More analysis of "rainwater" - New Zealand

[Leifer]

I just wanted to have some links on-hand, to point people toward if they want to "test", to avoid mistakes in the above thread.


I was just over at Global Skywatch, looking at Russ' attempt to start a sample database.....9 of 11 rainwater samples are completely normal. (well under limits)
.....no collection methods described.

Edit: One over limit test for AL (300 ug/l) the user stated,

Air was bubbled through the water during the collection period using a standard aquarium pump in order to capture airborne particulates in the water.




0.050 mg/L is the EPA "safe" limit for aluminum in drinking water. In the text below, aluminum levels are 6-times above the EPA maximum for drinking water.

Content from External Source

...and wrong, too.

 

[David Fraser]

There is a photo of a good, yet simple, sampler in this thread https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-shasta-snow-and-water-aluminum-tests.137/page-2
I would add however that if there is going to be some delay in getting a sample off to the lab it is worth freezing it. This will stop any oxidation and potential change in Ph

As to baseline, you are going to have to do some digging for your own historical data for your area, or you will have to find it yourself by setting up an analysis protocol over a few months. Urban areas may be higher for particulates than rural areas, but that is not set in stone as if a rural area is arid levels may be higher.

I will add that taking a one off sample is totally useless. Rainwater on the first day of rain will contain more suspended solids than rainwater on a second day. Simply put the rain cleans the air by electrostatically scavenging the particulates in the air as it falls. There may even be seasonal variations due to a change in rainfall. In the UK DEFRA collect their water over a month and then sample it, however they monitor the air quality on a weekly basis as exampled from a site here.

PollutantStart DateEnd DateMeasurementUnitsStatus
Aluminium 27/12/2011 03/01/2012 3.675 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 03/01/2012 10/01/2012 6.514 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 10/01/2012 17/01/2012 4.508 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 17/01/2012 24/01/2012 <1.796 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 24/01/2012 31/01/2012 <1.797 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 31/01/2012 07/02/2012 25.822 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 07/02/2012 14/02/2012 23.289 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 14/02/2012 21/02/2012 6.702 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 21/02/2012 28/02/2012 6.582 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 28/02/2012 06/03/2012 21.073 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 06/03/2012 13/03/2012 22.888 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 13/03/2012 20/03/2012 42.593 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 20/03/2012 27/03/2012 69.958 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 27/03/2012 03/04/2012 162.156 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 03/04/2012 10/04/2012 32.693 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 10/04/2012 17/04/2012 16.436 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 17/04/2012 24/04/2012 12.085 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 24/04/2012 01/05/2012 5.054 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 01/05/2012 08/05/2012 21.287 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 08/05/2012 15/05/2012 15.063 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 15/05/2012 22/05/2012 45.311 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 22/05/2012 29/05/2012 99.396 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 29/05/2012 05/06/2012 24.493 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 05/06/2012 12/06/2012 5.609 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 12/06/2012 19/06/2012 7.550 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 19/06/2012 26/06/2012 13.095 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 26/06/2012 03/07/2012 29.360 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 03/07/2012 10/07/2012 5.802 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 10/07/2012 17/07/2012 4.938 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 17/07/2012 24/07/2012 12.447 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 24/07/2012 31/07/2012 43.199 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 31/07/2012 07/08/2012 5.172 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 07/08/2012 14/08/2012 22.501 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 21/08/2012 28/08/2012 6.413 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 28/08/2012 04/09/2012 30.026 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 04/09/2012 11/09/2012 29.577 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 11/09/2012 18/09/2012 8.770 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 18/09/2012 25/09/2012 6.836 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 25/09/2012 02/10/2012 <1.796 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 02/10/2012 09/10/2012 4.296 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 09/10/2012 16/10/2012 <1.796 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 16/10/2012 23/10/2012 4.257 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 23/10/2012 30/10/2012 33.959 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 30/10/2012 06/11/2012 6.070 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 06/11/2012 13/11/2012 6.019 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 13/11/2012 20/11/2012 19.717 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 20/11/2012 27/11/2012 4.084 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 27/11/2012 04/12/2012 7.408 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 04/12/2012 11/12/2012 <1.796 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 11/12/2012 18/12/2012 9.074 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 18/12/2012 25/12/2012 5.358 ngm-3 Verified
Aluminium 25/12/2012 01/01/2013 <1.796 ngm-3 Verified

Content from External Source

The graph below shows data from the current selected year.
[Broken External Image]:http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/graphs/UKA00168_2012_1139.png

Content from External Source

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/interactive-map?network=rm#network=rm

It can be seen there is a great deal of variation.


rainwater is available here http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/networks

 

[David Fraser]

Sorry I forgot to add this link. Peer reviewed on methods for collecting rainwater

http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/12.2/133-140.pdf

 

[David Fraser]

I just wanted to have some links on-hand, to point people toward if they want to "test", to avoid mistakes in the above thread.


