The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What are the consequences of being sprayed with barium and aluminium?  (Read 13954 times)

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
CIA Director States (On Camera) His Support For Geoengineering & Spraying Particles Into The Atmosphere: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/12/cia-director-states-on-camera-his-support-for-geoengineering-spraying-particles-into-the-atmosphere/
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
If geoengineering activity would be safe then there would be room for commercial exploitation of this technology. The evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is potentially toxic to humans lie in the unilateral use of this technology by the U.S government.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
That must be why every time you see government officials on TV making statements they are wearing breathing aparatus.

LOL.

Chemtrails propaganda (and disinformation) is an epistemological evidence that the chemical composition of the nanoparticles have neurotoxic properties on humans: Aluminium toxicity is likely to participate to Alzheimer pathogenesis.
So, once again, no actual evidence of chemtrails- just stuff that might possibly be important if they existed.

« Last Edit: 16/07/2016 13:42:51 by Bored chemist »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
CIA Director States (On Camera) His Support For Geoengineering & Spraying Particles Into The Atmosphere: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/12/cia-director-states-on-camera-his-support-for-geoengineering-spraying-particles-into-the-atmosphere/
A man who isn't a scientist says that something would be a good idea- in his opinion.
Do you realise that isn't the same as saying that that "something" is happening?
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
So, once again, no actual evidence of contrails- just stuff that might possibly be important if they existed.

A contrail is not a chemtrail.... Please educate yourself. A chemtrail persist in the atmosphere until it dissolve with air and water to form hydroscopic cloud condensation nuclei: "The concept of cloud condensation nuclei is used in cloud seeding, that tries to encourage rainfall by seeding the air with condensation nuclei. It has further been suggested that creating such nuclei could be used for marine cloud brightening, a climate engineering technique."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
A man who isn't a scientist says that something would be a good idea- in his opinion.
Do you realise that isn't the same as saying that that "something" is happening?

This guy is the CIA director. I think he might have a better idea of what is going on than you and me...
 
By the way, when a official from the U.S government states his support for geoengineering activity its likely
not the product from my imagination.

At some point you must connect the dots between reality and the potential effects of this activity as a scientist?
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
So, once again, no actual evidence of contrails- just stuff that might possibly be important if they existed.

A contrail is not a chemtrail.... Please educate yourself. A chemtrail persist in the atmosphere until it dissolve with air and water to form hydroscopic cloud condensation nuclei: "The concept of cloud condensation nuclei is used in cloud seeding, that tries to encourage rainfall by seeding the air with condensation nuclei. It has further been suggested that creating such nuclei could be used for marine cloud brightening, a climate engineering technique."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei

You posted that after I noticed, and fixed, my typo. Did you not realise your post was an irrelevant waste of time?
« Last Edit: 16/07/2016 14:19:31 by Bored chemist »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
A man who isn't a scientist says that something would be a good idea- in his opinion.
Do you realise that isn't the same as saying that that "something" is happening?

This guy is the CIA director. I think he might have a better idea of what is going on than you and me...
 
By the way, when a official from the U.S government states his support for geoengineering activity its likely
not the product from my imagination.

At some point you must connect the dots between reality and the potential effects of this activity as a scientist?

And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "Iwould support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "Iwould support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?

The CIA director is an authority... I trust what he says because clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact; Weather modification is controversial because its classified U.S military technology.
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
You posted that after I noticed, and fixed, my typo. Did you not realise your post was an irrelevant waste of time?

I'm guessing you believe that the word "chemtrails" is a product of conspiracy theorists, but in reality the scientific hypothesis that coal fly ash is being used validates the toxic nature of theses aerosols. And ignoring the science behind chemtrails is a waste of time...
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "Iwould support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?

The CIA director is an authority... I trust what he says because clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact; Weather modification is controversial because its classified U.S military technology.
No he isn't.
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
He may well know stuff- so what. He doesn't decide what other people do in, for example, other countries. Nor is it clear that he would know what other countries (or even his own) are doing.
Nobody is doing any meaningful geoengineering. If you disagree please show some actual evidence (rather than someone saying it might be possible)
It's not classified- it's well documented. The three usual variations on the theme use silver iodide- which is effective, but expensive.
Cement powder which is a lot less effective, but much cheaper and was used by the Russians to stop it raining on their may-day parades and solid CO2 which comes between the first two in terms of cost an efficacy.

