Tree and other plant problems as evidence for chemtrails?

[David Fraser]

Are we showing each other our trees? I live relatively inner city in Manchester and we do have some pollution issues. At times we can get a bit of acid rain and there is a real problem with dust from a car wreckers near by among other things. Yet things still seem to grow.

This is one of my conifers planted 8 years ago. (The fence is 6ft to give you a gauge of height)





The next is a Google Earth snap shot of my street (sorry for the poor quality). The street is a bsy road and to the right hand side is the main West Coast rail line for England, which is quite busy 24 hours of the day. The air quality can be poor on still days and does have generally have a high proportion of Aluminium present from the local industry



Notice how the gardens are quite lush. Now if we are to believe the claims of aluminium oxide poisoning the plants my local area would be a barren wasteland, never mind seeing such destruction on a global scale not in localised pockets. Even a drop of acid rain does no harm, especially given the buffering qualities of soil.

 

[scombrid]

Blaming a problem caused by a known bacteria and exotic insect on chemtrails, HAARP, etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfOfUE598A

She spends the first half of the video re-hashing the article. It states rather planely that the disease is bacterial and spread by an Asian bug. But she insists that "they" are trying to wipe out the food supply by "toxins down from the sky".

One becomes speachless at how obvious it is that our nations food supply is being cripples by those who are spraying the skies, regulations, our government. We can't seem to get any decent food GMOs Monsanto is controlling so much of out food supply. It's amazing that people are not even willing to engage in conversation about what's taking place.

I tried engaging her once. Won't bother again. Just wanted to point out someone ignoring a known problem specific to a species in favor of the conspiracy narrative.

 

[Jazzy]

if we are to believe the claims of aluminium oxide poisoning the plants

I hope not even for a moment.

Aluminum oxide is completely insoluble and refractory. Do ceramic plant pots (made from fired clay - aluminum hydrosilicate) kill plants? How foolish and absurd is that?

 

[Igrokush1]

One real argument to Dane's proposal that aluminum is destroying our trees.. There is a known plague completely destroying our forests, was in the record searchlight some time ago. For reference purposes I will contact the paper in attempt to retrieve the article. The vial russet (rust mite) mite in which I have observed under microscope on various forest plants and trees from ferns to oaks, grape vines to manzanita. Manzanita one native plant the claim is that aluminum is destroying. Well, the rust mite has been on an incline in the past five years all over the US. According to a scholar article from the University of Georgia, yes I will site it ASAP. However in 2013-2014 it has caused a 2.9% citrus crop decline, with no result in an incline in citrus cost. There is more to it than seeing trees die up and blaming it on aluminum particulates. I'm a horticulturist, and there are such blights and fungal diseases that wipe out many numbers of the forest and only laboratory tests would reveal that, not assumption. I did read it was introduced to the US in the 70's by Nixon for the war on drugs. Still unsure of that so I need to research the fact more.

 

[Trailblazer]

One real argument to Dane's proposal that aluminum is destroying our trees.. There is a known plague completely destroying our forests, was in the record searchlight some time ago. For reference purposes I will contact the paper in attempt to retrieve the article. The vial russet (rust mite) mite in which I have observed under microscope on various forest plants and trees from ferns to oaks, grape vines to manzanita. Manzanita one native plant the claim is that aluminum is destroying. Well, the rust mite has been on an incline in the past five years all over the US. According to a scholar article from the University of Georgia, yes I will site it ASAP. However in 2013-2014 it has caused a 2.9% citrus crop decline, with no result in an incline in citrus cost. There is more to it than seeing trees die up and blaming it on aluminum particulates. I'm a horticulturist, and there are such blights and fungal diseases that wipe out many numbers of the forest and only laboratory tests would reveal that, not assumption. I did read it was introduced to the US in the 70's by Nixon for the war on drugs. Still unsure of that so I need to research the fact more.

If Dane's theory were the case then we should be seeing an increase in aluminium in water, air and soil samples. No such increase has been seen. (Nor does he present any argument over how aluminium from the air can kill trees!)

