Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Chemical Test for Metals Like Aluminum Metabunk.jpg

Believers in the "chemtrail" theory (the theory that the trails behind high-flying aircraft secretly contain chemicals intended to alter the climate or weather) often point to chemical analyses done on soil, air or water. Typically these tests are done for three metals: Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium (the fallacious "geoengineering signature"). Since these elements are all naturally found in the Earth's crust, they usually find some of each. Experts in geochemistry recently analyzed a typical set of these results, and determined they did not come from a secret spraying program.

However a very common misunderstanding here comes from the fact that these metals are not found in their metallic form in nature. Aluminum needs to be extracted from rock, and once in metallic form it oxidizes (rusts) over the years, and barium and strontium both are highly reactive to air. Typically the chemtrail believer will quote something like Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
External Quote:

Aluminium metal is so chemically reactive that native specimens are rare and limited to extreme reducing environments. Instead, it is found combined in over 270 different minerals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium
External Quote:
Because of its high chemical reactivity, barium is never found in nature as a free element.
So the argument goes: if Aluminum (or Barium, etc) is never found in nature, then why are the chemtrail related tests finding it?

The answer is that the tests used for these metals do not distinguish between the A) metal and B) a mineral that contains the metal.

So it does not matter if you test an aluminum soda can, or a piece of rock made of aluminosilicates, or windblown dust that contains tens of different minerals that contain aluminum, the results will all return the presence of significant amounts of aluminum.

The most commonly used test for metals in water is EPA 6010B, a standard test for metals:
External Quote:
METHOD 6010B - INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROMETRY

Samples are nebulized and the resulting aerosol is transported to the plasma torch. Element-specific emission spectra are produced by a radio-frequency inductively coupled plasma. The spectra are dispersed by a grating spectrometer, and the intensities of the emission lines are monitored by photosensitive devices.
The important word there is plasma. Plasma is the fourth state of matter after solid, liquid, and gas. If you take some rock or aluminum and heat it up it will eventually melt. Heat it up more and it will turn to liquid, continue heating and it will become a gas. Finally if you heat it up incredibly high it will become a plasma - a cloud of individual atoms stripped of their electrons. As described in Wikipedia:

External Quote:

The argon gas is ionized in the intense electromagnetic field and flows in a particular rotationally symmetrical pattern towards the magnetic field of the RF coil. A stable, high temperature plasma of about 7000 K is then generated as the result of the inelastic collisions created between the neutral argon atoms and the charged particles.[3]

A peristaltic pump delivers an aqueous or organic sample into an analytical nebulizer where it is changed into mist and introduced directly inside the plasma flame. The sample immediately collides with the electrons and charged ions in the plasma and is itself broken down into charged ions. The various molecules break up into their respective atoms which then lose electrons and recombine repeatedly in the plasma, giving off radiation at the characteristic wavelengths of the elements involved.
Since the sample is just broken down into a soup of atoms, there's no way of knowing (from this type of test) if the individual atoms of aluminum (or other metals) were in their metallic form, or in their mineral (rock) form.

EPA6010B is the most common test used. Another test is EPA 200.8, which is also plasma spectrometry, so the same applies there. Sometimes the test is just described as ICP/MS or ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry), which is, of course, the same thing.

So when you test samples of dirt, or air or water that has a little dust in it, then you are going to find the elements that are typically found in dirt. You are not finding the metallic form. You are finding minerals that are made from those metals, like feldspar, granite, bauxite, or aluminosilicates. It's just regular dirt.
 
Last edited:
This is all material that has been covered before, however it's a topic that keeps coming up, so I decided to make a more focussed post with a (hopefully) clear infographic explaining things. That way when it comes up on social media I can just post the infographic and the link, and don't have to type out the same explanation over and over.
 
An example I like to use is a regular house brick, made of a mixture of sand (silica) and clay (alumina). Such a brick is typically 20-30% alumina by weight.

Alumina is Al[sub]2[/sub]O[sub]3[/sub], which means it is roughly 53% aluminium by weight.
(Al mass = 27, O mass = 16, total mass = (27 x 2) + (16 x 3) = 102, therefore proportion of Al = 54 / 102)

So if you took a bit of brick dust and analysed it using the same methods, you'll find something like 10 to 15% pure aluminium, i.e. 100,000 to 150,000 ppm.
 
There's also the issue for tests for Al3+ ions in acidic soil, I think that might confuse people though, so I'll only add that to the man post if it's seems like a common objection.

Some previous discussion touching on that:

https://www.metabunk.org/aluminum-in-the-united-states-prevalence-in-soil-and-water.t6000/
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-a...pm-is-a-problem-for-most-growing-plants.t410/
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-monsantos-aluminum-resistant-gmos-and-chemtrails.t341/

There is a large misconception in internetland, on what and how labs test for AL in soil samples.
I see no problem trying to explain it farther, or better or clearer.
Adding info or describing it different ways helps.
Also, with a history of explanation, it's harder for people to say "science is changing it's definition" (of the results).
 
