Post by: smart on 09/10/2017 13:24:14
Update 1: Obsessive-compulsive behavior and acute paranoid psychosis as evidence of manganese neurotoxicity
Quote
With respect to the central nervous system, Mn overexposure initially induces non-specific symptoms such as headache, asthenia, irritability, fatigue, sleep disturbances and emotional instability. Later, a neurodegenerative syndrome with psychiatric symptoms, called manganism, may develop that is characterized by speech, gait and balance problems on the one hand, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors, hostility, mood changes, psychotic experiences such as hallucinations and paranoid ideation, and reduced cognitive flexibility on the other hand [3-5].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090741/
Update 2: Manganese modulation of MAPK/TLR4 signaling in microglial cells
Here I present a preliminary report of TLR4 dysregulation from chronic Manganese exposure as a potential factor contributing to the acute paranoid psychosis neuropathology in the Las vegas and Quebec serial killers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995008/
Update 3: Exposure to airborne metals and particulate matter and risk for youth adjudicated for criminal activity
In summary, I believe the effects of chronic exposure to aerosolized particulate matter from clandestine geoengineering activity may represent the tip of the iceberg on the neuropathology of various criminal activity, including mass murder.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883046/
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 14:32:02
Other people will have massively bigger exposures to metals and dust but not have gone on to commit mass murder.
Unless he left a record of his "reasons" we will probably never know what happened (and even if he did, they won't make much sense)
Post by: smart on 09/10/2017 14:51:10
The guy was an accountant, not a manganese miner.
That's irrelevant. Manganese is a toxic component of coal fly ash...
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114150
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 17:26:35
Let's not go over your silly ideas about ash again (the fact is, it gets out through chimneys).The guy was an accountant, not a manganese miner.
That's irrelevant. Manganese is a toxic component of coal fly ash...
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114150
If the guy was getting manganese from stuff in the air then his neighbours were too.
But they didn't decide to go on a killing spree.
So, it's not stuff in the air that made him kill people, is it?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/10/2017 20:53:41
In summary, I believe the effects of chronic exposure to aerosolized particulate matter from clandestine geoengineering activity may represent the tip of the iceberg on the neuropathology of various criminal activity, including mass murder.
(1) You don't know that manganese poisoning caused the shooting in Las Vegas. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(2) Even if manganese poisoning did influence him, you don't know that it came from air pollution. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(3) Even if air pollution gave him manganese poisoning, you don't know that it came from clandestine geoengineering projects. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
Good luck on getting past those three hurdles.
Post by: evan_au on 09/10/2017 21:23:25
Quote from: tkadm30
chronic exposure to aerosolized particulate matter from clandestine geoengineering activity...Manganese is a toxic component of coal fly ash...It seems that you are making a case for phasing out coal-fired power stations (or at least, enforcing current regulations for smoke-stack dust precipitators).
Both of which the current US president is opposing.
In any case, smoke-stack dust precipitators will be no good against mercury vapor - and this is a known neurotoxin which will be adversely impacting people living in the vicinity of coal-fired power stations.
Fortunately, most of these impaired citizens won't go on a shooting spree (and can't easily go on a shooting spree in countries with sensible gun-control laws).
(I saw an estimate that gun violence in the USA costs about $US45 billion per year...)
Post by: smart on 09/10/2017 22:16:31
(1) You don't know that manganese poisoning caused the shooting in Las Vegas. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(2) Even if manganese poisoning did influence him, you don't know that it came from air pollution. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(3) Even if air pollution gave him manganese poisoning, you don't know that it came from clandestine geoengineering projects. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
Good luck on getting past those three hurdles.
Thanks for writing, Kryptid.
This hypothesis is compatible with the FBI investigation.
ISIS may not be involved in the Las Vegas and Quebec shooting.
Therefore, it is likely than something else might have influenced the mass murdering, including neurotoxic manganese poisoning.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 22:20:40
Or it may have been done by magic pixies.(1) You don't know that manganese poisoning caused the shooting in Las Vegas. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(2) Even if manganese poisoning did influence him, you don't know that it came from air pollution. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(3) Even if air pollution gave him manganese poisoning, you don't know that it came from clandestine geoengineering projects. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
Good luck on getting past those three hurdles.