Aluminium is everywhere in the soil. The limiting factor in its bioavailability is pH, i.e. soil acidity.

 

[Igrokush1]

Also I have read and observed on video a USDA soil scientist stating the Al in soil has in fact increased. And no, bioavailability nor Ph is not a factor. At Shasta College I've taken the soil science class where GMO crops are frequently discussed. Al is typically bound up in soil with other cations. It's called oxides, ever hear of it? Aluminum oxides? Unless someone has actually taken a college course you are merely going off what you have read, ya know, the self educated group. I have a degree in soil science. There are GMO crops involving Al resistant plants. Most of them started in South America I believe, and china, in places of the world where there is more free Al in soil that does in fact pose a definite problem to crop yields. These are things I've learned back in college before all this chemtrail junk was so popular.

 

[Igrokush1]

What I meant about soil Ph not being a factor was that it's not a factor in the Al being free, but of course it's a factor on the uptake of plants. It always has and always will be. Here in Northern Ca, according to USDA studies there should not be high amounts of free Al in soil. Yes I've heard that there 'could' be a huge dust storm and such and that very well 'could' be placing more free Al in the soil, sure. But not likely to raise it the amounts recorded presently today.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have to rush now but, briefly, I have a masters degree in chemistry - not specifically soil science, so I may have to defer to you there, but I do understand about the difference between different forms of aluminium, and the effect of pH on aluminium ion uptake.

 

[Belfrey]

One real argument to Dane's proposal that aluminum is destroying our trees.. There is a known plague completely destroying our forests, was in the record searchlight some time ago. For reference purposes I will contact the paper in attempt to retrieve the article. The vial russet (rust mite) mite in which I have observed under microscope on various forest plants and trees from ferns to oaks, grape vines to manzanita. Manzanita one native plant the claim is that aluminum is destroying. Well, the rust mite has been on an incline in the past five years all over the US. According to a scholar article from the University of Georgia, yes I will site it ASAP. However in 2013-2014 it has caused a 2.9% citrus crop decline, with no result in an incline in citrus cost. There is more to it than seeing trees die up and blaming it on aluminum particulates. I'm a horticulturist, and there are such blights and fungal diseases that wipe out many numbers of the forest and only laboratory tests would reveal that, not assumption. I did read it was introduced to the US in the 70's by Nixon for the war on drugs. Still unsure of that so I need to research the fact more.

I agree with you that there are many known reasons why a tree might die, and there's no reason to assume that (undocumented) aluminum pollution is the cause. But "russet" or "rust mite" is a common name that is applied to multiple species of mite, mostly in the family Eriophyidae. Eriophyids are quite common and some can be pests, but it's not a single species that is affecting all plants.

Also I have read and observed on video a USDA soil scientist stating the Al in soil has in fact increased.

What scientist, where is the data published, and compared to what baseline?

And no, bioavailability nor Ph is not a factor.

Why not?

At Shasta College I've taken the soil science class where GMO crops are frequently discussed. Al is typically bound up in soil with other cations. It's called oxides, ever hear of it? Aluminum oxides? Unless someone has actually taken a college course you are merely going off what you have read, ya know, the self educated group. I have a degree in soil science.

Several of us have educations and experience in related fields, and if you read through other threads on the topic, you'll see that aluminum in soils (as oxides and in other forms) is discussed at length here.

There are GMO crops involving Al resistant plants. Most of them started in South America I believe, and china, in places of the world where there is more free Al in soil that does in fact pose a definite problem to crop yields. These are things I've learned back in college before all this chemtrail junk was so popular.

Indeed, so you should know that aluminum toxicity in certain crop species is a problem in soils where the pH is very low, allowing the Al to become soluble in the soil solution as Al+++ ions. Meanwhile Wigington et al. say that the "chemtrail" spray is damaging plants by increasing soil pH. How do you reconcile that?

What I meant about soil Ph not being a factor was that it's not a factor in the Al being free, but of course it's a factor on the uptake of plants. It always has and always will be. Here in Northern Ca, according to USDA studies there should not be high amounts of free Al in soil. Yes I've heard that there 'could' be a huge dust storm and such and that very well 'could' be placing more free Al in the soil, sure. But not likely to raise it the amounts recorded presently today.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "free aluminum," and what makes you think there are high levels of it in the soil?

 

[Trailblazer]

Indeed, so you should know that aluminum toxicity in certain crop species is a problem in soils where the pH is very low, allowing the Al to become soluble in the soil solution as Al+++ ions. Meanwhile Wigington et al. say that the "chemtrail" spray is damaging plants by increasing soil pH. How do you reconcile that?

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "free aluminum," and what makes you think there are high levels of it in the soil?

These are very good points. I've never seen any coherent or consistent theory about what "they" are meant to be spraying.

Some claim it is metallic aluminium, others say it is aluminium oxide or more exotic Al compounds.

Well, Al2O3 is just about as inert a substance as you could mention, and metallic aluminium itself acquires an inert coating of the oxide pretty much as soon as it is exposed to the air.

"Free aluminium" in the soil? I assume by that he means the free Al3+ ion. That is only bioavailable to plants at low (acidic) pH, which is what I stated earlier.

http://agronomy.emu.ee/vol042/p4205.pdf

 

[Mick West]

When Dane Wigington talks about the Aluminum, it's very clear that he does not realize that the tests he has been doing to soil and water do not distinguish the various forms of aluminum. So Aluminum Oxide and Aluminum metal (and even Al3+) would all just show up as "aluminum".

 

[David Fraser]

Further to what Belfrey said. I presumed that low pH was the factor for the free moving aluminium ions. Aluminium is still taken up by plants but in compound form. I always assumed that the free form aluminium caused damage similar to a free radical although by a differing mechanism.

As to Danes claim on "free" aluminium. I think Mick has mentioned before but surely these particles would readily oxidise?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Also I have read and observed on video a USDA soil scientist stating the Al in soil has in fact increased.

Can't you reference it?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Here in Northern Ca, according to USDA studies there should not be high amounts of free Al in soil.

Reference?

 

[Belfrey]

"Free aluminium" in the soil? I assume by that he means the free Al3+ ion. That is only bioavailable to plants at low (acidic) pH, which is what I stated earlier.]

When Dane Wigington talks about the Aluminum, it's very clear that he does not realize that the tests he has been doing to soil and water do not distinguish the various forms of aluminum. So Aluminum Oxide and Aluminum metal (and even Al3+) would all just show up as "aluminum".

Exactly - many of them seem to think that the test results for "aluminum" show the amount of refined and processed, metallic aluminum particles. They don't realize that these are generally emission spectrometry tests that show how much of a trace element is in the sample (irrespective of any molecular combination it's in).

(As previously discussed here, and probably other threads.)

I think Mick has mentioned before but surely these particles would readily oxidise?

Yes, any bare surface of metallic aluminum will quickly develop a thin layer of aluminum oxide when exposed to air.

 

[Igrokush1]

In response to trailblazer, much respect to you as a chem masters deg. I'm merely a chemist that works in the lab at Shasta College, preparing labs for classes, doing titrations, adjusting molarities, etc. My colleagues the true masters, I an apprentice. About the subject on Al however, I will post a recent letter I received from the County of Shasta Board of Supervisors stating that a recent test at Lassen State Park has revealed a spiked amount of Al in the air. Yes it could be from soil due to dust or fires, sure. However it is not concise to indicate the days tested and if there were any potential high wind factors or fires in the area to actually spike the Al. This test was conducted after a meeting on July 15th(Shasta county) where there were chemists, geologists, zoologists, doctors, pilots, and of course Dane Wiginton. Based on what they showed to the board, the board was faced to respond by contacting the EPA, congressmen, assemblymen, and the California Air Resources Board. I found this a compelling meeting where a record breaking over 300 people were there. What I found most interesting, now I don't in any way mean to come across as impolite, was that there was not a single person there to speak the opposing side. When we are talking about public safety, and our tax paying dollars, that should be the time for debunkers to state their opinion. It's sort of like when people are so opposed to a new potential law, or election, but yet they don't even vote. This is a reality issue and I feel if the opposing side felt so strong as they do, at least a small group could have convinced out council members that everything is perfectly normal. But instead, it's a full blown issue here and all the chemtrail theorists won the votes of councilmen and prompted them to act swiftly in contacting the government agencies, which did indeed cost the taxpayers extra money. Maybe the debunkers don't mind paying an extra fee. I'm just waiting for the government response at this point before I side either way.

 

[Igrokush1]

Actually the rust mite specifically is in fact, single handily damaging crops across the US. And I have personally seen in under microscope on grape vines, oak trees, ferns...and of course cannabis. Just ask any cannabis cultivator in the north state if they have lost plants due to the mite, you did however get the family name right. But to the claim about it not by itself damaging forests, well of course there are other things that damage a forest. I just stating a fact that the rust mite specifically has been on a notable uprise in the past five years according to the horticultural community. Heck, it wrecked my bell peppers this year as well as my cannabis crop. How do I know? Well I own a microscope. I culture fungus and bacteria, I know specific plant damage and nutrient deficiencies I can see. Maybe it's the aluminum(joke haha)

 

[David Fraser]

@Igrokush1 I am not picking on you but could you address the link between free Al ions and pH that some of us agree exists yet you appear not. I am not as converse as others but my BSc was Marine Biology but the emphasis was estuarine. I hope you appreciate an estuary is a dynamic and complex system much depending on salinity and pH. I have always thought that toxicity was a factor of solubility and that is a factor of pH.

Can you show a body of research showing I am incorrect? I have a few mental issues and I apologise on advance for any slight.

 

[Igrokush1]

Actually, Al is a non essential element for plants, and very few actually use it in the soil. Besides, that's in the soil, Dane is mainly referring to the effect of Al nano particles falling from the sky on foliage, not uptake via rhizosphere.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Dane is mainly referring to the effect of Al nano particles falling from the sky on foliage

Which is certainly not happening, and has not been shown to be happening.

 

[Igrokush1]

I may

@Igrokush1 I am not picking on you but could you address the link between free Al ions and pH that some of us agree exists yet you appear not. I am not as converse as others but my BSc was Marine Biology but the emphasis was estuarine. I hope you appreciate an estuary is a dynamic and complex system much depending on salinity and pH. I have always thought that toxicity was a factor of solubility and that is a factor of pH.

Can you show a body of research showing I am incorrect? I have a few mental issues and I apologise on advance for any slight.

I may have stated it incorrectly, I think blazers doc was what I was intending, that in very acidic soils of low Ph it can be available to plants, hence the patents on Al resistant plants

 

[David Fraser]

Actually, Al is a non essential element for plants, and very few actually use it in the soil. Besides, that's in the soil, Dane is mainly referring to the effect of Al nano particles falling from the sky on foliage, not uptake via rhizosphere.

Again I apologise, but you are saying that Dane is saying that trees are dying through transpiration? I don't understand the process to know how that would occur. They are "nano particles" so surely would pass through the stomata? Or are they blocking the stomata? Are we seeing a death down phenomena?

 

[Mick West]

Actually, Al is a non essential element for plants, and very few actually use it in the soil. Besides, that's in the soil, Dane is mainly referring to the effect of Al nano particles falling from the sky on foliage, not uptake via rhizosphere.

Perhaps you could quote what he says?

 

[Belfrey]

About the subject on Al however, I will post a recent letter I received from the County of Shasta Board of Supervisors stating that a recent test at Lassen State Park has revealed a spiked amount of Al in the air. Yes it could be from soil due to dust or fires, sure. However it is not concise to indicate the days tested and if there were any potential high wind factors or fires in the area to actually spike the Al.

It doesn't sound like it would tell us much, but please do go ahead and post it.

This test was conducted after a meeting on July 15th(Shasta county) where there were chemists, geologists, zoologists, doctors, pilots, and of course Dane Wiginton. Based on what they showed to the board, the board was faced to respond by contacting the EPA, congressmen, assemblymen, and the California Air Resources Board. I found this a compelling meeting where a record breaking over 300 people were there.

We're well aware of it - see this thread about it.

What I found most interesting, now I don't in any way mean to come across as impolite, was that there was not a single person there to speak the opposing side.

Apparently you didn't stick around to see Steve Funk speak.

When we are talking about public safety, and our tax paying dollars, that should be the time for debunkers to state their opinion. It's sort of like when people are so opposed to a new potential law, or election, but yet they don't even vote. This is a reality issue and I feel if the opposing side felt so strong as they do, at least a small group could have convinced out council members that everything is perfectly normal. But instead, it's a full blown issue here and all the chemtrail theorists won the votes of councilmen and prompted them to act swiftly in contacting the government agencies, which did indeed cost the taxpayers extra money. Maybe the debunkers don't mind paying an extra fee. I'm just waiting for the government response at this point before I side either way.

That's kinda funny, because usually believers tell us that it's very strange for anyone to spend their own time debunking the idea, and that it can only mean that we are paid shills. And it's true that most people who don't believe in such ideas don't bother wasting their time with those who do, if they're aware of the topic at all.

Actually the rust mite specifically is in fact, single handily damaging crops across the US. And I have personally seen in under microscope on grape vines, oak trees, ferns...and of course cannabis. Just ask any cannabis cultivator in the north state if they have lost plants due to the mite, you did however get the family name right.

I believe that you have seen eriophyid mites, and there is a particular species that infests cannabis (Aculops cannabicola). It is not the same species as those which infest citrus, such as Phyllocoptruta oleivora (citrus rust mite) and Aculops pelekassi (pink citrus rust mite). Grape is often infested by Colomerus vitis (grape erinium mite) and Calepitrimerus vitis (grape rust mite). There are many species out there, and their identification can be quite difficult even for specialists. There isn't a single one that is wreaking havoc on all plants, everywhere.

 

[David Fraser]

@Belfrey could a plant/tree die purely through the uptake of Al through its leaves. On this thread I have posted my own conifers from an urban area but what of other trees?

If Al poisoning through transpiration is an issue are areas around high polluters bereft of life, e.g. roadsides.?

 

[Mackdog]

There are also many other diseases and insect infestations plaguing trees in the United States as I speak, besides the ones already mentioned. For starters, there is the Emerald Ash borer, which is destroying millions of Ash trees in the northern United States, and it is an invasive beetle originally from Asia.. there is Dutch Elm disease which is also killing millions of Elm trees. It is spread by a beetle that releases a fungus that destroys the vascular system of American Elm trees.. There is the Mountain Pine Beetle (non invasive) which is killing millions of Pine trees of various species in the western United States (lodge pole pine, pitch pine and sugar pine especially). So I doubt that a higher concentration of aluminum would be responsible for the deaths of very many trees, when we have insects and diseases out the wazoo killing trees here in this country. besides, it has been proven that aluminum is related to soil acidity..the more acidic a soil is, the more aluminum it is likely to have.

 

[Belfrey]

@Belfrey could a plant/tree die purely through the uptake of Al through its leaves. On this thread I have posted my own conifers from an urban area but what of other trees?

Short answer, maybe. That is, if it were being coated with manufactured nanoparticles of aluminum oxide, it's at least plausible that it could be absorbed by and damage above-ground plant tissues. I haven't seen any in-situ or in-vivo experiments along those lines, but there have been experiments with root absorption, and there was this recent one: Toxicity of aluminium oxide nanoparticles demonstrated using a BY-2 plant cell suspension culture model

There's just no evidence that it's happening. And if it were happening on the scale asserted by "chemtrails" believers, I'd expect to find evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Regarding aluminium in the air: here in the UK we see much more air traffic (and persistent trails that people like to say are "chemtrails") than California, so if what Dane says is true, shouldn't we be seeing even more "nano-aluminium" everywhere in the air?

Well, there is an extensive network of air quality monitoring stations, in both urban and rural areas, across the UK, and there is no evidence whatsoever of aluminium levels being elevated under flight paths.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=rm

Here is last year's data for a site in the southeast of England, one of the busiest areas of air traffic in the world.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/non...data&network=rm&year=2013&pollutant=1139#view

Highest Al levels in the whole year were about 130 nanograms per cubic metre.

Over on Geoengineering Watch, talking about California, they say:

From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to 2000 nanograms per cubic meter.

So (assuming GW's figures are correct — I haven't verified this), here in the UK, where "chemtrails" are supposedly everywhere, there is less than one tenth as much aluminium in the air as there is in California. Wherever it's coming from, it's not planes!

So where does it come from?

Aluminium is present in air at nanogram per cubic metre levels as a result of the weathering of aluminosilicate rocks and emissions from industrial sources, automobiles, and cigarette smoke

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol2p2b.pdf

I wonder how many chemtrails activists are smokers?

To get an idea of just how tiny these quantities are, how much aluminium is in ONE cigarette?

Tobacco contains 699-1200 micrograms, or 699,000-1,200,000 nanograms, per gram.


http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/49331/1/bulletin_1992_70(2)_269-275.pdf?ua=1

And a cigarette contains about 0.8 grams to 1 gram of tobacco. So there is as much as ONE MILLION nanograms of aluminium in just one cigarette.

 

[David Fraser]

Regarding aluminium in the air: here in the UK we see much more air traffic (and persistent trails that people like to say are "chemtrails") than California, so if what Dane says is true, shouldn't we be seeing even more "nano-aluminium" everywhere in the air?

Well, there is an extensive network of air quality monitoring stations, in both urban and rural areas, across the UK, and there is no evidence whatsoever of aluminium levels being elevated under flight paths.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=rm

Here is last year's data for a site in the southeast of England, one of the busiest areas of air traffic in the world.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/non...data&network=rm&year=2013&pollutant=1139#view

Highest Al levels in the whole year were about 130 nanograms per cubic metre.

Over on Geoengineering Watch, talking about California, they say:

From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to 2000 nanograms per cubic meter.

So (assuming GW's figures are correct — I haven't verified this), here in the UK, where "chemtrails" are supposedly everywhere, there is less than one tenth as much aluminium in the air as there is in California. Wherever it's coming from, it's not planes!

So where does it come from?

Aluminium is present in air at nanogram per cubic metre levels as a result of the weathering of aluminosilicate rocks and emissions from industrial sources, automobiles, and cigarette smoke

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol2p2b.pdf

I wonder how many chemtrails activists are smokers?

To get an idea of just how tiny these quantities are, how much aluminium is in ONE cigarette?

Tobacco contains 699-1200 micrograms, or 699,000-1,200,000 nanograms, per gram.

View attachment 9640
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/49331/1/bulletin_1992_70(2)_269-275.pdf?ua=1

And a cigarette contains about 0.8 grams to 1 gram of tobacco. So there is as much as ONE MILLION nanograms of aluminium in just one cigarette.

If you have time watch the video of Mangels interviewed in the garden. He contradicts himself on a number of occasions. However the main one is the sources of dust. He clearly states that pollution fom the East Coast is unable to travel to the West Coast. But later he admits that dust from the Sahara is able to cross the Atlantic to the US (although he does state that dust will not reach California). So one comment that dust travels a long way and another that it can't. But either way none of this dust should settle in a high peak region like Mount Shasta apparently.

Off topic but I was reading an interesting article on the Roman lead industry in Italy. They are able to date its peak production through analysis of Arctic ice core samples. Antarctic core samples have long been used to identify atmospheric events, so if dust can travel to the poles why does it stop at California?

 

[Mick West]

Off topic but I was reading an interesting article on the Roman lead industry in Italy. They are able to date its peak production through analysis of Arctic ice core samples. Antarctic core samples have long been used to identify atmospheric events, so if dust can travel to the poles why does it stop at California?

Thread on that here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wi...how-up-in-varves-ice-cores-or-tree-rings.743/

 

[Belfrey]

If you have time watch the video of Mangels interviewed in the garden. He contradicts himself on a number of occasions. However the main one is the sources of dust. He clearly states that pollution fom the East Coast is unable to travel to the West Coast. But later he admits that dust from the Sahara is able to cross the Atlantic to the US (although he does state that dust will not reach California). So one comment that dust travels a long way and another that it can't. But either way none of this dust should settle in a high peak region like Mount Shasta apparently.

For that matter, the locally-produced dust is sufficient. Much of the local rock is naturally high in Al.

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

 

[Hama Neggs]

everything is perfectly normal

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the position taken by debunkers. It's not about wildly broad claims. It's about specifics.

 

[Mackdog]

If the people making the claim about trees and vegetation dying wanted to really prove their point, then they could put some effort into using satellite data to analyze vegetation change over time via any various vegetation indices such as NDVI, EVI or NDMI. This video shows how that can be done using ENVI 5.0 IDL, which is expensive software, but there are even some open source GIS software options out there now that should be able to handle something like this..and Landsat 8 OLI data is readily available and free from the USGS earth explorer site. Just that it only goes back to January 2013 or so..before that you will need Landsat 5 which has to be ordered, but its still free, just that you have to sign up for an account with USGS. Even MODIS data is free and they even have the indices already calculated for you when you download the data. heck, you can go to the Forwarn site and play with the web map they have created there..its already done. http://forwarn.forestthreats.org/fcav2/

This is what I am going to school for and I spend a lot of time researching this type of thing..really a lot of power in the data analysis that can be done nowadays.

here is the video.

 

[Igrokush1]

Yes

If the people making the claim about trees and vegetation dying wanted to really prove their point, then they could put some effort into using satellite data to analyze vegetation change over time via any various vegetation indices such as NDVI, EVI or NDMI. This video shows how that can be done using ENVI 5.0 IDL, which is expensive software, but there are even some open source GIS software options out there now that should be able to handle something like this..and Landsat 8 OLI data is readily available and free from the USGS earth explorer site. Just that it only goes back to January 2013 or so..before that you will need Landsat 5 which has to be ordered, but its still free, just that you have to sign up for an account with USGS. Even MODIS data is free and they even have the indices already calculated for you when you download the data. heck, you can go to the Forwarn site and play with the web map they have created there..its already done. http://forwarn.forestthreats.org/fcav2/

This is what I am going to school for and I spend a lot of time researching this type of thing..really a lot of power in the data analysis that can be done nowadays.

here is the video.

yes or better yet laboratory tests on samples, or diagnosis by a plant pathologist

 

[Igrokush1]

Im

Regarding aluminium in the air: here in the UK we see much more air traffic (and persistent trails that people like to say are "chemtrails") than California, so if what Dane says is true, shouldn't we be seeing even more "nano-aluminium" everywhere in the air?

Well, there is an extensive network of air quality monitoring stations, in both urban and rural areas, across the UK, and there is no evidence whatsoever of aluminium levels being elevated under flight paths.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=rm

Here is last year's data for a site in the southeast of England, one of the busiest areas of air traffic in the world.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/non...data&network=rm&year=2013&pollutant=1139#view

Highest Al levels in the whole year were about 130 nanograms per cubic metre.

Over on Geoengineering Watch, talking about California, they say:

From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to 2000 nanograms per cubic meter.

So (assuming GW's figures are correct — I haven't verified this), here in the UK, where "chemtrails" are supposedly everywhere, there is less than one tenth as much aluminium in the air as there is in California. Wherever it's coming from, it's not planes!

So where does it come from?

Aluminium is present in air at nanogram per cubic metre levels as a result of the weathering of aluminosilicate rocks and emissions from industrial sources, automobiles, and cigarette smoke

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol2p2b.pdf

I wonder how many chemtrails activists are smokers?

To get an idea of just how tiny these quantities are, how much aluminium is in ONE cigarette?

Tobacco contains 699-1200 micrograms, or 699,000-1,200,000 nanograms, per gram.

View attachment 9640
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/49331/1/bulletin_1992_70(2)_269-275.pdf?ua=1

And a cigarette contains about 0.8 grams to 1 gram of tobacco. So there is as much as ONE MILLION nanograms of aluminium in just one cigarette.

not a cigarette smoker, but I had no idea, wow!