I was just over at Global Skywatch, looking at Russ' attempt to start a sample database.....9 of 11 rainwater samples are completely normal. (well under limits)
.....no collection methods described.

Edit: One over limit test for AL (300 ug/l) the user stated,

Air was bubbled through the water during the collection period using a standard aquarium pump in order to capture airborne particulates in the water.




0.050 mg/L is the EPA "safe" limit for aluminum in drinking water. In the text below, aluminum levels are 6-times above the EPA maximum for drinking water.

Content from External Source

...and wrong, too.

Sorry I missed this. WTF?? I have never seen a sampling technique like that. Essentially the guy is trying to bias the result any way he can. However we need to look at the results. As I am very confused.

http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4483#Post4483

Attachments

Content from External Source

The first thing that struck me is the U next to the figure (lets look at Aluminium). In a result this will usually mean Unknown/Unrecordable/Undetectable.

Code = U Parameter was analyzed for, but not detected. Report the method detection limit.

Content from External Source

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/MRF_Manual.pdf

Secondly. Look at the figure for PQL. PQL stands for Practical Quantitation Level which is the lowest of measurement that can be reliably achieved during normal lab conditions. To be frank 0.3 mg/l (300 ug/l) seems a really high figure for a minimum amount to be detected.

Thirdly. Look at the test they have used. SW846 . I have not heard of that but Google tells me it is for "Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm

So what you have is a test that is for solid waste and not for water. Also the tests are showing unrecordable levels for anything with a U next to (notice that Barium is above its PQL and does not have a U, and all figures with a U are the same as the PQL). That is not to say it is not present, just the analysis cannot detect anything lower than the PQL. I wonder as to why the analysis has been cropped at the bottom as there would be a table explaining the abbreviations.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have asked Katahdin about this:
https://www.facebook.com/KatahdinAnalytical#!/KatahdinAnalytical/posts/4467734310225

 

[David Fraser]

Great minds think alike Jay.

I have just received this email from the lab.



It would appear Russ Tanner has been telling porkies I think


(I can forward the email to anyone if they want)

 

[David Fraser]

Just pulled up another one. Russ seems partial to misinformation.

http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6291#.UeQclJ1wbIU

Here he just seems to make up results.



So he is indicating that Al is 200 and Ba 2000ppb. Yet



The result actually shows ND - Not Detected. The figures he has presented are the National Standards for drinking water. I wonder why he is misrepresenting the data?

 

[Cairenn]

I emailed NTL last night asking them this:

From: Cairenn Day [mailto:howlingartist@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:45 AM
To: ntlsales
Subject: testing rain water/snow

I have friends that are very concerned about 'chemtrails'. No matter how much I try to explain about contrails, they are determined that chemicals are being sprayed.

They are wanting to test some rainwater or snow. And since I have the science background (and they would LOVE to prove me wrong) they asked what they would need to do to properly collect samples.

I mentioned that a control sample would also be needed, but I do not know what they should use to collect, how to collect it (other the obvious--not from a downspout.

Can you help me tell them what to do? Do you have testing kits that have properly prepared containers?

Anything that I forgot to mention?

Thank you very much for your time
Cairenn Day


This was the answer I got back.

Cairenn,

We typical test drinking water, but some people do collect rainwater samples and send them in for analysis. I do not have a specific protocol for collecting rainwater samples, but I could probably come up with one. First we need to determine what you want to have the samples analyzed for, so we can determine how much water is required to do the analysis.

Marianne R. Metzger

 

[Leifer]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quality of Stored Rainwater Used for Drinking in Metropolitan South Australia (pdf)
© Water Quality Research Australia Limited 2010


There's already ample testing data available showing normal levels, but some people may feel better if
they try it themselves.
What's curious, is when they do try it for themselves, and results turn out normal....it seems to get pushed aside (or misunderstood) by the "testor". More importantly, it's completely ignored the activist leaders calling for test submissions !!
(I wonder how many people tested their rainwater, and never let anyone know, because the results were normal ?)

What doesn't get pushed aside, are the extreme minority of test results with anomalous results, as glue for their theory.
Surprising ?...no, that the way hardcore CTer's react to the majority of hard evidence presented to them in other situations as well.....pic-and-choose what fits their story and feelings, and avoid the rest that doesn't.

Obviously the problem is that.... all the people putting the effort into testing feel like they are "getting sprayed" -- so it's a blanket spray-job. If so, test results should be at least within the ballpark.

I say....that since the testing challenge is coming from the activist leaders....that they be held to it !!
This way they can't lay blame on their opposition for requesting "impossible and unnecessary" evidence. If they are asking evidence from themselves and it obviously does not hold water, they should eat their hat.

Or, they could just use a different method of testing.....

 

[David Fraser]

Snow is far better at cleaning the air than rain, so a metal detector will click like mad. However if the snowed the next day the result would be different as the air would be clean.

At the end if the day there is shitloads of data out there that they ignore, and sometimes it is data they could use. One I number of occasions I have offered information on how to do a study that would be able to be submitted for publication but I then get blocked.

 

[Belfrey]

Always interesting to see how many of them refer to an "EPA safe limit" for aluminum that doesn't really exist, even for drinking water.

 

[cloudspotter]

Always interesting to see how many of them refer to an "EPA safe limit" for aluminum that doesn't really exist, even for drinking water.

This is something that's struck me, it's always listed as aesthetic rather than safe.

 

[David Fraser]

Always interesting to see how many of them refer to an "EPA safe limit" for aluminum that doesn't really exist, even for drinking water.

This is something that's struck me, it's always listed as aesthetic rather than safe.

It better fits the fear meme that aluminium is totally toxic. When presented data on Al they choose to ignore the realities. e.g. the range in groundwater for England and Wales

http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802...550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/geho0807bnao-e-e.pdf

Aluminium



Aluminium has many industrial and domestic uses. Its compounds are used as antacids,

antiperspirants and food additives; and aluminium salts are also widely used in treating water.

Aluminium occurs naturally in groundwater, especially where the pH of the water is low (i.e.

the water is acidic). Low pH in soils of areas with conifer forests can help to release

aluminium from clay minerals, which then leaches into groundwater.


UK DWS 200 μg/L

Range in untreated UK groundwater <0.02 to 3980 mg/L

Content from External Source

The upper end of the range is nearly 20000 times higher than the recommended drinking levej. Now I don't have the raw data but one must assume that there are so many locations within that range that must be barren and bereft of wildlife. It really is not the case though.

 

[Belfrey]

In the US, the EPA only lists aluminum under their "secondary" limits, which are not enforced. They are "established only as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color and odor. These contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the SMCL." (See Here.)

And of course, none of this applies to rainwater.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

These links to previous discussions on the subject of what we have found wrong with past rainwater sample claims are relevant.
Newcomers need to read and comprehend this information which fairly well covers the subject.:
Debunked: Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-shasta-snow-and-water-aluminum-tests.137/

Chemical Composition of rain and snow

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chemical-composition-of-rain-and-snow.135/

peer reviewed research on aluminum content of rainwater required

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pe...-aluminum-content-of-rainwater-required.1618/

Natural Abundance Of Strontium And Barium

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/natural-abundance-of-strontium-and-barium.822/

If you go through the above information, you will find that the totality of the information explains why the samples taken so far show absolutely NOTHING unusual regarding the three 'satanic' elements alleged to be in the contrails people see. Take note that the leadership of the chemtrails movement have been fully informed of these facts yet willfully ignore them and deliberately act to cover up spread of these facts.

Shame on the following who you can place responsibility for misleading you:
Michael J. Murphy
G. Edward Griffin
Dane Wigington
Francis Mangels
Mauro Oliviera
Russ Tanner
Claire Swinney
Alex Jones
Max Bliss
David Lim
and many more

 

[Leifer]

In-depth analysis of Aluminum in all parts of the environment, with historical references. (sciencey)
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc194.htm#SubSectionNumber:5.1.1 <<link


UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 194
Aluminium

 

[Leifer]

Chentrails Project

They're selling kits, to test rainwater, then post the results on an interactive map (see link).

Purpose:
To scientifically test and record the exact amounts of Aluminum and Barium in the Rainwater and the PH of the Rainwater of every Congressional District in the Unites States of America. We will then send the results to the Congressmen and Senators of the respective Districts demanding a Congressional Investigation of Chemtrails.

