The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What are the consequences of being sprayed with barium and aluminium?  (Read 14087 times)

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

This page is a good example of how Wikipedia neutrality is contentious. The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity.

The evidences that you deny looking at are proofs that the brainwashing is working!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1#No_evidence
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Ok, so I had a look at that wiki page.
And it points out that there is no evidence.
It does ask this poorly spelled question "When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. "
And a plausible answer is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

As for
"The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity. "
Nonsense. It confirms nothing- not least because you haven't shown either the censoring or the geoengineering to exist.
Essentially you are saying "it's not fair- Wikipedia requires evidence; we haven't got any  and so they won't let us post our magic unicorn stuff as factual.; that's censorship"
No- it's common sense.


But you missed the point.
What you said was
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."

And that's clearly not true.
So, once again, not only do you have a complete lack of evidence, but you are posting stuff which is obviously wrong.

It's as if you can't spot a cloud when  you see one.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Ok, so I had a look at that wiki page.
And it points out that there is no evidence.
It does ask this poorly spelled question "When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. "
And a plausible answer is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle.

Quote from: Bored chemist
As for
"The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity. "
Nonsense. It confirms nothing- not least because you haven't shown either the censoring or the geoengineering to exist.
Essentially you are saying "it's not fair- Wikipedia requires evidence; we haven't got any  and so they won't let us post our magic unicorn stuff as factual.; that's censorship"
No- it's common sense.

Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship.


Quote from: Bored chemist
But you missed the point.
What you said was
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."

And that's clearly not true.
So, once again, not only do you have a complete lack of evidence, but you are posting stuff which is obviously wrong.

It's as if you can't spot a cloud when  you see one.

Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?

I suggest you educate yourself about geoengineering if you insist in believing your wishful thinking is credible.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
And once again no evidence; just bald assertion masquerading as debate "Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle. "

"Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship. "
So, by your "common sense"  we should say that unicorns may exist or they might not- just to be neutral.

"Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?"
No, I expect you to believe that clouds that look the same as they did a hundred years before the Wright brothers are not evidence of "chemtrails".
There's no evidence for the ash in the pictures. How could there be? How good a lens would it take to resolve  sub-micron particles of dust from thousands of meters away.

So, as usual, you offer no evidence.
Do you realise this is meant to be science, and science is based on evidence?

 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
And once again no evidence; just bald assertion masquerading as debate "Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle. "

"Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship. "
So, by your "common sense"  we should say that unicorns may exist or they might not- just to be neutral.

"Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?"
No, I expect you to believe that clouds that look the same as they did a hundred years before the Wright brothers are not evidence of "chemtrails".
There's no evidence for the ash in the pictures. How could there be? How good a lens would it take to resolve  sub-micron particles of dust from thousands of meters away.

So, as usual, you offer no evidence.
Do you realise this is meant to be science, and science is based on evidence?

Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet. You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation.
 
« Last Edit: 26/07/2016 22:02:15 by tkadm30 »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet. You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation.
"Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet."
Well,why did you introduce the topic then?
I never said it worked or not. What I said was that you have no evidence that anyone is actually doing it.

"You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. "
What disinformation do you think I have spread?
I have incidentally,pointed out several plainly false statements of yours.

"A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation."
If you had evidence of the thick white plume that would be a start.
You have not.
As for what that plume might be made from, one sensible documented cause is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
You don't need to make up stuff about flying unicorn farts or chemtrails.
(The evidence is just as good for either of those BTW)

The pictures I showed were clouds.
You stated that one of them was a chemtrail.
I pointed out that it couldn't be, because it wasn't persistent.
You have documented your lack of ability to recognise a cloud.
Do you think  anyone is going to take your opinion seriously?
 


Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
What disinformation do you think I have spread?

You're ignoring the truth about chemtrails. Your wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress.

Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist.

Your attitude is desperate, nobody denies chemtrails except you...

 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." -Winston Churchill
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware


"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." -Winston Churchill
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware


a cirrus cloud?
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What disinformation do you think I have spread?

You're ignoring the truth about chemtrails. Your wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress.

Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist.

Your attitude is desperate, nobody denies chemtrails except you...
Well,as I have pointed out before, plenty of people deny the existence of chemtrails.
So your statement that "nobody denies chemtrails except you" is an obvious lie.

Plenty of people deny them.
So why are you accusing me of spreading disinformation: you are the one who is doing so- rather obviously.

And this statement
"Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
makes it clear that you have abandoned science (and possibly rationality). You can hardly say that and also claim that I'm the one whose "wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress. "
If it existed there would be evidence.

Nice pictures of clouds and contrails.
Nobody has said that clouds and contrails don't exist.  Did you somehow think they meant something?

And re. "I suppose theses guys are unable to recognize a cloud..."
Well, apparently yes; they can't.
 It will be interesting to see what the court decides.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Well,as I have pointed out before, plenty of people deny the existence of chemtrails.
So your statement that "nobody denies chemtrails except you" is an obvious lie.

Plenty of people deny them.

Wishful thinking. A majority of people are actually afraid of chemtrails. The ones who is doing disinformation is people like you and the government.

Quote from: Bored chemist
So why are you accusing me of spreading disinformation: you are the one who is doing so- rather obviously.

Obviously, you don't understand the concept of disinformation.

Quote from: Bored chemist
And this statement
"Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
makes it clear that you have abandoned science (and possibly rationality). You can hardly say that and also claim that I'm the one whose "wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress. "
If it existed there would be evidence.

No, I did not abandoned rationality; You just don't seem intelligent enough to use Google to search for chemtrails evidences yourself. Is that a rational attitude?

Quote from: Bored chemist
Nice pictures of clouds and contrails.

You have no clue what are composed theses "contrails". Nice disinformation.

Quote from: Bored chemist
Nobody has said that clouds and contrails don't exist.  Did you somehow think they meant something?

And re. "I suppose theses guys are unable to recognize a cloud..."
Well, apparently yes; they can't.
 It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

A contrail is not a chemtrail. This is a fact. Research for yourself before spreading disinformation on a science forum.

And yes, a fair trial of offenders of clandestine geoengineering activity is hoped.

« Last Edit: 29/07/2016 21:47:49 by tkadm30 »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I'm bored of this
Either stop telling lies or just go away.
For example, lets see you cite evidence for this claim
" A majority of people are actually afraid of chemtrails."
Got any proof?
No; of course you have not.


How about this "The ones who is doing disinformation is people like you and the government."
Any evidence?
Well, you certainly haven't produced any so far.
Why is that?
Could it be because it simply isn't true?

"Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
That's plainly nonsense.
It's as if I had written "Unicorn farming  activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
Do you realise how stupid that is?
Well, your claim is just the same.
"You have no clue what are composed theses "contrails"."
Nor do you.
Had you not noticed that?

"A contrail is not a chemtrail. This is a fact."
Nobody has disputed that.
So there's no way it's spreading disinformation for both of us to say it.
However among the differences is that only one of the is actually real.

" You just don't seem intelligent enough to use Google to search for chemtrails evidences yourself. "
I looked; there wasn't any.
There was a lot of nonsense, and a few pretty pictures of clouds, There was also a  lot of unevinced claims and lots of wishful thinking.
But I was unable to find any evidence.


Why don't you just go away and find some actual evidence (Once again, I remind you to check on what the word means before you post anything)?

 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Since you're unable to recognize evidences from scientific research and testimonials of clandestine geoengineering activity, I think its useless to discuss this any further. You must live on some distant planet or have become brainwashed by the disinformation. It's unfortunate you're not intelligent enough to research on your own.

Good bye.

 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You have not produced anything to discus.
You have made claims- some clearly false- and made assertions.
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say that chemtrails exist so it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.
But you have produced absolutely no evidence.
You certainly have not produced any "evidences from scientific research and testimonials" have you?
Go through what you have posted here an point out what you think is evidence and I will go through it pointing out why you are wrong.

Until you can cite some real evidence, you are right- there is no point in discussing it.

You simply have not said anything worthy of discussion.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
You have not produced anything to discus.
You have made claims- some clearly false- and made assertions.
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say that chemtrails exist so it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.
But you have produced absolutely no evidence.
You certainly have not produced any "evidences from scientific research and testimonials" have you?
Go through what you have posted here an point out what you think is evidence and I will go through it pointing out why you are wrong.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm

This paper provides scientific evidences of barium and aluminium presence in stratospheric aerosol injection. We already discussed this paper here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65238.0

On what basis do you believe this paper is nonsense?

We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle, as no comparable patent exist to use jet fuel as a medium for such purposes. Why do you need evidences to verify an hypothesis?

You should admit that chemtrails are real and that you were simply disinformed unless you don't care in your reputation.
« Last Edit: 31/07/2016 17:49:42 by tkadm30 »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Quote
The results show: (1) the assemblage of elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and (2) the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical.

