Just been looking at the website http://www.chemtrailsproject.com/ and noticed that there is a distinct east-west divide.
Most of the rainwater tests East of a N-S line just to the East of Fort Worth, Texas do not show any Aluminium, Barium or Strontium.
Most of the rainwater tests West of the N-S line show some Aluminium, Barium, or Strontium.
Funny old world, isn't it?
Something else I found
Isn't natural geology fascinating? It's one of the things I learned researching the KSLA "news" story about "chemtrails". Barium is the 14th most common crustal element, and some areas of the country have Ba, Al, and Sr is absolutely everywhere......including the area where that particular story was broadcast. Found this in my research....it's a complete mineralogical survey of the US, broken down by element.http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1270/pdf/PP1270_508.pdf It's from 1984, but there have been very few geological events that would change crustal distribution since then.
Between the natural mineral being in the air and (possibly) water in these areas, and the basic facts so often ignored by "chemtrailers", that barium is in many different products including those used with medical need, it seems it would be more surprising if Ba was not found in someone's tests.
LOL at one thing I forgot to mention......if you look at the USGS mineral map online right now, only the east half of the US is shown. So unless there is no mineral deposits at all in the western US, which is just stupid, there is a glitch. Which is usually leapt upon by "chemtrail" believers as confirmation of their views.
Last edited by stars15k; May 5th, 2012 at 03:20 PM. Reason: found something else
Probably because West of that line, it is arid and often dusty. East of there, much more vegetation, more rain, so less airborne soil aerosols as a result.Originally Posted by Danny55
Thank you Firepilot. Having never been further west than Iona, I never really thought about it in those terms. Thought they may have used 2 different labs using slightly different testing methods.
Especially in feb-may, West Texas, New Mexico, Colorado are quite windy. I am in southern NM right now and its windy, and I clean dust off of the airplane windows daily. Just more wind, more arid sandy soil, and less vegetation to hold it all down.
Thats why it is perplexing that in these same sandy, dusty windy areas that are ripe for higher amounts of aerosols, chemtrail belief is higher. You would think it is obvious that there is so much more exposed soil/sand to be blown around, especially in higher elevation areas with wind, than out east where the ground is covered in vegetation for the most part.
Last edited by firepilot; May 6th, 2012 at 11:37 AM.
I also noticed that the Chemtrails Project FB page nevr mentioned the Eastern results.
Out east, they are lucky that their rain is more showery and leaves a car cleaner than it was before the rain.
Compare to out west, where you can get a sprinkle or short duration rain, that lasts long enough to just grab dust out of the air, and then your car is dirtier than it was before it rained.
The alkaline earth metals magnesium, calcium, strontium and barium are depleted in US eastern soils, and the soil pH is much lower there, both due to higher rainfall depleting these from soils. Also, much of the western soils developed as part of a great basin, while much of eastern US soils developed from a granite substrate.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
Any thought that it may be pollution coming over the pacific from China? Having flown over Guam many times on my way to Japan, the pollution over the Pacific at the same latitudes as China is something to behold.
Sure, depite Dane Wgington's claims to the contrary, asian dust is frequent and does contain aluminum and barium. The second largest generator of dust, right behind North Africa, are the central asian deserts. Asian pollution makes it across the Pacific and has a signaure which has ben studied along the west coat snd nationwide for many years. Strontium is found in ordinary marine salt spray coming across the Pacific.
Citations:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...D0OJr4uJznqI-A
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ict/d...ian-dust02.pdf
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/aerosol/C...20010413_epac/
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000...inadust-60.m2v
Dane Wigington, prepare yourself to be exposed.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
Here is a "result" from the UK. Don't know where they got the "safe levels" as there are no units for them, but it looks like there is nothing for them to worry about.... so they are.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn...53521064756595
Olga Raffa
Chemtrails Project UK:
Rainwater test results with safe levels noted
Olga Raffa
Product: Rainwater
Frampton Mansell
... Gloucestershire
U.K.
TEST RESULT UNITS
pH 6.11
Aluminium (Al) <10.00 μg/L
Safe level .2
Barium (Ba) <10.00 μg/L ''
Safe level .7
not tested for strontium or Titanium
Strontium (Sr) <0 mg/L
Titanium (Ti) <0 mg/L
Manganese (Mn) 2.0 μg/L ''
Safe level .3
Iron (Fe) <10.0 μg/L ''
Safe level .3
Copper (Cu) 40.0 μg/L
Safe level 2.
Zinc (Zn) <10.0 μg/L
Arsenic (As) <0.1 μg/L
Notes:
< means ‘is less than’ > means ‘is greater than’ N/A means ‘not applicable’
Wonder if that is the Olga from Oglaconn?
I think those "Safe Levels" are in mg/L, like the Aluminum, 0.2 mg/L comes from here:
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contamina...ystandards.cfm
Table I. Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels
Contaminant Secondary MCL Noticeable Effects above the Secondary MCL Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L* colored water Chloride 250 mg/L salty taste Color 15 color units visible tint Copper 1.0 mg/L metallic taste; blue-green staining Corrosivity Non-corrosive metallic taste; corroded pipes/ fixtures staining Fluoride 2.0 mg/L tooth discoloration Foaming agents 0.5 mg/L frothy, cloudy; bitter taste; odor Iron 0.3 mg/L rusty color; sediment; metallic taste; reddish or orange staining Manganese 0.05 mg/L black to brown color; black staining; bitter metallic taste Odor 3 TON (threshold odor number) "rotten-egg", musty or chemical smell pH 6.5 - 8.5 low pH: bitter metallic taste; corrosion
high pH: slippery feel; soda taste; depositsSilver 0.1 mg/L skin discoloration; graying of the white part of the eye Sulfate 250 mg/L salty taste Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500 mg/L hardness; deposits; colored water; staining; salty taste Zinc 5 mg/L metallic taste * mg/L is milligrams of substance per liter of water
So that would be 200 ug/L. So a level of <10ug is perfectly safe.
Of course it's even more safe than that, as there is NO SAFE LIMIT for aluminum in water, seeing as it's not actually really toxic. The EPA limit is just for water color and taste.
Just found out where the "safe levels" came from. The Australian Analysis in update #2 3/14/2010 on one of your pages over at contrailscience.com Mick.
http://contrailscience.com/barium-ch...comment-147107
More test results on the WITWATS page, and note his reaction to them
"Joe Gettis
I just received rainwater results back from the lab for Aluminum and Barium in Great Falls, Montana.
For Aluminum we were at 9.7 ppb (parts per billion) and the reporting limit is 5.0 ppb. This puts us at 4.7 ppb over the reporting limit.
For barium we were at 1.8 ppb and the reporting limit is 0.5 ppb. This puts us at 1.3 ppb over the reporting limit.
Heavy spray days will produce higher results....
This is scientific proof that we are being exposed to toxic levels of Aluminum and Barium in our air and rainwater. We are breathing in nano sized particles of Aluminum and Barium daily and it gets absorbed though the pores of our skin from rainwater, lakes and streams. This is a crime against humanity on a grand scale. Help Stop Chemtrails NOW!See more
12 May at 00:49
A "reporting limit" is the lowest detectable amount, not some safe limit. The EPA safe limit for barium is 2000 ppb, and for aluminum the cosmetic limit is 200 ppb, but no safe limit, as it's not toxic in oxide form (which is the only way it's in water).
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm
I was going to mention that same exact point. Reporting point is in regards to the equipment, not in reporting it to the authorities.
They like to use Basic Labs, and their reports look like this:
They describe the Reporting level (RL) as "Minimum Level of Quantitation", which might have led to the confusion, as quantitation is simply the act of measurement, so this is "smallest level that can be measured. Instead they prefer to look at the next line "Maximum Contamination Level/Action Level", despite the fact that they don't actually list an MCL/AL
(There's also the MDL, which is the method detection limit, meaning they can detect it at all if it's below this limit. Between MDL and RL is a grey area of increasing accuracy.
Today I went through the Chemtrails Project data at:
http://www.chemtrailsproject.com/
I listed all the sample results and converted them to common units of ug/L (micrograms/liter)
Several of the listings had anomalous levels far higher than the others, but in each case those listings were in either ppm or mg/L, so I believe those were cases where the units were listed incorrectly, and separated them out until actual lab reports are available to confirm the validity of the units listed.
Here are the results:
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
PCWilliams (July 16th, 2012)
For comparison, aluminum levels found in rain and snow during 1967 were a high of 1120, a low of 520 and an average of 800 ug/L:
http://metabunk.org/threads/135-Chem...-rain-and-snow
in 1973, an average was 350 ug/L in Nebraska:
http://metabunk.org/threads/135-Chem...ull=1#post1281
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
PCWilliams (July 16th, 2012)
well done guys
Thats a really ugly data set tho cause of all those zero's in the pile. Typically you'd throw out the high and the low, but thats a ton of zero's, I'm not sure what I'd do with that but I guess if it was bellow detectable limits then its a count within the average. With that many zero's I'd question there methodology. What a mess. Oh and those anomalous highs are definitely not worth counting.
If it was my study I'd be doing multiple samples from each site so as to avoid those kinda spurious data.
Last edited by Boston; May 21st, 2013 at 07:49 PM.
Innocent Bystander
They tried that, and for aluminum got results which varied from 15 to 82 ug/L from the same rain event.
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/libra...ataNewYork.doc
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks