water, “How We Test”, which states, “The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water....the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment. You will need to put the lid on underwater before you lift the jar off the bottom and out of the water....thats it!”. The inclusion of what is essentially soil from the bottom of a pond renders such a sample unusable for any determination of water quality. At this time, sampling protocols used by Ciresi for all her samples remain undocumented.

Snow Samples

1.“Ground Snow”- Of the two snow samples, one is described as “ground snow”, which is likely to be snowfall which had lain exposed for some length of time. The location is described as “Arboretum Park, Oakdale, NY”, and aluminum was 1340 ug/L, barium 280 ug/L, and strontium below the detection limit.

Examination of NOAA weather records for February at Islip, NY, 3.5 miles away from the sample location, shows that there had been no snow accumulation at that location for two weeks. The Bayard Cutting Arboretum (see map) is located 2000 feet east of the Hecksher State Parkway and just south of the junction of Hwy 27, the principal highway for Long Island. Both of these 4 to six lane highways are sources of dust including brake dust, one of the principal sources of barium in the atmosphere. Considering that this snow sample was two weeks old and lies near known ground level sources of dust and barium, it provides no evidence for putative stratospheric geoengineering.

2. “Free Falling Snow”- The second snow sample, described as “free falling snow, Sayville, NY” had aluminum at 260 ug/L and both barium and strontium below the detection limit. This sample is well below both the historical averages for aluminum from 1967 (800 ug/L) and 1973 (350 ug/L) , and current national averages listed by the Coalition Against Geoengineering (484 ug/L). Considering this sample’s position far below both historical and current averages, it provides no evidence for putative stratospheric geoengineering.
Last edited by a moderator:
Siobhan Ciresi's website makes the following statement:
Siobhan Ciresi said:
Currently the EPA standards for aluminum fall under several types. The Criteria Maximum Concentration and the Criterion Continuous Concentration as registers for surface waters. In addition, a recommended Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) is based on aesthetic effects in drinking water which ranges from 50-200 ppb. The California State Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum in drinking water is 1000 ppb or 1mg/L. Government action is required at 1000 ppb and higher. Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA's compilation of national recommended water quality criteria is presented as a summary table containing recommended water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water for approximantely 150 pollutants". They classify Aluminum as a non priority pollutant.

The above information for drinking water has no relevance in a discussion for either surface water or rain water.

Ciresi continues:
Siohan Ciresi said:
"The Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect. The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect"~EPA

According to the EPA's "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria", the CMC for aluminum is 750 ug/L or 750 parts per billion and the CCC for aluminum is 87 ug/L or 87 ppb. The EPA lists no CMC or CCC for barium.

At present, initial samples reveal excessive, highly toxic amounts of aluminum, barium, and strontium from Suffolk County, Long Island NY. Among these were various pond samples from residential areas and parks, snow samples, and rain. Together Humanity Transcending and Long Island Skywatch will collaborate to continue sampling for these toxins raining down on us.

There is this link at Ciresi's site, labeled "EPA's Guidelines for Aluminum". No information on aluminum is available at that link.

EPA's actual Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC), and Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for auminum are available here on page 13, and as she stated, these are:
CMC [SUB]G,I[/SUB] - 750 ug/L
CCC [SUB]G,I,L[/SUB] - 87 ug/L

The CMC and CCC in the above EPA document are footnoted "G", "I" and "L", which read:

United States Environmental Protection Agency said:
G. This value is based on a 304(a) aquatic life criterion that was derived using the 1985 Guidelines (Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049, January 1985) and was issued in one of the following criteria documents: Aluminum (EPA 440/5-86-008).

I. This value for aluminum is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water column.

L. There are three major reasons why the use of Water-Effect Ratios might be appropriate.
The value of 87 μg/l is based on a toxicity test with the striped bass in water with pH = 6.5–6.6 and hardness <10 mg/L. Data in "Aluminum Water-Effect Ratio for the 3M Plant Effluent Discharge, Middleway, West Virginia" (May 1994) indicate that aluminum is substantially less toxic at higher pH and hardness, but the effects of pH and hardness are not well quantified at this time.