Why do you keep posting stuff that's irrelevant or wrong?
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "I would support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?

Your other post implies that chemtrails are real(and made of fly ash).
You have not supplied a single shred of evidence to support that.
Do you understand that science relies on evidence- and you haven't got any?

You also still keep failing to address the other obvious point.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
No he isn't.
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
He may well know stuff- so what. He doesn't decide what other people do in, for example, other countries. Nor is it clear that he would know what other countries (or even his own) are doing.
Nobody is doing any meaningful geoengineering. If you disagree please show some actual evidence (rather than someone saying it might be possible)
It's not classified- it's well documented. The three usual variations on the theme use silver iodide- which is effective, but expensive.
Cement powder which is a lot less effective, but much cheaper and was used by the Russians to stop it raining on their may-day parades and solid CO2 which comes between the first two in terms of cost an efficacy.

Why do you keep posting stuff that's irrelevant or wrong?
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "I would support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?

Your other post implies that chemtrails are real(and made of fly ash).
You have not supplied a single shred of evidence to support that.
Do you understand that science relies on evidence- and you haven't got any?

You also still keep failing to address the other obvious point.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?

I don't need "evidences" to validate what I'm witnessing on almost a daily basis. The persistent trails left by non-commercial airplanes and drones are proofs that geoengineering is real. You cannot deny this, unless you live on some distant planet or you're mentally insane.

What is needed is scientific research on the possible impacts of geoengineering on the biota, in order to convince the policy makers that geoengineering is a bad idea.

By the way, we are poisoning ourselves with chemtrails simply because our leaders have decided this would save humanity from climate change.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


I don't need "evidences" to validate what I'm witnessing on almost a daily basis. The persistent trails left by non-commercial airplanes and drones are proofs that geoengineering is real. You cannot deny this, unless you live on some distant planet or you're mentally insane.

What is needed is scientific research on the possible impacts of geoengineering on the biota, in order to convince the policy makers that geoengineering is a bad idea.

By the way, we are poisoning ourselves with chemtrails simply because our leaders have decided this would save humanity from climate change.
I need a new irony meter.
"I don't need "evidences" "
"What is needed is scientific research"


"The persistent trails left by non-commercial airplanes and drones are proofs that geoengineering is real. You cannot deny this, unless you live on some distant planet or you're mentally insane."
Actually I can deny it on the rather dull basis that I have evidence. All I have to do is point a camera out of the window. There are no "chem trails".
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
You should come to Canada. Clandestine geoengineering activity occurs all the time here.
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
And the first picture you posted looks like a chemtrail to me.

Are you mocking me??
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
And the first picture you posted looks like a chemtrail to me.

Are you mocking me??
I admit I was kind of hoping you would say something like that but those were just pictures I took of the sky from my house just before I posted them.

Here are some similar "chem trails" depicted by John Constable nearly a hundred years before man achieved powered flight.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O82649/study-of-cirrus-clouds-oil-painting-constable-john-ra/

So, what you have done is prove that you are unable to recognise what's clearly a cloud.
that's what I was hoping for.
You can stop now.
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
I'm not stupid. A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity. Theses trails condense into artificial clouds which looks like cirrus clouds.

http://www.chemtrails-france.com/cirrus_fibratus/cirrus_fibratus_en.htm 

 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I'm not stupid. A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity. Theses trails condense into artificial clouds which looks like cirrus clouds.

http://www.chemtrails-france.com/cirrus_fibratus/cirrus_fibratus_en.htm

"I'm not stupid."
I guess others will make up their own minds about that.


"A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity."
The "ends" of the "trail" are both visible. The "trail" beyond those ends has vanished.
Since it went away, it's clearly not persistent.
You on the other hand persist on wittering on even when it's clear that you can't tell what a cloud looks like.
Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself?
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
"I'm not stupid."
I guess others will make up their own minds about that.

You bet they will. What is a embarrassment is your complete ignorance of the science behind geoengineering.

