Well your talking to someone who has lived it and experienced it on my farm. You all do make a plausible case for people who have not lived it. It's a conspiracy till it happens to you.
Actually I'm 50 and have grown up on the land all my life. If nothing has happened then there would not have been a cover-up in my situation. So I'm a person that can never be convinced of what I witnessed and experienced for myself. They destroyed my farms and killed my cattle and we witnessed crops that showed symptoms of heavy metal toxicity and found Aluminum in plant fiber of over 3000ppm. I do know the truth about my situation and I know that my beef and grain went into the food chain. This is the point most often ignored and hardest to "debunk."
With that said, I do tell the truth and really when it comes down to it.. like the FBI told me.. I can prove that aluminum is in the plant fiber in toxic levels, but I can't prove what is coming out of the planes is what affected my plants.
This in particular is a statement by you making a claim in which you utilize the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reference. It is a claim which deserves discussion, since you brought it up.....
BB said:
I can prove that aluminum is in the plant fiber in toxic levels,
I'd appreciate some documentation for these claims so that they can be checked out.
When, where, how many cattle, acreage affected, an actual metals analysis showing 3000ppm, type of plant affected and method of sampling.
Now, many plants do uptake aluminum, and aluminum in dust could physically be on or in plant material, not necessarily as part of the tissues.
Are you familiar with some of this, previously posted elsewhere on this forum?
http://www.eplantscience.com/botani...um_absorption_and_transport_within_plants.php
Also, consider these, looking at toxicity, just because aluminum is present doesn't equal toxicity:
Pubmed said:
In the 16 samples of commerically available brands of black teas, the levels of aluminium and fluoride ranged from 445 to 1552 ppm (mean = 897 +/- 264 ppm) and from 30 to 340 ppm (mean 141 +/- 85 ppm), respectively.......This study has shown that concern about a high intake of aluminium and fluoride from these foods is unfounded.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8525696
And looking at forage content, and contamination:
New Mexico Forage Mineral Survey said:
The
average concentration and range, respectively, for each mineral were: calcium (0.46%; 0.13-1.59%), phosphorous (0.07%; 0.01-0.18%), magnesium (0.09%; 0.03-0.36%), potassium (0.37%; 0.09-1.38%), sodium (0.05%; 0.01-0.57%), sulfur (0.10%; 0.03-0.29%),
aluminum (1059 ppm; 147-5820 ppm), cobalt (0.46 ppm; 0.01-3.57 ppm), copper (12.6 ppm; 2.0-50.2 ppm), iron (876 ppm; 113-7450 ppm), manganese (75.5 ppm; 14.2-222 ppm), molybdenum (1.12 ppm; 0.09-2.90 ppm), selenium (0.10 ppm; 0.03-1.05 ppm), and zinc (23.7 ppm; 5.1-75.0 ppm).
Aluminum. Aluminum concentration in forages did not follow the pattern of being higher in the fall than late winter like most other minerals measured.
Extremely high aluminum values (greater than 3000 ppm) are likely the result of soil contamination of the forage sample. Aluminum toxicity has been reported (Underwood and Suttle, 1999), but is usually not a concern with grazing ruminants.
http://coronasc.nmsu.edu/documents/sawyer-and-mathis.pdf
So, the range of aluminum levels in forage close to your area, in soils not ordinarily acidic, is from 147-5820 ppm, with an average of 1059. Soil contamination of samples with aluminum is very common, because aluminum is
ubiquitous in the environment, and therefore a very difficult contaminant to avoid.
Another big hurdle to surmount when looking at claims of high altitude "spraying" is the drift problem. Material released at six miles altitude would not affect a single farm, tree, or person. Unless the claimant can show an effect is generalized over a wide area, the claim fails to connect to anything distributed six miles up in the sky. That is why Rosalind Peterson's claims of tree deaths fails, right next to one dead tree there are healthy trees. That is why I am asking for the location, the time, and the number of cattle you claim.
Even if aluminum was detected in plant material over a widely distributed area, and cattle were seen to die, to make that connection, one would also have to show aluminum accumulation in some tissues within the cattle.
In an experiment, cattle were fed an ordinary diet, but also fed a
very soluble aluminum compound, aluminum chloride. No affect on performance and no statistically significant change in tissue concentration was found. The conclusion was that ruminants were not very susceptible to aluminum toxicity compared to monogastric anmals.
http://jas.fass.org/content/47/6/1351.full.pdf
This took me about an hour to research, BB.
C'mon, where's the beef?
...it is interactive afterall:
