Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shir Panjshir

New Member
If I'm not mistaken, those tests do not differentiate whether the Al was found in a molecular form or elemental/ionic form.
You are correct Trigger that method and any $50 method would not differentiate if its elemental or molecular

for that you would be looking at $300 - 600 range per sample analysis. BTW that does not include sample collection which I charge another 400-800 for 2-8 hours of my time.
 

Shir Panjshir

New Member
she wasnt telling people to send her air.
was she asking for soil and water samples? if so there is a few problems with that. first off it would not be indicative as far as a persons exposure risk. There is no know way or accepted practice to extrapolate exposure risk from soil or water results. It needs to be air samples. Another problem is where did the sample come from was it next to an aluminum mine? or areas where naturally occurring aluminum is present?

(NOTE : I accidently had a double post so I deleted the above repetitive post)
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
You are correct Trigger that method and any $50 method would not differentiate if its elemental or molecular
That's what I though. People often get confused regarding the toxicity of Aluminium. Some Aluminium compounds are not harmful. They are a common ingredient in antacids, for instance. On the other hand, the ionic form (Al+++) is very toxic to both people and plants.

So getting lab results that show traces of Al won't show if the Al was in a toxic form or not, nor will it show if the Al originated from soils or sprayed from planes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The fact she was saying she could be the middleman for only $50.00 bucks also shows her lack of knowledge in the Haz Mat / industrial hygiene field. If you can find a lab that can detect trace levels of aluminum for $50 bucks let me know, I am always looking for good prices. I think she may have decided to not be the middleman after she found out the real prices and limits of detection for the method.
I don't think so, it seems consistent with what other people have said. And she's previously only talked about people testing soil and water. The air thing was just something she did.

So how much does a single EPA6010B test for aluminum in soil go for?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Kristen's math as I have explained here and above is waaay off.
Umm.... Kristen didn't use math, at all, when talking about that air sampling. She just made a vague analogy of a large volume of air: "... of... i'd say... up to a football field field in about 10 minutes". I GET that she can't have actually done that.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
was she asking for soil and water samples? if so there is a few problems with that. first off it would not be indicative as far as a persons exposure risk. There is no know way or accepted practice to extrapolate exposure risk from soil or water results. It needs to be air samples. Another problem is where did the sample come from was it next to an aluminum mine? or areas where naturally occurring aluminum is present?

(NOTE : I accidently had a double post so I deleted the above repetitive post)
There is no end to the "problems" with the tests and what they are supposed to show. I think they were mainly intended to prove that a "spraying program" was in existence in a given area.
 

Shir Panjshir

New Member
I just called my laboratory he will do it slow turnaround $15 and includes prep. he said his normal price is 35 bucks.

But this is a method that the detection limit is not all that great. so if you have very low (normal background levels) it may not show anything, if the sample is below the LOD of the method then the result would come back as none detected.

The fact that she was asking or suggesting soil or water samples proves she is [...] when it comes to industrial hygiene methodologies. The first problem is there is no way to use that data to determine the risk factors or even if the aluminum came from airplanes or from other sources.

is the aluminum in the soil or water sample native? what natural and man made factors, other than airplanes spraying it, are there?

Bottom line what is needed is air samples. the locations would be (if planes are spraying aluminum) Air samples in the OBZ of workers loading the material, some directly under (yet on the ground) from the plane. If there are any people here who would like the test done you need to do an air sample, do it on one of those days where there all LOTS of contrails. I will only charge $95.00 per air or soil sample analysis. (using the cheap methods - so beware beauce if the levels are really low you will likely get a none detected result from the lab.

When I asked the lab how much to check for just aluminum in a soil sample (method 6010) he was like huh? He had never had this request before. We had a good laugh after I told him why I was asking about that method. The EPA Permissible exposure limit for aluminum oxide is EPA 5 mg/m3 OSHA is 10 to 15 mg/m3.

"Most people take in very little aluminum from breathing. Levels of aluminum in the air generally range from 0.005 to 0.18 micrograms per cubic meter (ìg/m3), depending on location, weather conditions, and type and level of industrial activity in the area. Most of the aluminum in the air is in the form of small suspended particles of soil (dust)." Link here

so the ambient air results (as indictaed in this CDC publication - link) 0,004 - 0.17 ig/m3 = 0.000004 - 0.000017 mg/m3 Waaay below the PEL

That is why I was saying that I would recommend a method that is not so cheap. The limit of detection of method 6010b is 30 ug/L = 0.03 mg/m3. Here is another method below (with a LOD of 0.025 ppm ID-198SG that is used for air samples in the workplace it uses Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS). Method 6010b uses (ICP) INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROMETRY. The Method I would recommend is XRF with TEM as being the most accurate and can detect aluminum at much lower levels than the other methods we have described above.