« Last Edit: 31/07/2016 18:02:56 by tkadm30 »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You have not produced anything to discus.
You have made claims- some clearly false- and made assertions.
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say that chemtrails exist so it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.
But you have produced absolutely no evidence.
You certainly have not produced any "evidences from scientific research and testimonials" have you?
Go through what you have posted here an point out what you think is evidence and I will go through it pointing out why you are wrong.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm

This paper provides scientific evidences of barium and aluminium presence in stratospheric aerosol injection. We already discussed this paper here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65238.0

On what basis do you believe this paper is nonsense?

We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle, as no comparable patent exist to use jet fuel as a medium for such purposes. Why do you need evidences to verify an hypothesis?

You should admit that chemtrails are real and that you were simply disinformed unless you don't care in your reputation.

There is all the difference in the world between a paper that says "fly ash gets into the air" and
"We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle".
In the real world fly ash is made by burning powdered coal. It is- of course- burned ina  stream of air and the combustion products are - of course- vented to the atmosphere.
Good environmental management practice requires that most of the ash is stripped out before the waste gas is sent up the chimney.
However, I'm sure we can all foresee that- at least sometimes- the filtration systems will fail and the fly ash will get sent into the air.


So it's perfectly obvious to anyone who even halfheartedly looks at the question that you would expect to see some fly ash in the air- from power stations.

How do you get from that to "We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle"?
Especially when you have no evidence of the existence of the nozzle (ultrasonic or otherwise) and no evidence of fly ash being delivered to airports and loaded onto planes.
It would be an interesting delivery system. Fly ash is very hygroscopic and when it gets wet it tends to set like cement.
So, if there were not very careful systems for keeping it dry- it would just result in planes carrying bloody great bricks around the place.
Where are your pictures of the tankers collecting PFA and delivering it to the airports (with dry gas cover)?

Seriously, my reputation isn't under any treat here.
I ask you for evidence and the best you can do is tell me that power station soot ends up going up power station chimneys.
No sh1t Sherlock.

And that's after you carefully document your own inability to recognise a contrail.
Once again.
You have no evidence.
It really is time you dropped this one. You just keep making a fool of yourself.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
How do you get from that to "We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle"?
Especially when you have no evidence of the existence of the nozzle (ultrasonic or otherwise) and no evidence of fly ash being delivered to airports and loaded onto planes.

The dispersion of uniform sized nanoparticles in the atmosphere to form cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is evidence of a ultrasonic dispersion system. This technology is known as "cloud seeding". Also, keep in mind that geoengineering is a military program, thus commercial planes are not equipped for stratospheric aerosol injection.

Quote from: Bored chemist
It would be an interesting delivery system. Fly ash is very hygroscopic and when it gets wet it tends to set like cement.

Aluminium is slightly soluble in acidic solutions such as acid rain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572108
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
How do you get from that to "We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle"?
Especially when you have no evidence of the existence of the nozzle (ultrasonic or otherwise) and no evidence of fly ash being delivered to airports and loaded onto planes.

The dispersion of uniform sized nanoparticles in the atmosphere to form cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is evidence of a ultrasonic dispersion system. This technology is known as "cloud seeding". Also, keep in mind that geoengineering is a military program, thus commercial planes are not equipped for stratospheric aerosol injection.

Quote from: Bored chemist
It would be an interesting delivery system. Fly ash is very hygroscopic and when it gets wet it tends to set like cement.

Aluminium is slightly soluble in acidic solutions such as acid rain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572108

You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?

A chimney is not the same thing as a nozzle. Look it up.

Coal fly ash is pulverized using a nozzle designed to disperse aerosols in the atmosphere, where it condense to form cloud condensation nuclei. The chemical composition of coal fly ash is reflective and toxic to public health.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?

A chimney is not the same thing as a nozzle. Look it up.

Coal fly ash is pulverized using a nozzle designed to disperse aerosols in the atmosphere, where it condense to form cloud condensation nuclei. The chemical composition of coal fly ash is reflective and toxic to public health.

You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?

There's no chimney on aircrafts; What is you don't understand in the potential use of a nozzle
to disperse pressurized aerosols?

 
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8664
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?

There's no chimney on aircrafts; What is you don't understand in the potential use of a nozzle
to disperse pressurized aerosols?

You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
There are chimneys on coal fired power stations.

Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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