In tests with the brook trout at low pH and hardness, effects increased with increasing concentrations of total aluminum even though the concentration of dissolved aluminum was constant, indicating that total recoverable is a more appropriate measurement than dissolved, at least when particulate aluminum is primarily aluminum hydroxide particles. In surface waters, however, the total recoverable procedure might measure aluminum associated with clay particles, which might be less toxic than aluminum associated with aluminum hydroxide.EPA is aware of field data indicating that many high quality waters in the U.S. contain more than 87 g aluminum/L, when either total recoverable or dissolved is measured.

What Ciresi did not get was that these footnotes explain that under ordinary water pH levels, aluminum is present in multiple compounds which include natural clays formed from aluminosilicate minerals and natural aluminum oxides which are ordinarily inert and harmless because they are not aluminum as aluminum hydroxide or in a soluble form as aluminum [SUP]+++[/SUP] ions. The method her lab used for testing did not distinguish between these natural substances, it only tested for "Total Recoverable Aluminum", as referenced in the EPA document above.

Ciresi's highest sample for aluminum, barium, and strontium came from one of the three Islip High School ponds. They are called "Pardees Ponds, Orowoc lake, and the "Duck Pond". The Gifted and Talented students have been monitoring these ponds for several years under the tutelage of Mrs. Julia C. Johnson, as part of an "Open Space Stewardship" program.

The students have been sampling these waters for life forms, testing pH, and monitoring the water quality for years.

They found that pH was neutral (7) in Pardees pond.

I actually think these Middle School students and especially their teacher know more about the ecology of these ponds than any chemtrail believer ever will, but I strongly recommend that both MS Ciresi and Mrs. Pikoulas emulate what those students have done. Quality

Isn't it amazing that while chemtrail believers are wasting their public officials time on a hoax, some 12 year old students testing the same waters are passing them up in knowledge?
The chemtrail belivers have packed the legislative eneral Session and are speaking their alleged minds trying to convince the legislators to pass the bill.
You can hear it live using realplayer see he Listen Live link in the upper right hand banner. This has been going on for some time.
I predict that the law will be tabled.
I imagine this will eventualy be on youtube, it was probably very cathartic for the believers. They didn't bring up anything new. One speaker said contrails don't persist longer than 15 minutes, so the Legislature will eventually find out that these people don't know what they are talking about. Next stop is a committee, and another hearing. This fact sheet explains the process for passing a law.
I would think that if a bill is passed, it would be up to anyone claiming it had been breeched to provide any evidence of that breech
eg, they could not just say "There be chemtrails!" they would have to give more details and concrete evidence.


PS tried to log in to post but it would not let me
In this video, taken at the hearing on Dec 6th, as Siobhan speaks Legislator Jack Eddington dons a particulate mask to mock her. Just before he does this, he displays the mask to fellow Legislators who begin to smile. Edward P. Romaine is at the far left.

In this video the speaker presents to the hearing as "evidence" @ 00:30- 1:30 the hoaxed video called "Funvax", he says he has "proof":

In this video, the speaker quotes A.C. Griffith, who began the "Barium is in Chemtrails hoax", and "Project Cloverleaf" @ 4:00, @ 7:15, Ed Romaine sits unsmiling as he is congratulated by the speaker for sponsoring the Law, @ 13:21, the speaker notes that the Legislators are not paying attention as he speaks and at 15:30, he misreads the Mt Shasta dirty snow samples as showing 61,000 parts per million.

The chemtrail hoax believers had a good chance to show their proof, but because they have been 'setup' by so many ancillary hoaxes promulgated and perpetuated by the (mis)leaders, they essentially debunk themselves. In my opinion, they have shot themselves in the foot once again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Their problem was that they diluted their argument with what seemed like every single grievance they could think of. At one point someone mentioned the TSA strip searching old ladies, and segues into spraying aluminum.

If they really wanted to get something done, they should have focussed on one subject. But it seems more like they saw this as some kind of public platform to say all the things that they had previously only been able to say on the internet. Of course, after a few theories, the council members just saw them as being conspiracy nuts, and basically ignored them.

There was even a member of the Lyme disease association, seemingly claiming that chemtrails were deliberately making people ill. The Lyme patients she refer to are those with "chronic" Lyme, which is generally thought to be mostly psychosomatic.

I can't see this law passing after the circus that showed up in support.
I am guessing anyways the issues involved, are largely above the county issue, and are dealt with at the state and federal level.

FAA deals with matters involving airspace, but state agencies can be involved as in for an example a cloud seeding program. Not that the delusions of the chemmies involves cloud seeding, except in their own minds of course. These people just continually seem to be more akin to a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
Looks like these clowns are still at it.

LONGISLANDSKYWATCH is asking everyone to attend the Health Committee Meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 15th at 2:00. If you arrive at 1:45, you can fill out a card to speak to the Health Committee for 3 minutes. It is at this meeting that the Health Committee will vote on whether to approve I.R. 2029 out of Committee. If approved, it will then be voted on by the Full Legislature on December 20th. The Health Committee must approve I.R. 2029 in order to make it to the next and final step. Please attend and bring your friends. If you have samples that you have taken of your rain water, soil, blood, please make a copy to give to committee. The location of the meeting is:

Auditorium of the William H. Rogers Legislature Building

725 Veterans Memorial Highway,

Smithtown, New York 11787 Ph:

(631) 853-4070 | Fax: (631) 853-4899

Excellent article covering the hearing:
It's quite amazing how they simply regurgitate the same set of debunked claims. Now it's the "2 planes, 1 trail" thing. Now Kucinich. etc. etc.
Typical claptrap about no persistent contrails until recently, two planes with only one making contrails, now even the 1% as being behind this, and now the Dennis Kucinich bill
Wow..just wow. Apparently condensation in terms of contrails apparently means it will disappear soon.

I so wish I was there to testify.

Now its lead and mercury being sprayed??
Holy Jesus this woman is insane. Headaches are caused by brain swelling from aluminum, and coughs are caused by nanoparticles in your throat.

And now she says the federal reserve is behind chemtrails. I would just love to see look on the face on the officials having to hear this.
And this speaker is being completely disingenuous. She claims the Los Angeles Times wrote about how 20 times more children have autism than before.

I just looked it up, the article does state that 20 times more have been diagnosed than in the 1980s. But the article specifically talks about it being through diagnosis, and not some massive increase.,0,1218038.htmlstory

"Autism boom: an epidemic of disease or of discovery?
Autism rates have increased twentyfold in a generation, stirring parents' deepest fears and prompting a search for answers. But what if the upsurge is not what it appears to be?"
I suspect that Edward P. Romaine is regretting not paying more attention to the legislation that some people propose he introduce. He probably just thought it was some sensible environmental protection thing.
And now this clown is saying that all the trees on Long Island are dying, and the trees are so weakened, they can not drop their leaves.
Jack Eddington is going to be a hard sell. The legislators aren't listening. Siobhan can see that the legislators aren't buying it, they are talking among themselves about conspiracy theorists. She is berating them before they have voted.
And now they bring up Agent Orange and claims that was about killing rice paddies to destroy the food supply
She's setting up the council for being part of the problem after they figure out it's a conspiracy theory.

She's angry. Rather sad.
Oh now Aluminum is a contaminant, and he claims that digging down 30 feet yields soil with no aluminum. That would be totally wrong..
Interesting, when this official asks them how can they do anything about aircraft, well he brings up that its about getting "credibility". They are just trying to use Suffolk County to pass this, because can use that as a starting point to go to the next level.

The official is trying to tell them that it is not a county issue, that air quality concerns are state jurisidiction.
It appears to be illegal for Suffolk to pass such a law:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 85 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part B > § 7573


No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any standard respecting emissions of any air pollutant from any aircraft or engine thereof unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to such aircraft under this part.
Now,they are asking the Commissioner of Health, Dr. Tomarkin.
He agrees with you, Mick.
He says the law is unenforceable, he knows that 8% of soil is aluminum.
He says the law is vague in many respects, a duplication of state and federal departments.
and is really a regional issue. Their staff isn't big enough to enforce the law, it would cost
$1 million/year. Eddington is asking why Romaine and the believers didn't come to their local health department?

Now, the chairman of the committee is telling them that the law was poorly drafted, unenforceable, and can't be adopted, the chemtrail believers should have not been given false hope.

The chemtrail believers have lost and are disrupting the meeting, calling the chairwoman a coward.

The committee is going to speak to the FAA and DOD and find out about how chemtrails is a hoax.

A motion was made to approve, there was no second, the law failed.
Its all over.