Aluminum Oxide in Workplace Atmospheres - (Inorganic Method #198sg)
Related Information: Chemical Sampling - Aluminum Oxide
Method no.: ID-198SG

Matrix: Air

OSHA Standard: 10.0 mg/m3

Collection Procedure: A known volume of air is drawn through a 0.80 µm AA filter.

Recommended Air Volume: 960 liters maximum

Recommended Sampling Rate: 2.0 liters per minute

Analytical Procedure: The filter is digested with acids using a microwave and is analyzed by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS).

Quantitative Detection Limit: 0.025 ppm

Method Classification: PV

Aluminum Oxide in Workplace Atmospheres
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TEEJ

Senior Member
This was posted on an independent on-line magazine a few days ago.

https://lajicarita.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/contrails-or-chemtrails/

Why would Kristen, when she was posting here a year ago, neglect to mention the loading of mysterious canisters onto planes for dispersal? Kristen was asked many times by several people to present here evidence of chemtrails. She mentioned patents and debates at environmental symposiums but never anything about canisters.

In fact, she said her "whistleblowing" had nothing to do with chemtrails but rather with chemical overexposures related to industrial ground activities.

So, either Suzy Kane, the author of the blog article, is misinterpreting what Kristen is saying, or Kristen is changing her story.

Kristen still has an account on Metabunk. Perhaps she could come back to explain.
Caleb Leverett "That leads me to my next question. You said in your speech that you were in charge of these Aluminium or the Bromide or whatever these chemical were? Did you see first hand of these massive chemicals coming from these nameless companies actually loaded up into like a 747, a commercial jet, or even an air force jet? Did you actually see the chemicals being loaded up in there?"

Kristen Meghan "No and I never claimed to see them to go onto aircraft. ...."

See from 25:35

 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
But this is a method that the detection limit is not all that great. so if you have very low (normal background levels) it may not show anything, if the sample is below the LOD of the method then the result would come back as none detected.

The fact that she was asking or suggesting soil or water samples proves she is a mental midget when it comes to industrial hygiene methodologies
i think you are a [...]. reread your sentence in the Context of Chemtrails.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shir Panjshir

New Member
i think you are a [...]. reread your sentence in the Context of Chemtrails.
I do not understand what you mean reread my sentence? which sentence and what are you seeing that I am not?

Is it my sentence that talks about the fact that soil or water sampling would not be good indicators as to exposure to chem trails? In the IH field we have what we call PEL Permissible Exposure Limits, there is no PEL for aluminum in soil, the reason being most people do not eat or breath dirt. Any exposure from materials contained in soil would most likely be say if wind or people disturb the materials in a soil matrix making some of it become airborne. Randomly and blindly sampling soils for aluminum can not prove chemtrails or use of aluminum in weather modification. Aluminum is a very common mineral in soils.

So I hope that clears up why I was critical of her so called expertise in the IH or Haz Mat

One more tidbit from the IH side of this. She discusses some of her duties at the USAF and they are basically the bottom of the barrel positions in the IH field. We actually have a industry term for these lowbies we call them "pump jockeys", since they mostly just collect air samples of personnel. It is a very boring job to be a pump jockey it involves a lot of down time and just sitting around taking notes about what type work is being down, where and all the other daily documentation required under OSHA regulations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I do not understand what you mean reread my sentence? which sentence and what are you seeing that I am not?

Is it my sentence that talks about the fact that soil or water sampling would not be good indicators as to exposure to chem trails? In the IH field we have what we call PEL Permissible Exposure Limits, there is no PEL for aluminum in soil, the reason being most people do not eat or breath dirt. Any exposure from materials contained in soil would most likely be say if wind or people disturb the materials in a soil matrix making some of it become airborne. Randomly and blindly sampling soils for aluminum can not prove chemtrails or use of aluminum in weather modification. Aluminum is a very common mineral in soils.

So I hope that clears up why I was critical of her so called expertise in the IH or Haz Mat

One more tidbit from the IH side of this. She discusses some of her duties at the USAF and they are basically the bottom of the barrel positions in the IH field. We actually have a industry term for these lowbies we call them "pump jockeys", since they mostly just collect air samples of personnel. It is a very boring job to be a pump jockey it involves a lot of down time and just sitting around taking notes about what type work is being down, where and all the other daily documentation required under OSHA regulations.
the sentence i quoted.