Last edited:
When I first started investigating "chemtrails" years ago,
I thought 'why not collect the city street runoff, and test that.'
I quickly realized that the city has a plethora of chemicals in say, storm drains. So that test would not be useful, as the sources could not be verified, or a baseline established.

The more dense a human population area is, you will undoubtedly find more pollution .......aka, added not-natural elements to that landscape, aka contamination.
Humans take elements from one area, and move them to another. "It's what we do".

Here's a "real-time" MAP for air-quality pollution. (prevailing winds should be accounted for)

Maps for for soil/ground contamination are usually very specific, and that's a good thing, and there are many.
Here's one place to look... https://www.usgs.gov/science-explorer-results?es=contamination
 
I always found this aspect of chemtrail claims to be ridiculous and devoid of any rational understanding of the Earths crust.

In 1970 i was taught that the upper 5-50 miles of the Earth’s crust was called SIAL as it mostly consisted of silicates and aluminium minerals.

Demonstrating the presence of one of the core constituents of the crust on top of the crust (in water, soil etc.) seems to be a rather pointless exercise. What would you expect.
 
I always found this aspect of chemtrail claims to be ridiculous and devoid of any rational understanding of the Earths crust.
The point here is that chemtrail believer's conclusions are drawn without regarding the actual test principle, which is understandable.

In my experience, it's not too hard to explain this in an illustrative way. I usually refer to clay as being made from aluminum and oxygen, and how plasma spectrometry always separates the building blocks of stuff.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, it's not too hard to explain this in an illustrative way. I usually refer to clay as being made from aluminum and oxygen, and how plasma spectrometry always separates the building blocks of stuff.

I tried to make it really simple in the top image. The test finds atoms.
chemical-test-for-metals-like-aluminum-metabunk-jpg.20669
 
I tried to make it really simple in the top image. The test finds atoms.
The element/compound visualization is excellent. However, the focus on an EPA standard designation is probably a bit less useful. I know it's referring specifically to the notorious Shasta tests, but AFAIK the designation does not show up on other lab result that are available.

In my explanations I'm talking more generally about plasma spectrometry as the usual test method.
 
There's a newish (2022) set of test results that are doing the rounds:

External Quote:

• Aluminum 3090 ppm
• Lithium 507 ppm
• Barium 67.8 ppm
• Zinc 58.9 ppm
• Copper 55.1 ppm
• Cadmium 54.1 ppm
• Lead 52.9 ppm
• Silver 28.3 ppm
• Sulfate 22.0 ppm
• Silica 8.67 ppm
• Mercury 1.06 ppm

I've tracked down the original source of this data to a post by a Facebook account called Lookat TheNumbers.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/troy.kyle.79/posts/pfbid0chU2ZjghsBmjYX9uj8YwMe1Ec9KhfoeapoUXpWDyBEUZs4rtdpumiPexUeFwmcvnl

Screenshot of original post:

1720613541363.png




The important part is here:

External Quote:
3 'RUNS' WERE DONE FOR DETECTION OF EACH METAL, ONLY THE FINAL – MAXIMUM LEVEL (Matrix Spike) IS POSTED HERE.
The "Matrix Spike" is not the actual sample being analysed!

The Matrix Spike is a test sample, prepared with known, high amounts of the substances being tested for, in order to test whether the analysis method is working properly.


See for example this explanation of the use of a matrix spike in analysis (PDF link), from Thermo Fisher Scientific, an analytical diagnostics firm.

External Quote:

Why and How to Matrix Spike

Matrix Spiking
is a technique that is used to evaluate the performance of an analytical procedure when testing a specific sample (matrix) type.

• In other words, a matrix spike test helps answer the question “Are we getting good (valid) results when we use this method to test this sample or this type of sample?” A “good” matrix spike result increases our confidence in the accuracy and validity of the sample test results.

A Matrix Spike (MS) is generated by adding a known amount (a spike) of analyte to a sample, testing the spiked sample, and determining if we have recovered the amount that we added.

• In practice, two portions of the sample are prepared for testing. In the “matrix spike” portion, we add a known amount of standard (to increase the concentration by a known amount). When we test the sample and then the matrix spike, the matrix spike result should be higher by that known amount added. If the analytical procedure is not working well for our sample, the matrix spike result will be higher or lower than we are expecting.

A Spiking Solution is a standard that is chosen for preparing a matrix spike; the concentration of the analyte in the spiking solution is usually 50 -100 times higher than the concentration found in the unspiked sample.
 
External Quote:

• Sulfate 22.0 ppm
Yikes! No brewer would *ever* consider brewing with sulfate concentration levels like that. They'd be chucking in Epsom Salt to bump it up by a factor of 5, 10, or even 30.

Clearly I'm more scared of bland beer than whatever these guys are trying to make me scared of.
 
Yikes! No brewer would *ever* consider brewing with sulfate concentration levels like that. They'd be chucking in Epsom Salt to bump it up by a factor of 5, 10, or even 30.

Clearly I'm more scared of bland beer than whatever these guys are trying to make me scared of.
You are suggesting that if it was raining beer, that'd be fine?
 
Back
Top