The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is geoengineering destroying life?  (Read 13293 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #50 on: 10/04/2016 20:47:57 »
Why do you think this is nonsense
The true conspiracy theory is the non-sense idea that "contrails, or condensation trails, are "streaks of condensed water vapor created in the air by an airplane or rocket at high altitudes".
please include actual physics in your answer.

I had a look at the evidence it was poor.
I have seen better from students.
Nobody disputes the toxicity of ash.
But there is no evidence of the "goengineeering" you speak of, and if there were it would raise the question you keep failing to answer.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8129
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #51 on: 11/04/2016 00:55:15 »
MDPI is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal ...

A publication who sends the authors of published papers an invoice [$300-$1500] ...

http://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press
« Last Edit: 11/04/2016 01:09:38 by RD »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #52 on: 11/04/2016 11:46:34 »
Why do you think this is nonsense
The true conspiracy theory is the nonsense idea that "contrails, or condensation trails, are "streaks of condensed water vapor created in the air by an airplane or rocket at high altitudes".

Water vapor do not condense to create artificial clouds.

Quote from: Bored chemist
I had a look at the evidence it was poor.
I have seen better from students.
Nobody disputes the toxicity of ash.
But there is no evidence of the "goengineeering" you speak of, and if there were it would raise the question you keep failing to answer.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?

You fail to understand that "we" are responsible for our governments actions. How could you even understand more complex phenomenons like geoengineering? Your arrogance is not an appropriate method to discuss and learn on a science forum.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8129
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #53 on: 11/04/2016 20:21:56 »
Water vapor do not condense to create artificial clouds.

Pressure changes can cause invisible transparent water-vapour in the air to condense into visible white clouds , which can be trails , see ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices#Aerodynamic_condensation_and_freezing

« Last Edit: 11/04/2016 20:25:24 by RD »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #54 on: 11/04/2016 20:30:58 »

Water vapor do not condense to create artificial clouds.

You fail to understand that "we" are responsible for our governments actions. How could you even understand more complex phenomenons like geoengineering?
Your arrogance is not an appropriate method to discuss and learn on a science forum.

Artificial clouds have been produced since at least as far back as the cloud chamber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
they are now used for studying fast particles, but the original point was to create artificial clouds for weather studies.
So, once again, it would be good if you did the research before postign stuff that was nonsense.

"You fail to understand that "we" are responsible for our governments actions. "
No I am not.
And the point is moot.
Why would "they" or "we" be deliberately poisoning ourselves?

I'm fairly arrogant;but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss the whole of science- which is what you are doing her.
If you feel that arrogance is a problem you need to stop displaying even more of it than I do.
"How could you even understand more complex phenomenons like geoengineering? " I do understand it and i therefore understand why your claims are nonsense.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #55 on: 11/04/2016 21:39:36 »
Pressure changes can cause invisible transparent water-vapour in the air to condense into visible white clouds , which can be trails ,

The use of a (ultrasonic?) nozzle to spray the aerosols from planes and generate artificial clouds has been documented. See: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf 

Quote
Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to  release  the  sulfur  from  its  own  tank  within  the  plane,  which  would  be  the  better  option.   
...
Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed.

You seem to be confusing a "contrail" with a "chemtrail"...
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #56 on: 11/04/2016 21:53:46 »
Pressure changes can cause invisible transparent water-vapour in the air to condense into visible white clouds , which can be trails ,

The use of a (ultrasonic?) nozzle to spray the aerosols from planes and generate artificial clouds has been documented. See: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf 

Quote
Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to  release  the  sulfur  from  its  own  tank  within  the  plane,  which  would  be  the  better  option.   
...
Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed.

You seem to be confusing a "contrail" with a "chemtrail"...
No. Broadly speaking the suggestion of using ultrasonic nozzles has been documented.
Just because someone looked at the possibility of doing something is no reason to believe that it is actually in use.
There's one notable point from that report "Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the
annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion
dollars" So it would cost a lot of money.
Why bother?
Well, this is just about plausible " to cool the planet and reduce global warming. "
But they still wouldn't use dimethyl sulphate would they?

"You seem to be confusing a "contrail" with a "chemtrail"... "
There's a simple difference.
Contrails actually exist, but chemtrails don't
 (except in things like the smoke trails used in air shows and a very small number of cloud seeding events)
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #57 on: 11/04/2016 22:52:22 »
Contrails actually exist, but chemtrails don't



Ignorance is bliss... How could one pretend geoengineering (chemtrails) is not a on-going clandestine activity to mitigate global warming? We need to educate the masses about the potentially toxic effects of geoengineering on public health, unless we consent to be poisoned on a daily basis.

Quote
Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering or climate intervention,[1] is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of limiting adverse climate change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
« Last Edit: 13/04/2016 16:31:45 by tkadm30 »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8129
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #58 on: 12/04/2016 03:17:09 »



If chemical smoke was being released from the airliner, why is there a gap between the engines and the white trails ? , ( the kind of gap which would occur if they were due to condensation ).

BTW the white smoke from a single "Red Arrow" uses 45 litres of diesel per minute.
Q. theoretically, how much alleged chemical must the airliner be carrying to produce 4 chemtrails for say six hours. A ~60,000Kg, which is more than the weight of all the passengers.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2016 03:54:32 by RD »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #59 on: 12/04/2016 11:35:44 »
If chemical smoke was being released from the airliner, why is there a gap between the engines and the white trails ? , ( the kind of gap which would occur if they were due to condensation ).

The "gap" effect could be the result of silver iodide vapor emitted from the heat of burning charcoal. Coal fly ash is a natural source of charcoal...

Quote
To produce silver iodide smoke, charcoal is burned in a stream of air. The heat of burning charcoal vaporizes the silver iodide at the surface. The resultant silver iodide vapor is rapidly condensed and diluted by the moving air stream to form an invisible smoke.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=QB4SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=silver+iodide+fly+ash&source=bl&ots=oYKza0-8bS&sig=q_s0aq58A6Ij5W-R2SoH-gzNnCU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI59Lm7IjMAhVix4MKHQ1pDYYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=silver%20iodide%20fly%20ash&f=false

More evidences here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0095852250900043

N.B: the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new. See Project Stormfury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8129
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 12/04/2016 16:30:34 by RD »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #61 on: 12/04/2016 20:41:33 »
Cloud seeding with silver iodide is not pseudoscience. The only apparent missing link is the fact that coal fly ash may be used to vaporize the silver iodide.

Quote
Cloud seeding is no longer considered a fringe science, and is considered a mainstream tool to improve rain precipitation and snow. New technology and research has produced reliable results that make cloud seeding a dependable and affordable water-supply practice for many regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#Effectiveness
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #62 on: 12/04/2016 21:19:42 »
If chemical smoke was being released from the airliner, why is there a gap between the engines and the white trails ? , ( the kind of gap which would occur if they were due to condensation ).

The "gap" effect could be the result of silver iodide vapor emitted from the heat of burning charcoal. Coal fly ash is a natural source of charcoal...

Quote
To produce silver iodide smoke, charcoal is burned in a stream of air. The heat of burning charcoal vaporizes the silver iodide at the surface. The resultant silver iodide vapor is rapidly condensed and diluted by the moving air stream to form an invisible smoke.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=QB4SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=silver+iodide+fly+ash&source=bl&ots=oYKza0-8bS&sig=q_s0aq58A6Ij5W-R2SoH-gzNnCU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI59Lm7IjMAhVix4MKHQ1pDYYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=silver%20iodide%20fly%20ash&f=false

More evidences here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0095852250900043

N.B: the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new. See Project Stormfury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury
There's some really spectacular wrongness there.
Planes do not run on carcoal
Cola fly ash has little or no carbon (that was burned off to leave ash- hence the name) and so it certainly isn't much like charcoal.
Also CFA isn't natural.
Silver iodide doesn't boil below bright red to white hot- so the back end of the engines would melt if you tried to vapourise it.
There's every chance that it would decompose on vaporisation too- especially in the presence of water vapour. (That's why they used charcoal- not much water- unlike the exhaust from a jet engine.)
It's also expensive and as corrosives as anything if its damp.

"the use of silver iodide smoke to create artificial clouds is not new."
I suspect that you are getting muddled- AgI is used (at least experimentally) for seeding clouds to form rain- but it's not much good at making clouds in the first place.

And you seem to be saying that contrials are made of invisible smoke- I have news for you- they are visible.

 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #63 on: 13/04/2016 11:34:47 »
Cola fly ash has little or no carbon (that was burned off to leave ash- hence the name) and so it certainly isn't much like charcoal.
Incorrect. Fly ash contains charcoal.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Chemical_composition_and_classification

Quote from: Bored chemist
And you seem to be saying that contrials are made of invisible smoke- I have news for you- they are visible.

Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds. Although they might be confused with "contrails", due to disinformation, contrails don't condense and are emitted from the wingtips of a plane. Chemtrails are not released from commercial planes. Your confusion and ignorance of geoengineering are evidences that the state-sponsored brainwashing is alive and well!  :-X

« Last Edit: 13/04/2016 14:47:26 by tkadm30 »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8129
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #64 on: 13/04/2016 15:40:02 »
Chemtrails are not released from commercial planes ...
And yet you posted a picture of a [Quatar] airliner [Reply#57] with the word "chemtrails" under it.
The only chemical smoke which is harming your [mental] health is the type you choose to inhale.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #65 on: 13/04/2016 16:33:39 »
I changed that picture. I hope you're happy now...
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #66 on: 13/04/2016 19:47:21 »
Cola fly ash has little or no carbon (that was burned off to leave ash- hence the name) and so it certainly isn't much like charcoal.
Incorrect. Fly ash contains charcoal.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Chemical_composition_and_classification

Quote from: Bored chemist
And you seem to be saying that contrials are made of invisible smoke- I have news for you- they are visible.

Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds. Although they might be confused with "contrails", due to disinformation, contrails don't condense and are emitted from the wingtips of a plane. Chemtrails are not released from commercial planes. Your confusion and ignorance of geoengineering are evidences that the state-sponsored brainwashing is alive and well!  :-X
Did you read the wiki page you cited? Here's what it says
"Ash used as a cement replacement must meet strict construction standards, but no standard environmental regulations have been established in the United States. 75% of the ash must have a fineness of 45 µm or less, and have a carbon content, measured by the loss on ignition (LOI), of less than 4%."
And what I said was "Coal fly ash has little or no carbon".
Well, compared to charcoal, which is largely carbon, 4 % or less is little or none.

You keep saying things like this
"Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds."
and you keep not being able to provide any evidence to back it up.
Do you understand  why that is a problem?
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #67 on: 13/04/2016 20:31:18 »
You keep saying things like this
"Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds."
and you keep not being able to provide any evidence to back it up.
Do you understand  why that is a problem?

On what planet do you live? Aren't you aware that the climate is being deliberately modified with chemtrails?
Furthermore, there's sufficient scientific literature to assert that geoengineering is real. This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The only hypothesis which still needs to be validated is that this activity could be toxic (cancerogenic) to humans. The research of Dr. Marvin Herndon is controversial because it shed some light on this problem. However, denying the complete existence of chemtrails is pure ignorance. Please try to show some respect to the directly observable effects of geoengineering and consider the evidences that you may be a victim of disinformation. 
« Last Edit: 14/04/2016 18:41:27 by tkadm30 »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #68 on: 13/04/2016 22:11:35 »
You keep saying things like this
"Wrong. Chemtrails rapidly dissipate to form artificial clouds."
and you keep not being able to provide any evidence to back it up.
Do you understand  why that is a problem?

On what planet do you live? Aren't you aware that the climate is being deliberately modified with chemtrails?
Furthermore, there's sufficient scientific litterature to assert that geoengineering is real. This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The only hypothesis which still needs to be validated is that this activity could be toxic to humans. The research of Dr. Marvin Herndon is controversial because it shed some light on this problem. However, denying the complete existence of chemtrails is pure ignorance. Please try to show some respect to the directly observable effects of geoengineering and consider the evidences that you may be a victim of disinformation. 

Ok, lets sort something out here. There is some small amount of usage of things like silver iodide to seed clouds and that's geoengineering in a sense.
There's evidence for that- it woks (poorly) it's expensive.
There is also some anecdotal evidence that the former Soviet union used cement as a means to disperse clouds so that they didn't rain on their parades.
It's also not very effective, but, at least, it's a lot cheaper than AgI.

You seem to not understand that such intervention is weather modification, rather than what you claim- which is climate modification.

But you seem to be wittering on about fly ash (which you are trying to pretend is like charcoal) and sulphate aerosols.
Well, if "the government" decided that it wanted sulphate aerosols it could hypothetically produce them by screwing up jet engines with corrosive chemicals.
Or it could simply relax the requirements for flue gas desulphurisation.
Do you have some plausible reason why they are doing it the expensive, impractical way?
Do you have any plausible reason why they are doing it at all?

What you seem not to understand is that the scientific literature tells you what is possible.
It does not tell you what is actually being done.

And, for the record, dimethyl sulphate is still just not stable in water. It never was, it never will be.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #69 on: 13/04/2016 23:42:11 »
Ok, lets sort something out here. There is some small amount of usage of things like silver iodide to seed clouds and that's geoengineering in a sense.
There's evidence for that- it woks (poorly) it's expensive.
There is also some anecdotal evidence that the former Soviet union used cement as a means to disperse clouds so that they didn't rain on their parades.
It's also not very effective, but, at least, it's a lot cheaper than AgI.

Good. I think you made progresses in your understanding of geoengineering.  ;)

Quote from: Bored chemist
You seem to not understand that such intervention is weather modification, rather than what you claim- which is climate modification.

That is basically the same thing: geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the weather on a global scale. Wikipedia now refer to it as "climate engineering"...


Quote from: Bored chemist
But you seem to be wittering on about fly ash (which you are trying to pretend is like charcoal) and sulphate aerosols.
Well, if "the government" decided that it wanted sulphate aerosols it could hypothetically produce them by screwing up jet engines with corrosive chemicals.
Or it could simply relax the requirements for flue gas desulphurisation.
Do you have some plausible reason why they are doing it the expensive, impractical way?
Do you have any plausible reason why they are doing it at all?
Climate change is a political problem. The real reason why climate change is occuring is debatable. However, coal fly ash reuse could be profitable. I think this is yet another reason they must use this substance for geoengineering purpose: it's a cheap and practical way to spray sulfuric acid in the troposhere.   

Quote from: Bored chemist
What you seem not to understand is that the scientific literature tells you what is possible.
It does not tell you what is actually being done.
Indeed. The research from Dr. Marvin Herndon tells us why coal fly ash is the possible particulate being sprayed:
Quote
Although seemingly unacknowledged in publicly accessible reports and in scientific literature as potential material for geoengineering, coal fly ash is one major global waste product stream with the appropriate grain-size distribution for aerosolized tropospheric spraying that is readily available at extremely low cost and with existent processing and transport infrastructure.
http://nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-error_corrected.pdf

Quote from: Bored chemist
And, for the record, dimethyl sulphate is still just not stable in water. It never was, it never will be.
Wrong. dimethyl sulfate is water soluble. Also, monomethyl sulfate decomposes itself in water to sulfuric acid. This is probably the method used to spray sulfuric acid into the troposhere by using low-cost coal fly ash particulates to react with water.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Stability-and-Reactivity

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6412#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities&fullscreen=true
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #70 on: 14/04/2016 21:14:05 »

That is basically the same thing: geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the weather on a global scale. Wikipedia now refer to it as "climate engineering"...




Quote from: Bored chemist
And, for the record, dimethyl sulphate is still just not stable in water. It never was, it never will be.
Wrong. dimethyl sulfate is water soluble.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Stability-and-Reactivity

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6412#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities&fullscreen=true

Weather is not the same as climate.
Stop pretending otherwise.
And you are now arguing with yourself since the web page you site says very clearly
"Reactivity Alerts

Water-Reactive"
about dimethyl sulphate.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #71 on: 14/04/2016 21:59:12 »
And you are now arguing with yourself since the web page you site says very clearly
"Reactivity Alerts

Water-Reactive"
about dimethyl sulphate.

The reaction is production of sulfuric acid. Dimethyl sulfate is water soluble. Please don't ignore this fact.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #72 on: 15/04/2016 21:03:43 »
Weather is not the same as climate.
Stop pretending otherwise.

I assume that climate modification (geoengineering) imply modifiying the weather on a global basis.

And for the record, dimethyl sulfate is water soluble.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #73 on: 16/04/2016 00:22:11 »
Weather is not the same as climate.
Stop pretending otherwise.


And for the record, dimethyl sulfate is water soluble.
Nobody cares
Nobody said it wasn't
The only relevant bit is that dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water and falls apart with a half life of a couple of hours.

Why are you wittering on about whether or not it is soluble?
And you are now arguing with yourself since the web page you site says very clearly
"Reactivity Alerts

Water-Reactive"
about dimethyl sulphate.

The reaction is production of sulfuric acid. Dimethyl sulfate is water soluble. Please don't ignore this fact.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dimethyl%20sulfate#section=Reactivities-and-Incompatibilities
nobody is ignoring either fact.
It's just that you were talking bollocks about the purported importance of it being a carcinogen.
 But it falls apart in the presence of water- so it's simply not going to last long enough to cause cancer is it?
That's teh relevant fact, and you are the one ignoring it.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #74 on: 16/04/2016 10:46:10 »
The only relevant bit is that dimethyl sulphate is not stable in the presence of water and falls apart with a half life of a couple of hours.

Dimethyl sulfate convert itself to monomethyl sulfate in the presence of ammonia, a substance naturally occuring in the troposphere.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282201015_Dimethyl_sulfate_in_particulate_matter_from_coal-_and_oil-fired_power_plants

Quote from: Bored chemist
Why are you wittering on about whether or not it is soluble?

The water solubility of dimethyl sulfate in tropospheric aerosol particulates may decrease water pH and contaminate rainwater with monomethyl sulfate.

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

It's just that you were talking bollocks about the purported importance of it being a carcinogen.
 But it falls apart in the presence of water- so it's simply not going to last long enough to cause cancer is it?
That's teh relevant fact, and you are the one ignoring it.

No. dms and monomethyl sulfate are both carcinogenic compounds (chemical weapons).

If the "coal fly ash" hypothesis is true, this could mean geoengineering is a large-scale attempt to induce genocide using an experimental method and military-grade chemical agents.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2016 12:03:08 by tkadm30 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is geoengineering destroying life?
« Reply #74 on: 16/04/2016 10:46:10 »

 

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