 

[Igrokush1]

I a

Short answer, maybe. That is, if it were being coated with manufactured nanoparticles of aluminum oxide, it's at least plausible that it could be absorbed by and damage above-ground plant tissues. I haven't seen any in-situ or in-vivo experiments along those lines, but there have been experiments with root absorption, and there was this recent one: Toxicity of aluminium oxide nanoparticles demonstrated using a BY-2 plant cell suspension culture model

There's just no evidence that it's happening. And if it were happening on the scale asserted by "chemtrails" believers, I'd expect to find evidence.

. I don't think the UK is in the biggest drought in over a century either. Solar Radiation Management...helps the ozone repair itself, but can cause drought too...

 

[Igrokush1]

Perhaps you could quote what he says?

I can quote Dane, perhaps yes. But I'd have to do that out of the many documents he stated that in I watched a news interview on ch7 krcr where he said" the aluminum is destroying the trees everywhere, look at the madrones , even native plants" as he stands beside a manzanita shrub that has obviously been cooked by something . In response to, I forgot who last week, about how does it effect the foliage... It's like roundup, a weed killer. It clogs the stomates ultimately stopping transpiration, causing damage to the cell wall. Heck, any organic pesticide can do that to defoliate trees. Spraying bleach will kill foilage, spraying anything on plants in the sun can also do it depending on temps and UVB penetration. This applies to indoor gardens also. Spray closely under HPS lighting=fried plants. Hence, roundup ready corn and other plants. Kill bugs without killing plant. Bad part about that is pests eventually become roundup resistant theirselves. My point is, that even if there were Al falling from the sky in copious amounts, too much of anything can kill trees by foliage contact. Especially in concentrate, like urine!

 

[Igrokush1]

Agreed!!

There are also many other diseases and insect infestations plaguing trees in the United States as I speak, besides the ones already mentioned. For starters, there is the Emerald Ash borer, which is destroying millions of Ash trees in the northern United States, and it is an invasive beetle originally from Asia.. there is Dutch Elm disease which is also killing millions of Elm trees. It is spread by a beetle that releases a fungus that destroys the vascular system of American Elm trees.. There is the Mountain Pine Beetle (non invasive) which is killing millions of Pine trees of various species in the western United States (lodge pole pine, pitch pine and sugar pine especially). So I doubt that a higher concentration of aluminum would be responsible for the deaths of very many trees, when we have insects and diseases out the wazoo killing trees here in this country. besides, it has been proven that aluminum is related to soil acidity..the more acidic a soil is, the more aluminum it is likely to have.

Agreed!!

 

[David Fraser]

I can quote Dane, perhaps yes. But I'd have to do that out of the many documents he stated that in I watched a news interview on ch7 krcr where he said" the aluminum is destroying the trees everywhere, look at the madrones , even native plants" as he stands beside a manzanita shrub that has obviously been cooked by something . In response to, I forgot who last week, about how does it effect the foliage... It's like roundup, a weed killer. It clogs the stomates ultimately stopping transpiration, causing damage to the cell wall. Heck, any organic pesticide can do that to defoliate trees. Spraying bleach will kill foilage, spraying anything on plants in the sun can also do it depending on temps and UVB penetration. This applies to indoor gardens also. Spray closely under HPS lighting=fried plants. Hence, roundup ready corn and other plants. Kill bugs without killing plant. Bad part about that is pests eventually become roundup resistant theirselves. My point is, that even if there were Al falling from the sky in copious amounts, too much of anything can kill trees by foliage contact. Especially in concentrate, like urine!

Are you saying the action of Roundup is through blocking stomata? That is incorrect. Roundup works by inhibition of an enzyme in the production of amino acids like tryptophan.

Also how can Roundup kill bugs without killing plants? It is a herbicide and the enzyme it acts on is only present in plants and microorganisms. (EPSP synthase http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPSP_synthase )

 

[Belfrey]

Solar Radiation Management...helps the ozone repair itself

It does what now?