peer reviewed research on aluminum content of rainwater required

Boston

Active Member
Hi folks, I'm very new here. I'm also completely on the fence about this whole chemtrail thing. I've an extensive background in climate sciences and have a habit of not forming any opinions until I get a chance to read a number of research papers on whatever and probably doing a year or two of research into something. IE I've very cautious about what I believe and why I believe it. I also can't spell for beans so try and cut me some slack.

So here's why I posted and here's why I'm here, I'd like to collect as large a sampling of peer reviewed work that includes spectral analysis of rainwater samples that specifically include aluminum barium and strontium. Pretty sure I got the key three right. Those are the three the chemtrail peeps are concerned with right ? So lets see what the preponderance of data suggests. I noticed someone posted a picture of a text book with barium and strontium levels from 40 years ago. That was perfect. As much base rate data as possible is also great.

I'm pretty discerning about opinion, doesn't fly in my way of investigation. I don't believe it nor do I disbelieve it, but raw data is going to win the day on this one, so if some of you could please post links to specific published articles concerning rainwater chemical content it would be most appreciated. In order for me to accept a study its going to have to list its methodology as well as note what university or lab conducted the study. Name the authors, be dated, list all contributing researchers, note references and citations, list raw data collection protocols, and list when and where it was published, also that publication may not be bias or industry related. IE nothing from any source with a vested interest in the outcome of the data.

Thanks
B
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Hi folks, I'm very new here. I'm also completely on the fence about this whole chemtrail thing. I've an extensive background in climate sciences and have a habit of not forming any opinions until I get a chance to read a number of research papers on whatever and probably doing a year or two of research into something. IE I've very cautious about what I believe and why I believe it. I also can't spell for beans so try and cut me some slack.

So here's why I posted and here's why I'm here, I'd like to collect as large a sampling of peer reviewed work that includes spectral analysis of rainwater samples that specifically include aluminum barium and strontium. Pretty sure I got the key three right. Those are the three the chemtrail peeps are concerned with right ? So lets see what the preponderance of data suggests. I noticed someone posted a picture of a text book with barium and strontium levels from 40 years ago. That was perfect. As much base rate data as possible is also great.

I'm pretty discerning about opinion, doesn't fly in my way of investigation. I don't believe it nor do I disbelieve it, but raw data is going to win the day on this one, so if some of you could please post links to specific published articles concerning rainwater chemical content it would be most appreciated. In order for me to accept a study its going to have to list its methodology as well as note what university or lab conducted the study. Name the authors, be dated, list all contributing researchers, note references and citations, list raw data collection protocols, and list when and where it was published, also that publication may not be bias or industry related. IE nothing from any source with a vested interest in the outcome of the data.

Thanks
B
Your background in climate sciences can be of value. For the basics, review the following:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Debunked-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow?highlight=bibliography

and view these:





The key is to understand what the chemtrails people do not want you to know, in fact at all costs they avoid explaining what is normally in the air to their followers.
They did not follow sound scientific principles and thus came to unsound conclusions. Additionally, they avoid revision of those conclusions when contradictory evidence is presented.
This is the foremost reason for their failure to garner mainstream scientific support.

Why, for instance, do they only check for three elements, and when these are found in ordinary amounts, seem so alarmist? Atmospheric scientists such as yourself all know that crustal and marine materials are in the air, how can they not be? The proportions are well known, and are based on abundance in the sea and crust of earth's surface.

I wish you well in collecting as many studies as possible for the ordinary levels of material found in our atmosphere. As you do so, please post the information you gather to the relevant threads above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Do you have access to academic journals? A good starting point is look for work authored by TD Jickells of the UEA. That will bring up a shedload of possible pointers e.g http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch/TMCWebPage/pdfweb61-90/77.pdf There are a number of links to useful sites in the threads that Jay has linked. I would not dismiss any work by industry or government departments. Even though chemtrailers accuse them of bias and bs there data is often independently reviewed and shows levels higher than what chemtrailers claim is "normal", especially given that there is not a "normal" value. I would suggest also that look at atmospheric quantities rather than rainwater. The level of scavenging that raindrops are able to do is often dependant on size both of the drop and the particulates, therefore the content may not be directly proportionate to what is in the air.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I think that all of these can be found in the threads that Jay linked to above, but here are a few that I keep handy because they are earlier references, published before most of the conspiracy theorists think that "chemtrails" started (in the 1990s). There are also more recent references in the literature, as you can find by doing an ordinary literature search, for terms like "elemental composition rainwater aluminum".

Rutherford, GK. 1967. A preliminary study of the composition of precipitation in S.E. Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 4(6): 1151-1160. Found Al in rainwater samples ranging from 520 to 1120 ppb (800 avg.).

Struempler, AW. 1975. Trace metals in rain and snow during 1973 at Chadron, Nebraska. Atmospheric Environment 10(1): 33-37. Found 350 ppb (avg.) in rainwater; 1530 ppb avg. in rapid thunderstorms.

Vermette, SJ and VG Bingham. 1986. Trace elements in Frobisher Bay rainwater. Arctic 39(2): 177-179. Found Al ranging from 150 to 1300 ppb (760 avg).
 

Boston

Active Member
I have friends at East Anglia and can contact Tim directly. I wouldn't think it to hard to show past atmospheric trace element analysis vs present atmospheric trace element analysis. I just wanted to give all sides an opportunity to present there data.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I have friends at East Anglia and can contact Tim directly. I wouldn't think it to hard to show past atmospheric trace element analysis vs present atmospheric trace element analysis. I just wanted to give all sides an opportunity to present there data.
Can I ask if you are showing the same rigour to data that may be presented by chemtrailers?
 

Pete

Member
Hi folks, I'm very new here. I'm also completely on the fence about this whole chemtrail thing. I've an extensive background in climate sciences and have a habit of not forming any opinions until I get a chance to read a number of research papers on whatever and probably doing a year or two of research into something. IE I've very cautious about what I believe and why I believe it. I also can't spell for beans so try and cut me some slack.

So here's why I posted and here's why I'm here, I'd like to collect as large a sampling of peer reviewed work that includes spectral analysis of rainwater samples that specifically include aluminum barium and strontium. Pretty sure I got the key three right. Those are the three the chemtrail peeps are concerned with right ? So lets see what the preponderance of data suggests. I noticed someone posted a picture of a text book with barium and strontium levels from 40 years ago. That was perfect. As much base rate data as possible is also great.


Thanks
B
If there is an increase in those 3, how do you then suggest a link with aircraft? There are countless emissions being sent into the atmosphere (from events on the ground, or at altitude) all of which will come back down in the rain, so for someone with an extensive background in climate sciences, I'm a little puzzled at your hope of finding link using this data alone?

Without sampling a supposed 'chemtrail' and comparing the data to that of non 'chemtrail' its a fruitless quest.

Us debunkers go on the premise of what is most likely, and what can be documented with known history on contrail formation... So we counter the: claims of chemtrails lasting longer than contrails; claims that the spraying is industry wide; the various and sometimes laughable reasons for spraying; and the fact that chemtrail believers will film a contrail and try to pass it off as evidence for a chemtrail - when we all know what contrails look like, and the fact they have happened for decades!
 

Boston

Active Member
The exact same level of scrutiny will be afforded any reviewed article regardless of its findings. However during my time playing with climate deniers I've noticed that they tend to present a lot of pseudo science, stuff by organizations like "the Heartland Institute" which actually isn't an institute at all, doesn't engage in a peer review process before publication and generally presents bias work favorable to its financial contributors views. I believe there's even a term for this kinda thing, Agnotology.
 

Boston

Active Member
Pete, I don't know if there is an increase in those three. If someone believes there is, I'm asking that they present there data.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
If you find any peer reviewed data for rainwater in support of chemtrails I would be interested to read it. As yet I have been unable to find any, in fact I have yet to see anything that could be called a scientific investigation.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
One problem with a lot of the 'tests' submitted by individuals is poor collection practices, such as taking the water from a downspout or from under trees, and improperly clean sampling containers
 

Pete

Member
Pete, I don't know if there is an increase in those three. If someone believes there is, I'm asking that they present there data.
But the sheet fact you are 'on the fence' regarding the issue, and wanting to see evidence detailing what has been falling as rain onto the soil in the past however many years, kinda suggests you think it has gone up.

And if you believe it hasn't, or is not of concern, why use this as an issue to 'sit on the fence'? Something isn't stacking up here.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I just wanted to give all sides an opportunity to present there data.
If you are already dealing with chemtrail believers, ask them why they don't show any of these papers on their websites.

They don't. The reason is pretty obvious.

After they fumble around with no good answers, ask them at what point they consulted the literature to do research on the matter. Some of them have been going on about this for ten years, and if they are just getting around to looking at what's ordinary, they really aren't being honest or competent.
 

Joe

Senior Member
If you are already dealing with chemtrail believers, ask them why they don't show any of these papers on their websites.

They don't. The reason is pretty obvious.

After they fumble around with no good answers, ask them at what point they consulted the literature to do research on the matter. Some of them have been going on about this for ten years, and if they are just getting around to looking at what's ordinary, they really aren't being honest or competent.
they really aren't being honest or competent ?
Sounds like the climate scientist ? Hockey Sticks ?
 

Boston

Active Member
If by climate hockey sticks you means smoothed graphs all sciences use these tools to look at particular signals of special interest. In climate science Milankovitch cycles are sometimes removed as well as other things for that matter to look at CO2 forcing

Pete, its never a good idea to assume anything before you see the data. I'm asking for data. Seemed like there were a few people here who believed in this chemtrail thing so I though I'd ask. If your one of them, please provide your data for analysis. Personally I've yet to see anything that suggests trace aerosol ratios have altered beyond what I'd expect from the obvious sources, auto exhaust for instance or coal fired power plants.
 

Boston

Active Member
Only thing I've been shown is a Utube documentary that was shot full of holes. While I generally applaud citizen scientists for there efforts I'm a huge believer in the scientific process. Failing in that process does us all a disservice and seriously undermines the value of the effort. I'd have to answer "nothing", which is why I thought I'd get on the net, go find some people who think there is something going on, and ask.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
Oh, no.

Why are you tunneling into the rabbit hole some way along it!
Find the start of the hole - the opening assumption. "All contrails dissipate in a few seconds. These trails don't, so they must be something else."
That is a false assumption, and it's fallacy is easily established. So, why go any further?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
"they really aren't being honest or competent" ? Sounds like the climate scientist ? Hockey Sticks ?
That's a very laboured attempt at a segue.
Is there any evidence you want to share to prove that, or is that just an ideological dogma, like pretty much everything else you say?
:p
 

Boston

Active Member
One thing I've noticed about the upper crust is they fully expect you to get off your fat ass and actually do some of your own research. So while I'm enjoying this lovely cold at home this weekend, I thought I'd do exactly that. Having read a few of the various sites and their associated claims I'm still lacking any hard data. Although I did find several well constructed arguments refuting some of the info found in the chemtrail links.

My take is to look at mass ratios past and present and see what I can find. I've got an hour or so to kill so lets see how many articles I can look up and check what they find. I'll post as many as I can and let the readers decide for themselves.

Aluminum specific studies

#1 Modern AL ratios
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...v=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDAQrQMwAg

#2 Modern AL ratios
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...v=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDoQrQMwBw

#3 2800 year history of AL ratios Yellowstone observatory
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDQQrQMwBDgo

#4 Modern AL ratios
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...v=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDAQrQMwAg

#5 1880 - 2000 tree ring data China
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1125786512000604-gr3.jpg

#6 Al tree ring ratio as a function of metal production China
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1125786512000604-gr4.jpg


========================================================================
other heavy metal trace element analysis

#A 1982 - 2000
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0168583X06012523-gr1.jpg
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Here's a 1955 Illinois analysis of rainwater - unfortunately they werent' looking for aluminium, barium and strontium way back then!!

This one from Carleton is dated 2004.....but again no-one is interested in barium, aluminium or strontium!

But it does includemany references to rainwater studies - eg Study of chemical elements in atmospheric precipitation in South Brazil- but that appears to erquire purchase - it's not expensive - US$35 at that link, google also shows it on Amazon (sic!).

There are many more references in the Carleton bibliography you might be able to follow up.
 

Joe

Senior Member
That's a very laboured attempt at a segue.
Is there any evidence you want to share to prove that, or is that just an ideological dogma, like pretty much everything else you say?
:p
Everything about Man Made Climate Change is left wing dogma . Hoax .
 

Boston

Active Member
I'm going to go ahead and post all the articles I find in one post, that last one #21 as a reference guide to subsequent posts

Kinda drives me nuts when people don't at least make it easy to reference whatever data they are discussing

Oh and Mike, I'm pretty much only going to look at Al for the moment. Eventually I'll collect enough data sets to form a history of AL atmospheric trace particulates. Which if it covers the assumed time frame of manipulation by any outside source, those alterations should be visible in the data. If they are not, then it is only fair to conclude no effective manipulation occurred. If they are, then it cannot immediately be assumed that direct and intentional manipulation occurred before other possible sources are first ruled out. My appologies but I tend to be very anal about these sorts of claims.
 

Boston

Active Member
Everything about climate change is left wing dogma . Hoax .
I'd like to offer any assistance I might in helping those with an open mind to the data concerning climate shift. I believe I posted this offer an a relevant thread, so rather than spin off a tangent on this thread I'd ask that you direct any questions you might have on the appropriate thread and flag it for my attention. I'm sure I can clear up any questions you might have

Cheers
B
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I'm going to go ahead and post all the articles I find in one post, that last one #21 as a reference guide to subsequent posts

Kinda drives me nuts when people don't at least make it easy to reference whatever data they are discussing

Oh and Mike, I'm pretty much only going to look at Al for the moment. Eventually I'll collect enough data sets to form a history of AL atmospheric trace particulates. Which if it covers the assumed time frame of manipulation by any outside source, those alterations should be visible in the data. If they are not, then it is only fair to conclude no effective manipulation occurred. If they are, then it cannot immediately be assumed that direct and intentional manipulation occurred before other possible sources are first ruled out. My appologies but I tend to be very anal about these sorts of claims.
Are you in the UK? There is plenty of DEFRA data avaiable. If you are in the UK you are going to find it hard to isolate sources and trends especially with the seasonal variations and natural events
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Oh and Mike, I'm pretty much only going to look at Al for the moment. Eventually I'll collect enough data sets to form a history of AL atmospheric trace particulates.
some of those referenced areticles are discussed as being "comprehensive" chemical analysis so may include Al.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Very few scientists study the ordinary crustal components, there probably isn't as much grant money for them as pollutants. Who cares about dust you cannot control when anthropogenic chemicals can be traced and their release stopped.

I forgot to mention this link. In the chemtrail movie and every so often Michael J. Murphy will go on a jaunt to Hawaii and proclaim their rain is toxic.

What he doesn't tell his flock is this:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/337-Debunked-Geoengineering-over-Maui-Hawaii

Not peer reviewed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe

Senior Member
I'd like to offer any assistance I might in helping those with an open mind to the data concerning climate shift. I believe I posted this offer an a relevant thread, so rather than spin off a tangent on this thread I'd ask that you direct any questions you might have on the appropriate thread and flag it for my attention. I'm sure I can clear up any questions you might have

Cheers
B
I look foward to them :) cheers
 

Boston

Active Member
Actually Jay I've found quite a few even in just the hour I spent looking earlier today. I guess I was just being lazy in even asking since all along I could have just looked it up myself. Present day studies of the trace element mass ratios, particularly the industrial metals were easily enough found, the historical record of this type data was easily enough found so far in tree ring data, although I suspect when I begin looking at lake sediment studies I'll also find a reasonable time line of any changes in these figures as well.

Thus far in the data I've looked over, although only quickly, I see zero fluctuation beyond what might be considered normal and nothing that would indicate any spike in AL over the most recent decadal time frame. I'd expect if there was actually any kind of program to "seed" the atmosphere with Al there would be a marked increase its prevalence in the environment. From what I can see, there isn't.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
You don't need lake sediment studies. There are 5 yearly studies in Europe of mosses as they are bioindicators for Al
 

Boston

Active Member
I would prefer studies that go back significantly further than just five years. Studies that go back maybe 1000 years would be more like it. A reasonable trace element historical analysis that might establish a baseline trend in pre industrial and industrial era mass ratio movement must go back far enough to discover any cyclical pattern within the data. Five years isn't going to do that.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I would prefer studies that go back significantly further than just five years. Studies that go back maybe 1000 years would be more like it. A reasonable trace element historical analysis that might establish a baseline trend in pre industrial and industrial era mass ratio movement must go back far enough to discover any cyclical pattern within the data. Five years isn't going to do that.
You might look at ice core data. There are signatures in arctic cores which have shown differences between saharan dust and asian dust both of which make it up there.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I know that there is more interest in ordinary dust today. Sahara dust is a problem for Caribbean coral reefs.


Please note what all they have found in it.


 

Boston

Active Member
#3 and #5 appear quite telling in that there is no substantial deviation in AL ratios found in modern times vs the resent past. I'd think if there was any deliberate effort to inject AL into the atmosphere it'd be obvious within the data already collected. But if I have some spare time this week I'll try and look into both ice core records and sedimentary lake bed data
 

Pete

Member
I'm sorry Boston, I'm still a bit confused. Regardless of your current opinion, just looking at the known facts already concerning the actual evidence of lack of: equipment/organisation/man-power/justifications/that the contrails are magically lasting longer due to issues outside of known physics; surely this says enough?

As Ross says in post #18: "Why are you tunneling into the rabbit hole some way along it?"

There is a clear flaw in your 'data heavy' approach, and that is you have seemingly ignored all other data and understanding and want to tackle this Aluminium issue as if it could ever be connected to the theory of chemtrails anyhow. My point still remains, that even IF you found a global increase on soil/moss/ice core/whatever samples, it would be pretty tricky to connect it to aircraft activity and not anything else. According to this article (http://icpvegetation.ceh.ac.uk/publications/documents/Finalmossreport2010-11forweb.pdf) for Aluminium in Europe, "The average median value has declined by 28%" since 2005.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Svartbjørn The Challenge with Peer Review General Discussion 4
A Debunking Forums Reviewed Practical Debunking 0
JFDee Research: Consequences of Travel Shutdown for Contrail Coverage Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West Key Temperatures in 9/11 Research 9/11 15
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Argentina's Committee for Aerospace Phenomenae Research (CEFAe) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Marin B Claim: Academic research groups increasingly beholden to interests of corporate publishing groups Science and Pseudoscience 19
skephu Interesting articles about contrail research Contrails and Chemtrails 8
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Graham2001 Debunked: FVX Research [Fake Web Site] Conspiracy Theories 1
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Thor Odinson GMO Independent Research Health and Quackery 7
Quantumbeliever Claim: CDC covers up research linking MMR vaccine to autism Conspiracy Theories 13
KC-10FE Identified: Wing with Three Gold Nozzles [D-ADLR Gulfstream G550 - German Research Plane ] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Jason How Doing Research can Lead Both In and Out of the Rabbit Hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 55
Leifer New supplement campaign, "Whole Body Research" Health and Quackery 35
Tybalt ‪98.7% Proven Meditation Techniqu‬e - scientific research? Science and Pseudoscience 6
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
moderateGOP Debunking Global Research TV Conspiracy Theories 64
TomC chemtrails research kickstarter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
Critical Thinker Interesting research on 'thought control'.... how long before CTer's freak out? General Discussion 0
Cairenn Global Research People Debunked 1
F4Jock Why Don't CT Believers Do Their Own Research? General Discussion 22
Mick West Debunked: OverpopulationIsAMyth.com (Overpopulation is a Myth, Population Research Institute) Conspiracy Theories 14
Pete Tar Internet research. How to do it effectively? Practical Debunking 47
Related Articles



























Related Articles

Top