Kristen isnt looking for normal background levels. Shes looking for elevated levels. She isnt going to have people spend hundreds of dollars for preliminary tests. She is just gathering data from multiple areas. If she sees a test that indicates abnormally elevated levels, then I assume she would do further testing and look into things like other factors that could 'skew' the results.

As i said, I'm aware of her level of expertise (then and now), the various factors that could contribute to elevated results. This has all been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
Kristen Meghan "No and I never claimed to see them to go onto aircraft. ...."
So then it seems like the issue regrading the loading of chemicals is like Hama says in post #947

"It's people quoting other people, but never confirming in with Kristen."

After 25 pages I still don't know what evidence Kristen has of Chemtrails, if any. However, as long as she keeps promoting chemtrails, she should be debunked and held to task as often as Dane, Russ, Ian or any other Chemtrail proponent.
 

Shir Panjshir

New Member
the sentence i quoted.

Kristen isn't looking for normal background levels. Shes looking for elevated levels. She isnt going to have people spend hundreds of dollars for preliminary tests. She is just gathering data from multiple areas. If she sees a test that indicates abnormally elevated levels, then I assume she would do further testing and look into things like other factors that could 'skew' the results.

As i said, I'm aware of her level of expertise (then and now), the various factors that could contribute to elevated results. This has all been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.
you said
"then I assume she would do further testing and look into things like other factors that could 'skew' the results."
Sorry but sounds like a bait and switch to me, and a way for her to try get foot in door to collect and/or analyze more samples, since it is obvious that a soil sample is not indicative of personnel exposures.

I am still confused, you are claiming that you know her "level of experience then and now"? Were you a co-worker? Do you have any IH experience or certifications? If she is as good as you seem to be pushing at her job....then why would she ask for soil samples? It would not matter if sher uses the cheap method or expensive method on soil. Levels of aluminum in soil does not indicate in any way or form whatsoever that the aluminum came from airplanes. Her recommended sampling protocol is only a way to find false positives at best, which is unethical and misleading. The problem with that is people who are not properly trained in IH will likely be posting the false positive results all over the internet saying how this is 100% proof that chemtrails are real. It is unethical for a IH professional to recommended sampling protocols that are not indicative of the actual item the samples are being collected for. I am sure she can read a MSDS and collect air or soil samples well enough, but that is the very low end of the IH duties. Knowing what sampling protocols and methods of analyses to employ, is the upper end of the IH field and it is apparent that she very simply put is out of her field of knowledge. If you would like I can find CIH's and government agencies like OSHA EPA and independent laboratories will all tell you that what I am saying is true.

If she is still doing this maybe someone should teach her a lesson and send her a sample then sue for being misleading, unethical, and not an indicator of personnel exposure.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Sorry but sounds like a bait and switch to me, and a way for her to try get foot in door to collect and/or analyze more samples, since it is obvious that a soil sample is not indicative of personnel exposures.
i dont know what youre talking about. Has she released any lab results and misinterpreted the results? (i could have missed that, i admit). If so, can you link to your evidence of this?

Perhaps if you read the thread, you'd have a better understanding of what I am talking about. I certainly am not arguing that elevated levels does not necessarily=chemtrails.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Bottom line what is needed is air samples. the locations would be ......... some directly under (yet on the ground) from the plane.
No, because something being "sprayed" at some 30,000 feet over head would never reach the ground anywhere near "directly under" the flight path of the spraying aircraft. It's just one more problem with the "evidence" chemtrail believers present.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
So then it seems like the issue regrading the loading of chemicals is like Hama says in post #947

"It's people quoting other people, but never confirming in with Kristen."

After 25 pages I still don't know what evidence Kristen has of Chemtrails, if any. However, as long as she keeps promoting chemtrails, she should be debunked and held to task as often as Dane, Russ, Ian or any other Chemtrail proponent.
I think it may have been an older interview with Dane Wigington where I first heard it said that Kristen SAW canisters being loaded. That would be S.O.P. for Dane to create wild exaggerations and declare them to be true. From there others just repeat it because they believe anything Dane says.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
No, because something being "sprayed" at some 30,000 feet over head would never reach the ground anywhere near "directly under" the flight path of the spraying aircraft.
Yes, indeed. Is important for many who may not already know this that the winds aloft (at altitudes where airlines typically cruise) can be quite high in velocity at times....but these velocities and directions vary greatly, globally.

(For instance, on many, many flights over the Pacific Ocean I have personally seen almost nil for atmospheric winds....especially in the South Pacific...at high altitudes. I know this seems counter-intuitive, because major weather systems obviously move around the globe, affecting regional climate areas...but these patterns are "driven" by very large forces that alternate, and are complex, chaotic, and difficult to predict).

This data is easily researched.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
This is the latest appearance of Kristen Meghan I was able to find quickly. It's on Alex Jones' show. Kristen appears at about 29:45. She speaks about problems with V.A. clinics at length. No mention of chemtrails at all.

 

NoParty

Senior Member
...Kristen appears at about 29:45. She speaks about problems with V.A. clinics at length.
Thanks a lot, Hama...you just made me go back and paw through all of Kristen's claimed education
and experience to see if there was anything...anything...that would suggest that she would be in
any position to determine what was and what was not appropriate medication for anybody.

Of course, my search turned up nothing. Once again, Kristen Meghan chooses to forcefully argue
that she "knows" something is wrong...without even a pretense of being knowledgable about that issue. :rolleyes:
It's just what she does.
 

Shir Panjshir

New Member
You are overcomplicating things. We know Aluminum is found naturally in soil, air, and water. We know this shows up in tests like 6010B. We know KM has never actually posted any actual test results with methodology. That's really all there is to it.

In fact, she's not even really active in promoting "Chemtrails" any more. She stopped push lab testing back in June.
I am glad to hear that she has stopped requesting soil and water samples.

Also I am glad everyone here knows that normal soil does contain levels of aluminum both from natural and manmade process (other than UFOs and jet planes jk) I never suggested she had released results of any of her suggested testing. My point here has been to point out her lack of knowledge not just about contrails but her lack of knowledge about industrial hygiene and Haz Mats. It is one thing to know how to collect an air soil or water sample....it is a very different level of ability and experience that would indicate if they are at the middle or top of the IH field. BTW recommending people to collect their own samples was a bad idea also..but we'll call that a moot point since I think common sense should tell most people that. I really am not trying to complicate things here? What I am trying to find out for my own info and to benefit others who wish to expose that this is not the actions of a reputable or knowledgeable IH consultant., other than the lowest end of the IH field which you do not even need a HS diploma for.
 
Last edited:

Shir Panjshir

New Member
No, because something being "sprayed" at some 30,000 feet over head would never reach the ground anywhere near "directly under" the flight path of the spraying aircraft. It's just one more problem with the "evidence" chemtrail believers present.
"weedwaker said
Yes, indeed. Is important for many who may not already know this that the winds aloft (at altitudes where airlines typically cruise) can be quite high in velocity at times....but these velocities and directions vary greatly, globally.
(For instance, on many, many flights over the Pacific Ocean I have personally seen almost nil for atmospheric winds....especially in the South Pacific...at high altitudes. I know this seems counter-intuitive, because major weather systems obviously move around the globe, affecting regional climate areas...but these patterns are "driven" by very large forces that alternate, and are complex, chaotic, and difficult to predict).
This data is easily researched."
Hama ...... I am aware about wind. However the samples were suggested to indicate what exposures "people" on the ground are receiving as far as aluminum.

Weedwacker did make some good points that yes winds are not always as dynamic as people may assume.

For personnel exposures we take the air samples where the person is, and NOT at source whether it be aluminum, barium, lead-paint, asbestos or other material. Sampling at source and then passing that off as indicative of personnel exposures would be unethical, misleading, and fraudulent...and open a wide door to liabilities. Trust me I have seen things when flying prop and/or soaring regarding air patterns and clouds that would probably send some people running to report a UFO's or some other nonsense. In soaring we get e lenticular clouds that occur above mountains and can often be VERY spherical resembling a UFO, often there may be no other (or little) cloud formations in the area.

I am not sure if people know this but aluminum is a "heavy metal" by definition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
BTW recommending people to collect their own samples was a bad idea also..but we'll call that a moot point since I think common sense should tell most people that.
Apparently not. Lots of chemtrail promoters are still suggesting that and accept the results if they at all APPEAR to support their beliefs. Never any questioning of methods.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Hama ...... I am aware about wind. However the samples were suggested to indicate what exposures "people" on the ground are receiving as far as aluminum.
I think you may have missed the point. You said sampling should be taken directly beneath the path of a "spraying" plane, but that "spray" would not reach the ground directly beneath the flight path, so how could such a test say anything about what was supposedly being "sprayed"?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
For personnel exposures we take the air samples where the person is, and NOT at source
see i'm confused. KM doesnt take samples at source. If she took samples at what she thinks is the source, she would know planes arent spraying al, barium, stronium.

If memory serves she took air samples at one of the bases she worked at, but that's no different then taking samples at airports. Which people do to monitor pollution from planes ( i think).
 

Shir Panjshir

New Member
I think you may have missed the point. You said sampling should be taken directly beneath the path of a "spraying" plane, but that "spray" would not reach the ground directly beneath the flight path, so how could such a test say anything about what was supposedly being "sprayed"?
The personnel air sampling only can tell the persons aluminum exposure of airborne aluminum.
Sampling at source being directly aft of spray jets or some airplane someone thinks is spraying or flying through a contrail and sampling that air can tell you some details but it would have to be accompanied by data collected nearby (during the same time frame) that was not taken from a contrail etc. so proper comparisons can be made.

I have also seen people falling for bogus or bunk sampling result and methods, people are gullible and easily duped .... but thats why many many pilots have come out and said no this is all fake and paranoia. That is also why when someone comes out and the headlines are calling her a bio-engineer (what the what? oh and my neighbor the cook at burger king is a culinary engineer) bio-environmental engineer, environmental scientist, geoengineering whistle blower, and apparently now she is also an expert on Ebola vaccines?
ZBz-QQFjJ8w

She freely admits on the video that her child she will not vaccinate. The sad part is in one sense on one hand I think "if her child get polio maybe then she will wake up !" on other hand you have to feel sorry for the child. One vaccine I HIGHLY recommend is the zoslter vaccine. We have a shot now that will prevent kids from getting chicken pox ... it needs be done again at about age 18. This will ensure they do not have to deal with shingles when they get older. I wish they had that when I was a kid... The past 15 years I have suffered from recurrent outbreaks and the anti virals have had no effect. I get it around my eye and still on side of my chest. The nerve damage pain is very painful, but more worrisome is the fact that I may go blind as a result of it.
 
Last edited:

Shir Panjshir

New Member
see i'm confused. KM doesnt take samples at source. If she took samples at what she thinks is the source, she would know planes aren't spraying al, barium, strontium.

If memory serves she took air samples at one of the bases she worked at, but that's no different then taking samples at airports. Which people do to monitor pollution from planes ( i think).
My understanding is the air samples she took was just part of her hum drum job there. Most of those would be personnel air samples on people handling haz mats.
I suspect if she had taken samples at the source i.e. behind a airplane etc. She could have done that then sneak it in with some other samples to get the USAF to pay for it. But I highly suspect that she would have then thought the USAF changed the samples or told the laboratory not to report any level;s of those materials because the Lab is on it also.....

Yes there is monitoring continual of not only airports but cities. All those are available to the public. So if someone wants to take the time they could find modern air sample results for ambient levels and compare that to say pre jet age or I think I seen some here say they chemtrail crowd says contrails began w...? was it 14 years ago?

Needless to say we had contrails long ago ...

So either the NWO found a way to send their planes with poisons back in time or? hmm err well these can not be prop planes so they must be WW2 German jets and found a way to cloak them and make them look like B-17
 
Last edited:

Shir Panjshir

New Member
you mean like testing the dust around 'pig pen" from charlie brown?

i only jumped through every few minutes but i didnt see anything in your video about ebola or KM. or air sampling. Please add time stamps with video and a text description. seen https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-no-click-policy.5158/
lol that would be an interesting sample. but yes we call it OBZ occupational breathing zone. We hang those on people. it is a low flow air pump. It collects .5 to 2.5 liters per minute. hmm maybe that is why Kristen thought her high flow air sampling pump can collect a football size area in 10 minutes. but had she thought about the math 10 minutes x 10 liters of air = 100 kiters or 50 2 liter sodas lol wow thats a football field worth of Coke !

ahh crap sorry about wrong video (I hate wasting my time watching nonsense also sorry).. thats not even a video I have seen, I had this happen before link one video and get a diff one? it is way bad at wordpress or blogger I forget which one. One those will show several videos to choose from even though you give direct link, I even had sometimes it wasn't even in choices so them I had to type video title to be able to post the video even with the link??? must be the illuminati at it again

it seems to be working now (shrug) the government must be blocking her videos from getting posted and telling youtube to link to a different video instead. damn dirty apes
rofl
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
see i'm confused. KM doesnt take samples at source. If she took samples at what she thinks is the source, she would know planes arent spraying al, barium, stronium.

If memory serves she took air samples at one of the bases she worked at, but that's no different then taking samples at airports. Which people do to monitor pollution from planes ( i think).
IIRC, she live adjacent to an air base and took soil samples(supposedly) from where she lived.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think KM was discussed enough earlier. If there's a specific claim of hers that needs debunking, then start a new thread, after reviewing the posting guidelines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top