Content from External Source

Good for them.
But nearly every test is below EPA Secondary Standards (Al, 200 ug/l)
.....and Barium is far, far below (Ba, 2000 ug/l)......or not detected at all.

What's the letter going to say ?

.....unless they take the Harold Saive method of science, claiming that these results should be "zero".

EDIT: a test submission by "Roxy L" in Arizona....Al & Ba "not detected"

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Chentrails Project

They're selling kits, to test rainwater, then post the results on an interactive map (see link).

Purpose:
To scientifically test and record the exact amounts of Aluminum and Barium in the Rainwater and the PH of the Rainwater of every Congressional District in the Unites States of America. We will then send the results to the Congressmen and Senators of the respective Districts demanding a Congressional Investigation of Chemtrails.

Content from External Source

To my knowledge, the raw data was never presented as a whole package, and may have never been sent anywhere. Thus, it was a total waste of time and never accomplished what it said it would do. I did survey the published results and found that they were within the average aluminum amounts found in rain water over the past forty years.

 

[Leifer]

Thanks Jay...did not realize it was discussed before.

Your "average of all" column......includes the tests for soil (single results like 5000, 10,500, etc.)....just wanted to point that out to others.

 

[Neil Pennington]

Steve Funk's results (maybe included in Jay's links above) show completely normal levels after the 2008 results where the snow was filthy from ash and dust from the bushfires. The chemtrailists still harp on about that 61,100 ug/l reading as if it fell from the sky.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Katahdin Analytical Lab has confirmed that Russ Tanner's lab test showed undetectable levels:
https://www.facebook.com/KatahdinAn...?comment_id=4135811&offset=0&total_comments=1

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have asked Katahdin about this:
https://www.facebook.com/KatahdinAnalytical#!/KatahdinAnalytical/posts/4467734310225

 

[Hama Neggs]

looks like you didn't post those messages directly to his messages. Russ may not know you responded to him.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

He got it. He is sticking to his story, as expected. What else can he do, he has painted himself into a corner?

 

[Mick West]

Steve Funk's results (maybe included in Jay's links above) show completely normal levels after the 2008 results where the snow was filthy from ash and dust from the bushfires. The chemtrailists still harp on about that 61,100 ug/l reading as if it fell from the sky.

A minor point, but I don't think the fires were a major contributor. It was more that the sample was taken in summer, the dirt on the snow would have been just ordinary windblown dust, accumulated over several weeks.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

looks like you didn't post those messages directly to his messages. Russ may not know you responded to him.

Now he's calling for a ban/delete of my comments. I was assertive but polite enough, yet he cannot allow anything which contradicts his story to remain.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Now he's calling for a ban/delete of my comments. I was assertive but polite enough, yet he cannot allow anything which contradicts his story to remain.

Who posts with that "GlobalSkywatch" moniker, Russ or Dane or both or unknown?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It's Russ Tanner. He still thinks he can maintain cover for his mistakes by deleting and banning information that disagrees with his claims. That might work for awhile, but in an open society like today it would be far better for them to avoid the inevitable loss of credibility that looms just around the corner. They set themselves up day after day, forging the chains of their own enslavement circling the wagons to prevent history from catching up. In the end, it always does, and shows they sow the seeds of their own destruction.

 

[mrfintoil]

Could not find a better thread for posting this (is there an official thread for debunking rainwater samples?)
This caught my eye recently, user "Daniel Sola" published this image together with what he claims to be a lab result he got from a seriously sick woman.
How this connects to "chemtrails" is beyond me, but apparently these people believe it somehow does.

Sola published this text along with the image:

Primer análisis recibido de una ciudadana de Murcia.
Os cuelgo la foto para que lo podáis comprobar vosotros mismos. ALUMINIO 1221.54 (el valor "máximo" normal es 555)
UN 110% POR ENCIMA DEL MÁXIMO!! (¿esto es normal también? Da la casualidad que el metal pesado que más se está encontrando tras las fumigaciones es el ALUMINIO)
Problemas que está teniendo la mujer que lo entrega: TIROIDES y MIOMAS

Por favor, todo quel que se haga los análisis, (cuestan entre 20 y 50€ segun localidad) que por favor contacte conmigo como otras personas están haciendo.
Daniel Sola

Tras las fumigaciones de aviones sobre la población, Los análisis de agua de lluvia recogidos en Montblanc, Tarragona, en Zamora, en Portugal, etc.. TODOS desvelan ALUMINIO (el predominante) entre muchas otras sustancias que no deben de estar en el agua de lluvia.

Content from External Source

If we ignore the obvious lack of established connection with "chemtrails", and that the result does not tell anything about what has been tested, I have problems with the actual numbers in the paper.
For example, the "maximum value" (perhaps Sola means MCL) is claimed to be "555.00", probably in nanomoles per litre since the aluminium is specified in nmol/L.

The problem I have is that 1 221.54 nmol/L of Al translates into just 32.959 μg/L, which is basically nothing.

Still I see this paper being passed around in anti-"chemtrail" pages on Facebook as if it provides absolute proof...

 

[Leifer]

More NZ testing.....showing extremely low levels.....just above minimum detection levels.
(g/m3 = mg/L.....they are the same number)

https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress...son-shows-aluminium-barium-strontium-present/


(also re-posted on H. Saive's site)

 

[Steve Funk]

Mr. Fintoil said (#69)

I have problems with the actual numbers in the paper.
For example, the "maximum value" (perhaps Sola means MCL) is claimed to be "555.00", probably in nanomoles per litre since the aluminium is specified in nmol/L.

The problem I have is that 1 221.54 nmol/L of Al translates into just 32.959 μg/L, which is basically nothing.

The lab slip is medical, so I'm thinking it's a blood test. 33μg/L would be high. I have seen 10 considered normal. He is saying 15 is the maximum normal. But still, no connection to chemtrails.

 

[Leifer]

(can you fix your reply ...I can't understand what you are replying to?)

Here is the text from the link....

From Ngaire Small of Nelson, New Zealand.

I had rainwater that fell in Nelson on November the 18th, 2013, tested by R J Hill Laboratories Ltd of Hamilton. There had been consistent heavy aerosol spraying apparent for approximately 10 days prior to that date.

The rainwater was tested for three elements known to be linked to geoengineering globally, namely: aluminium, strontium and barium, all of which were found in my sample.

Content from External Source

Here is a bigger image.....
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/cce11122013_00000.jpg


It's not really anything too important, as this rainwater test has not been widely spread. (I kinda wish it would)
It's just another example of Clare Swinney,claim, that:
.......assuming that if "anything" is found....it must mean chemtrails exist.
She (still) believes that no Al and Ba should be found at all...in a rainwater test. I think a lot of people still believe this falsehood......She still thinks the results should be zero.

I also thought that Howard Saive had given-up on his claims of the same idea, that "no Al should be normally found at all....zero" in rainwater tests........But there he is, posting the same false idea as he did years ago.
http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/12/18/new-zealand-rainwater-test-consistent-with-chemtrails/

Haven't both of them been corrected previously ?.....or do they just refuse to accept standard wind/dust meteorological weather science....and replace it with their own "science" ?

 

[Leifer]

Followup....post on H. Saive's http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/12...with-chemtrails/comment-page-1/#comment-14294

I don't know if it will get erased/deleted, but I explained to him the lab test values and what they mean. Below is a thumbnail screenshot....

>>> here is the NZ water standards.....http://www.moh.govt.nz/notebook/nbb...20E08/$file/drinking-water-standards-2008.pdf

(I then apologized for getting his first name wrong (Harold, not Howard)....will he overlook that ?)

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The folks who believe that no aluminum might ordinarily be found in the atmosphere have no clue about basic geology. This graphic might be usefu since it shows a 180 year long record of aluminosilicate dust found in the relatively pristine Antarctic environment:



http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.full.pdf

It might also help to explain that zeolite (an aluminosilicate mineral) is recommended by the Coalition Against Geoengineering and many other chemtrails organizations as a harmless prophylactic:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/an...inum-oxide-as-a-natural-cellular-defense.241/

So, not only do we have a 180 year long record (long before man ever flew) of ordinary aluminosilicate dust being found in the air, rain. and snow even from Antarctica, we also have all the main purveyors of the chemtrails advocating use of the same mineral being found as a protectant.

What more do they want, a lab analysis from Mt. Shasta showing the aluminosilicate dust itself?

here you go:



How about another example from 1936?

 

[Leifer]

Thanks Jay, great stuff..
A recommended additional element to search/test for would be silica....alongside the others.
I don't think "chemtrail spray" believers are claiming that silica is being sprayed out of planes....
.....but the presence of silica means "dust/dirt".
So if you get silica in your samples......you are getting dirt + all the elements of dirt.....Al, Fe, etc....even Ba and whatever local earthly/man-made airborne elements.
.....heck even ash from distant fires and possibly salt spray.

 

[Leifer]

Harold Saive's usual reply to anything he can't explain (or is informed that it is bunk)....He will still leave it up. Fine by me....as long as my explanation stays up.

I posted it on the originating site as well.....but I doubt it will remain there (your comment is awaiting moderation)
If nothing else....I would hope to help teach any readers "how" to navigate around the lab test results. If that ends-up being the only results of my postings.....I'm content with that.

 

[Leifer]

Dust covers parts of Texas....
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...st-drops-all-over-Houston-and-car-5087977.php

...of course many CT sites and suspicious people are attributing the dust to things like Planet X, UFOs, and other "more interesting" possibilities.

 

[Leifer]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/08/13/2001651.htm

Heavy metal pollution from Australia is blowing across the Tasman and landing on remote New Zealand glaciers, say researchers.
"It's reasonably common to see really red material in the snow in New Zealand, which is sourced from Australia," says Dr Samuel Marx of the University of Queensland.
"It's not a huge level [of pollution] otherwise I'd have major concerns," says Marx, who did the research for a PhD.

"But it is a source of heavy metal pollution to very remote environments in New Zealand and it's probably the only source of pollution that manages to get [there]."

Content from External Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~
another....
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/05/2891226.htm

De Deckker and colleagues have been showing how many places in the Southern Hemisphere have been affected by Australia's dust - today, and in the past.

They have been identifying the origin of dust by studying its composition, including isotopes of strontium, neodymium and lead.

Content from External Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~
another.... (1984 study)
www.metsoc.org.nz/system/files/journals/.../1984_042_42-46_collyer.pdf
....or try... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metsoc.org.nz%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fjournals%2F4%2F2%2F1984_042_42-46_collyer.pdf&ei=ADXLUtLHBoH3oAS5kIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNFrLXE7ECOj5XBkrKMUHL1bqE0PXQ&sig2=WMMtILQQhB497AgU_0gxgA

Kaolinite is
very common in Australian soils but is present
in only small proportions i n New Zealand
soils, except in a number of soils occupying
only limited areas (New Zealand Soil Bureau,
1968; Hewitt and Churchman, 1982). Kaolinite
has been detected at about 40% concentration
i n dusts i n the vicinity of Canberra in
Australia (Walker and Costin, 1971). I t was
considered that i f the dust were of Australian
origin i t should contain a significant proportion
o f kaolinite, whereas i f i t was of New
Zealand origin, kaolinite would be present in
only minor amounts.

Content from External Source

These links are for those who claim, "nothing should be found in rainwater tests". What they are really saying is "there is no dust (dirt, soil) in the air".
I hope people outside Metabunk read this material.....otherwise it sorta feels like we're preaching to the choir.
There are seemingly hundreds of such studies and papers....many pointing to glacial core sampling, evidence that it has been a common occurrence for a very long time (glacial periods)

 

[MikeC]

Clare Swinney is at it again - publicizing tests of rainwater showing very low levels of minerals in rainwater, and claiming they are somehow evidence of evildoing, even though the levels are much lower than the acceptable limits!!

The results confirm the presence of aluminium, barium and strontium in our rainwater in 2014, which is to be expected in light of all the aerosol material and evidence of weather modification technology being seen, both in the satellite imagery and from ground observations.

Content from External Source

the drinking water standards for New Zealand are available at https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/drinking-water-standards-new-zealand-2005-revised-2008 - strontium is not mentioned presumably as it is not considered a health hazard, but the US Drinking Water Association says :

How is strontium in drinking water regulated? There is not a federal drinking water standard for strontium at this time. The EPA has set a reference dose for strontium. The current reference dose for strontium is 0.6 milligrams per kilogram weight per day (mg/kg/day).http://www.drinktap.org/home/water-...cmr3/strontium.aspx#sthash.Ha3IEq1G.dpuf[/ex]

Content from External Source

http://www.drinktap.org/home/water-...cmr3/strontium.aspx#sthash.Ha3IEq1G.dpuf[/ex]

 

[MikeC]

And they are still doing it - Clare's latest effort even goes so far as to link to this thread, so she's well aware that the quantities reported are less than the health or guideline limits...and yet she's still happy to put up the full analysis that shows that and pretend it's something untoward.

It is quite frightening how someone can post a test showing completely acceptable levels of natural elements in water, and then right next to the picture showing that claim that it is actually high levels, evidence of a crime, etc!!