Did you know the pilot can switch on and off the nozzle to control the release of the pressurized fluid? And since distance may vary, your pictures are not a reliable measure of the duration the spraying occured.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"And since distance may vary, your pictures are not a reliable measure of the duration the spraying occured."
Meanwhile, back in reality, nobody mentioned duration.

"Did you know the pilot can switch on and off the nozzle to control the release of the pressurized fluid?"
Since there is no nozzle that makes no sense.
If you want to show some evidence that's fine.
In the meantime, you are the man who doesn't know what a cloud looks like.
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
What evidences do you got to claim there's no nozzle used to spray the pressurized fluid?

Are you still confused in believing chemtrails is a lie?

Why do you think there's a whole page created on Wikipedia about this "conspiracy theory" ??

Is stratospheric aerosol (sulfate) injection another deception?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Here's another patent on the use of "volcanic ash" to disperse or inject fine particles into the stratosphere:

Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100127224

Quote
In one embodiment, the fine silica particles can include at least one of silica fume, fumed silica, or powdered quartz. The fine silica particles may have an average diameter ranging between 5 nanometers and 10 microns. The fine particles may closely resemble a composition of volcanic ash, such that they have optical and physical properties similar to volcanic ash.
[0014]
A method is provided for mitigating global warming in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Such method can include injecting or dispersing fine silica particles into the stratosphere. The particles are dispersed in a concentration sufficient to cause statistically significant warming of the stratosphere. A statistically significant cooling of the troposphere can also occur simultaneously with the warming of the stratosphere.

I cannot believe you still think geoengineering is only a conspiracy theory...

You have no scientific method whatsoever and refuse to admit the evidences put forward by experimented scientists.

What a joke!
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
So, once again- no evidence from the man who can't recognise a cloud.

Did you read the wiki page? Here's the first paragraph or so. I have emphasised some words for you since you must have missed them.

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a POSSIBLE candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons HAS BEEN PROPOSED.[5] It presently appears that this proposed method COULD counter most climatic changes, take effect rapidly, have very low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects."
Did you notice something there- nobody says that anyone is doing it (except on a tiny experimental scale).

You have misunderstood the scientific method .
It's not my job to prove that the mythical nozzles do not exist.
It's your job to show that they do.
You should be able to show me the things on lots of planes taken all over the world by holiday makers and plane spotters.
And yet  you have nothing.

why is that?
Why can't you show me a stack of pictures?

And I may have mentioned this before; the patent office does not comment on whether or not something would work. Also the existence of a patent does not indicate that the product actually exists or is in use.

Why post stuff about patents?
Is it that you don't understand them; or just desperation?
 

Online tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Why can't you show me a stack of pictures?

You don't seem intelligent enough to use Google and search pictures of chemtrails by yourself...

Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you.

Why can't you politely admit your ignorance and let yourself become educated?

I guess you don't want to see hard photographic evidences of chemtrails because your subconscious mind cannot accept this possibility?

Let me know whenever your attitude towards science become positive...
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8647
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"You don't seem intelligent enough to use Google and search pictures of chemtrails by yourself..."
I can search lots of pictures.
But we have established that you (the one who claims expertise) can't tell a chemtrail from a cloud.
So exactly what would I gain from looking at those pictures?
Did you somehow think you had made a valid point there?

"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."
Why make such an obviously false statement?
Evereybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size denies the existence of chemtrails (at least in the way you are suggesting they exists)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory


"Why can't you politely admit your ignorance and let yourself become educated? "
I'm happy to admit my ignorance.
Just as soon as you have made some attempt to show that I'm the  one who is ignorant.
As I have said repeatedly, you have not actually shown any evidence to support your claim.



"I guess you don't want to see hard photographic evidences of chemtrails because your subconscious mind cannot accept this possibility?"
I keep asking for that evidence; you keep failing to supply it. That's clearly got nothing to do with my subconscious (or any other aspect of me).
Why don't you supply some actual evidence? (Though I advise you to check on the meaning of the word, as it relates to science, iun oder to avoid wasting time + bandwidth with things like hearsay and logical fallacies)

"Let me know whenever your attitude towards science become positive..."
Science depends on evidence.
You have not yet produced any.
You have also failed to explain why chemtrails would even make sense.

And you still can't recognise a cloud.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums