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
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