Thanks for writing, Kryptid.
This hypothesis is compatible with the FBI investigation.
ISIS may not be involved in the Las Vegas and Quebec shooting.
Therefore, it is likely than something else might have influenced the mass murdering, including neurotoxic manganese poisoning.
But that's not very likely either.
You still have to address the fact that many people would have had similar or greater exposure to manganese, but didn't become mass murderers.
Post by: smart on 09/10/2017 22:34:35
Or it may have been done by magic pixies.
But that's not very likely either.
You still have to address the fact that many people would have had similar or greater exposure to manganese, but didn't become mass murderers.
Acute paranoid psychosis only affect 1% of the population.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 02:39:56
Thanks for writing, Kryptid.
This hypothesis is compatible with the FBI investigation.
You can't say that a hypothesis is correct merely because it is compatible with existing evidence. This is especially true when you have multiple hypotheses that are consistent with the existing evidence. You need evidence pointing specifically to your hypothesis being correct and not the others. You don't have that.
Quote
ISIS may not be involved in the Las Vegas and Quebec shooting.
Therefore, it is likely than something else might have influenced the mass murdering, including neurotoxic manganese poisoning.
Or he could have just been a crazy guy, no pollution required.
Post by: smart on 10/10/2017 11:02:44
You can't say that a hypothesis is correct merely because it is compatible with existing evidence. This is especially true when you have multiple hypotheses that are consistent with the existing evidence. You need evidence pointing specifically to your hypothesis being correct and not the others. You don't have that..
If the impact of geoengineering on human health affects 99% of the population, it would be very difficult to characterize the whole set of symptoms it may promote in a clinical setting. In specific, an autopsy on the brain of the shooter could reveal details about any potential long-term exposure to airborne metals and particulate matter.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 15:26:55
If the impact of geoengineering on human health affects 99% of the population, it would be very difficult to characterize the whole set of symptoms it may promote in a clinical setting.
That's a very big "if". If you can't tell the effects of "geoengineering" apart from other causes, then there is no reason to suspect geoengineering to be involved at all.
Quote
In specific, an autopsy on the brain of the shooter could reveal details about any potential long-term exposure to airborne metals and particulate matter.
Has this been done yet? An autopsy could not reveal where that airborne particulate matter came from.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2017 20:06:11
Do you have an estimate of the number of people whose psychosis makes them believe ridiculous notions like "manganese from geoengineering is the reason why this man was a mass murderer"?Or it may have been done by magic pixies.
But that's not very likely either.
You still have to address the fact that many people would have had similar or greater exposure to manganese, but didn't become mass murderers.
Acute paranoid psychosis only affect 1% of the population.
And, with a population of roughly 10 billion, that's a hundred million paranoid psychotics on the planet.
The shooter was possibly one of them .
No evidence of anything complicated involved.
Post by: smart on 11/10/2017 22:40:41
Do you have an estimate of the number of people whose psychosis makes them believe ridiculous notions like "manganese from geoengineering is the reason why this man was a mass murderer"?Or it may have been done by magic pixies.
But that's not very likely either.
You still have to address the fact that many people would have had similar or greater exposure to manganese, but didn't become mass murderers.
Acute paranoid psychosis only affect 1% of the population.
And, with a population of roughly 10 billion, that's a hundred million paranoid psychotics on the planet.
The shooter was possibly one of them .
No evidence of anything complicated involved.
Do you think someone with schizophrenia is a psychopath ?
I don't think so.
Post by: smart on 11/10/2017 23:03:50
An autopsy could not reveal where that airborne particulate matter came from.
An autopsy could prove the presence of metallic particulates in the microglia, hippocampus, striatum, and frontal lobe.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2017 23:15:31
An autopsy could prove the presence of metallic particulates in the microglia, hippocampus, striatum, and frontal lobe.
Please reread my post. I said "An autopsy could not reveal where that airborne particulate matter came from."
Post by: smart on 11/10/2017 23:48:49
airborne particulate matter....
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2017 23:53:55
Post by: smart on 12/10/2017 09:23:48
Quote from: tkadm30
Update 3: Exposure to airborne metals and particulate matter and risk for youth adjudicated for criminal activity
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2017 19:52:31
Do you think someone with schizophrenia is a psychopath ?You would need to be deluded to think I had said that someone with schizophrenia is a psychopath.
I don't think so.
Post by: smart on 13/10/2017 09:33:30
Do you think someone with schizophrenia is a psychopath ?You would need to be deluded to think I had said that someone with schizophrenia is a psychopath.
I don't think so.
Merely asking a question is not proof that someone is thinking into this direction. Besides there's a huge difference between a simple delusion and a complex psychopathology like mass murder.
Post by: smart on 13/10/2017 10:02:18
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2017 15:57:54
Age is not a factor in the neuropathology of manganese neurotoxicity.Well, it isn't really relevant- nobody had said otherwise- but, in the interest of scientific accuracy.
Age almost certainly is a factor in manganese toxicity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637177/
Post by: smart on 17/10/2017 15:11:18
Age almost certainly is a factor in manganese toxicity
Thanks for this precision. If manganese neurotoxicity is dependent on the age of people exposed to this substance, I suspect the long-term exposure to airborne pollution could affect psychomotor performances and may trigger acute paranoid psychosis in PM2.5-sensitive individuals. We need to develop open computational methods to modelize the impact of PM2.5 on the neuropathology of schizophrenia and connect thoses evidences to solar geoengineering activity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2017 17:37:37
...We need to ...No we don't.
Not least, because there's no real evidence of geoengineering.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/10/2017 23:33:04
We need to develop open computational methods to modelize the impact of PM2.5 on the neuropathology of schizophrenia and connect thoses evidences to solar geoengineering activity.
If and only if the connection is warranted by the evidence. Given that pollution comes from many sources, there is no reason to assume a connection to some hypothetical geoengineering activity.
Post by: smart on 21/10/2017 23:09:08
We need to develop open computational methods to modelize the impact of PM2.5 on the neuropathology of schizophrenia and connect thoses evidences to solar geoengineering activity.
If and only if the connection is warranted by the evidence. Given that pollution comes from many sources, there is no reason to assume a connection to some hypothetical geoengineering activity.
The connection is warranted by experimental observations.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/10/2017 03:04:13
The connection is warranted by experimental observations.
I would ask what observations those are, but I know you'd just answer with something ambiguous that doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2017 09:20:24
The connection is warranted by experimental observations.
Lets be clear about this.
There are no experimental observations concerning the shooter's manganese exposure.
There are no experimental observations concerning his state of mental health in any detail- except that "normal" people don't go on shooting sprees.
There are no experimental observations concerning geoengineering
There are no experimental observations concerning manganese in air at levels that would cause harm except in occupational exposure - for example among manganese miners. Those studies show that most people exposed to the relatively high levels in mines are still not affected and therefore we can concludes that the massively lower exposure of the general population is very unlikely to cause any effect.
There are no experimental observations concerning essentially any of the ideas you have put forward.
That is why none of what you post has any business being on a science web page.
Post by: smart on 16/01/2018 11:59:12
Anyways, this thread is about how exactly PM2.5 (air pollution) particles is causing acute paranoid psychosis via TLR4-mediated MicroRNA dysfunction.
Thanks.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2018 15:33:32
Please keep lying. You're showing your total incapacity to develop and rationalize a random scientific theory.
Surely you don't think that your own hypothesis is a scientific one? Saying that some cases of manganese poisoning are caused by secret geoengineering projects is an unfalsifiable claim. There's no way to prove that no manganese poisoning incidents have ever been caused (directly or indirectly) by secret geoengineering projects, so it isn't scientific.
Quote
Anyways, this thread is about how exactly PM2.5 (air pollution) particles is causing acute paranoid psychosis via TLR4-mediated MicroRNA dysfunction.
I see it as more of a weak attempt to provide "evidence" that geoengineering exists.
Post by: The Spoon on 16/01/2018 18:25:44
Please keep lying. You're showing your total incapacity to develop and rationalize a random scientific theory.I thought this thread was about you shoehorning in as many sciency sounding words as possible to support your bizarre paranoid ideas.
Anyways, this thread is about how exactly PM2.5 (air pollution) particles is causing acute paranoid psychosis via TLR4-mediated MicroRNA dysfunction.
Thanks.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2018 19:26:29
Please keep lying.What lies has anyone told here?
Anyways, this thread is about how exactly PM2.5 (air pollution) particles is causing acute paranoid psychosis via TLR4-mediated MicroRNA dysfunction.Nobody who understands science will see this thread as anything like that.
You're showing your total incapacity to develop and rationalize a random scientific theory.Did it occur to you that scientific theories should be firmly based in evidence, rather than random?
It's as if you don't know what a scientific theory is.
This may help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.
Your suggestion isn't even close.
Post by: smart on 17/01/2018 21:06:06
1. Stephen Paddock and Alexandre Bissonnette had problems with alcohol abuses.
2. Alcohol-related psychosis can occur during alcohol withdrawal.
3. Stephen Paddock was prescribed diazepam (Valium), a common antidepressant medication for alcohol withdrawal.
4. Alexandre Bissonnette had anxiety problems and was also using antidepressants.
5. Antidepressants and alcohol don't mix and can exacerbate depressive symptoms, including violent and suicidal behavior.
So, i would like to update my initial theory. It appears likely both shooters were on antidepressant drugs during their respective assault. Next, it is possible that both shooters had alcohol problems or some form of hepatic encephalopathy: http://gut.bmj.com/content/42/6/764
My question is: how exactly can airborne particulates (air pollution) actually promote liver toxicity for people taking antidepressant drugs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2018 21:19:54
Why on earth do you assume they do so?
You don't need to explain how the cow jumped over the moon unless someone can show that the cow jumped over the moon.
Post by: smart on 17/01/2018 21:33:57
Why on earth do you assume they do so?
Perhaps because it is documented??
See: http://medcraveonline.com/GHOA/GHOA-05-00143.pdf
Post by: The Spoon on 17/01/2018 21:59:59
No the most rigorously refereed journal. Classified as a predatory publisher who have published bogus papers.Why on earth do you assume they do so?
Perhaps because it is documented??
See: http://medcraveonline.com/GHOA/GHOA-05-00143.pdf
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49071/title/Opinion--Why-I-Published-in-a-Predatory-Journal/
Not the best evidence for supporting your ideas.
Also, diazepam is not really an antidepressant, it is an anti-anxiety agent.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2018 22:00:39
The stats they use are very much suspect because of the correlations between the different pollutants. And don't get me started on the confounding variables.
And I guess we just have to ignore the fact that you don't know what you are on about (none of the pollutants they measure is a particulate).
And there's the old issue that correlation doe snot imply causation.
So the paper's a bit shitty, and your understanding of it is limited but...
What does it have to do with this thread?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2018 22:41:20
Why are mass shootings more common in the USA? Because gun ownership is considered normal.
Post by: smart on 18/01/2018 17:50:10
Also, diazepam is not really an antidepressant, it is an anti-anxiety agent.
See this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2692764
Post by: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 17:56:52
'Diazepam was a significantly better antidepressant than moclobemide at four week, although not at eight weeks'.Also, diazepam is not really an antidepressant, it is an anti-anxiety agent.
See this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2692764
A single 20 year old study - hardly conclusive is it? They are not prescribed as anti-depressants. Not suprising if only a single study indicates this.
Post by: smart on 18/01/2018 17:57:50
OK, so maybe it happens. (The jury is still very much out).
The stats they use are very much suspect because of the correlations between the different pollutants. And don't get me started on the confounding variables.
And I guess we just have to ignore the fact that you don't know what you are on about (none of the pollutants they measure is a particulate).
And there's the old issue that correlation doe snot imply causation.
So the paper's a bit shitty, and your understanding of it is limited but...
What does it have to do with this thread?
Please read the article before making further comments.
Post by: smart on 18/01/2018 18:25:04
'Diazepam was a significantly better antidepressant than moclobemide at four week, although not at eight weeks'.
A single 20 year old study - hardly conclusive is it? They are not prescribed as anti-depressants. Not suprising if only a single study indicates this
Fair enough. But please keep in mind that either way, mixing alcohol and diazepam (or a conventional SSRI) is totally unsafe and can lead to violent behavior.
Post by: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 18:56:23
Evidence?'Diazepam was a significantly better antidepressant than moclobemide at four week, although not at eight weeks'.
A single 20 year old study - hardly conclusive is it? They are not prescribed as anti-depressants. Not suprising if only a single study indicates this
Fair enough. But please keep in mind that either way, mixing alcohol and diazepam (or a conventional SSRI) is totally unsafe and can lead to violent behavior.
Post by: smart on 18/01/2018 20:38:01
Quote
Benzodiazepines have additive effects with other CNS depressants, including other hypnotics, sedative antidepressants, neuroleptics, anticonvulsants, sedative antihistamines, and alcohol. The combined disinhibitory effects of alcohol and benzodiazepines (see below) may also be additive and contribute to aggressive behaviour. Patients prescribed benzodiazepines should be warned of these interactions.
https://www.benzo.org.uk/ashtox.htm
Note also that Alexandre Bissonnette, the alleged Quebec mosque shooter, also had anxiety and alcohol problems.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2018 20:40:10
I read it again to check.OK, so maybe it happens. (The jury is still very much out).
The stats they use are very much suspect because of the correlations between the different pollutants. And don't get me started on the confounding variables.
And I guess we just have to ignore the fact that you don't know what you are on about (none of the pollutants they measure is a particulate).
And there's the old issue that correlation doe snot imply causation.
So the paper's a bit shitty, and your understanding of it is limited but...
What does it have to do with this thread?
Please read the article before making further comments.
The article does not mention particulates.
Why do you think it explains your opinion that "
airborne particulates (air pollution) actually promote liver toxicity f
Or did you just not understand it?
It's a useless report in a dodgy journal, and it doesn't even, at face value, support your claim.
Post by: smart on 18/01/2018 20:59:49
Do you understand what is PM2.5 ?
Post by: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 22:00:15
Do you understand what particulates are - eg PM10, PM2.5? Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain?An autopsy could not reveal where that airborne particulate matter came from.
An autopsy could prove the presence of metallic particulates in the microglia, hippocampus, striatum, and frontal lobe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2018 22:10:06
OK. Let's start over with the basics.Yes. I used to work in a lab that did air sampling.
Do you understand what is PM2.5 ?
It refers (in this context) to particulate matter (i.e. solid or liquid material) with a size (typically measured as an effective aerodynamic diameter ) of 2.5 micron or less.
As such, it excludes gases .
And that paper refers to
" the level of 4 major air pollutants including SO2, CO, NO2 and O3 ".
Since all of those are gases they are not PM 2.5 and they are not particulates (that's what the P stands for, BTW).
Now do you understand that the paper you cited doesn't refer to particulates and so it doesn't support your idea?
Post by: smart on 19/01/2018 14:40:10
Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain?
Yes they do. It is well known that air pollution (like PM2.5) is causing a range of cellular injuries, including to the brain and liver. Do your homeworks!
Post by: smart on 19/01/2018 14:46:28
Now do you understand that the paper you cited doesn't refer to particulates and so it doesn't support your idea?
Perhaps you should reread it again. Anyways, all I'm claiming is that clandestine geoengineering activity is a source of air pollution (PM2.5) and that the accumulation of fine particulate matter in the liver and brain may potentially trigger severe neuropsychiatric conditions.
Post by: The Spoon on 19/01/2018 16:19:15
Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain?
Yes they do. It is well known that air pollution (like PM2.5) is causing a range of cellular injuries, including to the brain and liver. Do your homeworks! pass though the lungs and
Riiiight.... So you are saying that particulates that are inhaledRiiiiiight...... so you are saying that particulates pass from the lungs into the bloodstream and then accumulate in the liver and brain? You are saying this is well known? Could you provide good quality, peer reviewed evidence that this is the case? Not just 'it is well known'Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain?
Yes they do. It is well known that air pollution (like PM2.5) is causing a range of cellular injuries, including to the brain and liver. Do your homeworks!
I have a particular interest in this as I have been dealing with the quantification of risks from contaminated land for many years including human health exposure pathways such as dust inhalation. We know that contaminants associated with dust get into the lungs and the dust (aka particulates) get lodged in the lungs and the contaminants associated with dust may get absorbed by the bloodstream, but particulates passing directly into the bloodstream? Do tell! I shall let those who are working in contaminated land and air pollution research about this fascinating development.
Also could you explain how these particulates which are potentially up to 10 um in diameter pass into the blood via pores that must be at least this diameter, yet the lungs dont fill with blood?
Could you make sure you provide proper references so I can see you have done what you refer to as 'homeworks' ;D ;D ;D
Post by: smart on 19/01/2018 19:42:44
Riiiiiight...... so you are saying that particulates pass from the lungs into the bloodstream and then accumulate in the liver and brain? You are saying this is well known? Could you provide good quality, peer reviewed evidence that this is the case? Not just 'it is well known'
I have a particular interest in this as I have been dealing with the quantification of risks from contaminated land for many years including human health exposure pathways such as dust inhalation. We know that contaminants associated with dust get into the lungs and the dust (aka particulates) get lodged in the lungs and the contaminants associated with dust may get absorbed by the bloodstream, but particulates passing directly into the bloodstream? Do tell! I shall let those who are working in contaminated land and air pollution research about this fascinating development.
Also could you explain how these particulates which are potentially up to 10 um in diameter pass into the blood via pores that must be at least this diameter, yet the lungs dont fill with blood?
Could you make sure you provide proper references so I can see you have done what you refer to as 'homeworks' ;D ;D ;D
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15204759
Quote
Inhal Toxicol. 2004 Jun;16(6-7):437-45.
Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain
Abstract
Ultrafine particles (UFP, particles <100 nm) are ubiquitous in ambient urban and indoor air from multiple sources and may contribute to adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects of particulate matter (PM). Depending on their particle size, inhaled UFP are efficiently deposited in nasal, tracheobronchial, and alveolar regions due to diffusion. Our previous rat studies have shown that UFP can translocate to interstitial sites in the respiratory tract as well as to extrapulmonary organs such as liver within 4 to 24 h postexposure.
By the way, I assume you understand that ultrafine particles (UFP) are a subset of PM2.5...
Post by: Colin2B on 19/01/2018 23:38:53
By the way, I assume you understand that ultrafine particles (UFP) are a subset of PM2.5...I would be amazed if anyone understood that.
UFPs are not a subset of PM2.5. “Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are particulate matter of nanoscale size (less than 0.1 μm or 100 nm in diameter). Regulations do not exist for this size class of ambient air pollution particles, which are far smaller than the regulated PM10 and PM2.5 particle classes and are believed to have several more aggressive health implications than those classes of larger particulates.”
Post by: smart on 20/01/2018 09:15:06
UFPs are not a subset of PM2.5.
So, what do you think happens when particulate matter diffuse into smaller particles?
Post by: The Spoon on 20/01/2018 10:49:09
What does 'diffuse into smaller particles mean'?UFPs are not a subset of PM2.5.
So, what do you think happens when particulate matter diffuse into smaller particles?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2018 11:52:11
Perhaps you should reread it again.Perhaps you should quote the bit where you think it says something that supports your idea.
Post by: RD on 20/01/2018 13:15:10
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/171002-shooters-dad-most-wanted.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1)
https://nypost.com/2017/10/02/vegas-gunmans-psychopath-dad-landed-on-fbis-most-wanted-list/
Not much eyebrows. There are hereditary autoimmune diseases which can cause both eyebrow-loss & dementia.
His brother has lost his eyebrows too ...
no eyebrow brothers.jpg (50.56 kB . 920x610 - viewed 3155 times)
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2018 13:36:38
UFPs are not a subset of PM2.5.Uncharacteristically, Tkadm30 is right about this.
the PM2.5 category is any particles smaller than 2.5 microns.
Nanoscale stuff is smaller than that lmmit, so it is part of the category.
The measurement processes for particles may miss a lot of ultrafine stuff, but that's not always a problem. They are small + don't weigh much.
However, he's wrong about that article which doesn't talk about measuring particles and which is a pile of crap on various other grounds.
Post by: smart on 02/02/2018 17:33:05
Post by: Kryptid on 03/02/2018 19:14:31
All I'm suggesting is that chronic PM2.5 exposure from clandestine geoengineering activity may cause acute liver damage/toxicity with psychotic symptoms for people taking benzodiazepine-like drugs...
You have yet to show that any toxicity effects on anyone has ever been due to clandestine geoengineering. There is a very big gap between "this person was poisoned by air pollution" and "this person was poisoned by air pollution created by weather-modification experiments".
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 19:37:32
All I'm suggesting is that chronic PM2.5 exposure from clandestine geoengineering activity may cause acute liver damage/toxicity with psychotic symptoms for people taking benzodiazepine-like drugs...For that to make any sense you would need to start by showing that clandestine geoengineering exists.
So far, you have failed to get close to doing that ( though you have wittered on about it).
At the moment your posts make as much sense as if you said "All I'm suggesting is that chronic PM2.5 exposure from dragons may cause acute liver damage/toxicity with psychotic symptoms for people taking benzodiazepine-like drugs..."
Well, it might- if dragons were real.
Post by: smart on 04/02/2018 09:10:26
All I'm suggesting is that chronic PM2.5 exposure from clandestine geoengineering activity may cause acute liver damage/toxicity with psychotic symptoms for people taking benzodiazepine-like drugs...For that to make any sense you would need to start by showing that clandestine geoengineering exists.
So far, you have failed to get close to doing that ( though you have wittered on about it).
At the moment your posts make as much sense as if you said "All I'm suggesting is that chronic PM2.5 exposure from dragons may cause acute liver damage/toxicity with psychotic symptoms for people taking benzodiazepine-like drugs..."
Well, it might- if dragons were real.
Your repeatable failure to observe and measure how clandestine geoengineering activity operates in the real world is proof that human lucidity and intelligence are subject to scientific misconduct.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 09:53:17
Your repeatable failure to observe and measure how clandestine geoengineering activity operates in the real world is proof that human lucidity and intelligence are subject to scientific misconduct.
Your repeated failure to accept that there is no actual evidence of clandestine geoengineering is scientific misconduct.
Post by: smart on 04/02/2018 10:03:54
Your repeated failure to accept that there is no actual evidence of clandestine geoengineering is scientific misconduct.
Unlike you, I don't discard scientific facts that easily.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72262
Post by: Kryptid on 04/02/2018 15:13:29
Your repeatable failure to observe and measure how clandestine geoengineering activity operates in the real world is proof that human lucidity and intelligence are subject to scientific misconduct.
What observations? What measurements? All of the evidence you have provided is ambiguous at best. Correlation is not causation.
Post by: smart on 04/02/2018 15:19:15
What observations? What measurements? All of the evidence you have provided is ambiguous at best. Correlation is not causation.
You can start by understanding how exactly clandestine geoengineering activity is a source of PM2.5.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/02/2018 17:36:43
You can start by understanding how exactly clandestine geoengineering activity is a source of PM2.5.
Tell me how you would conclusively demonstrate that a sample of air pollution trapped in a bottle came from geoengineering activity and not some other source.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 19:11:29
There were no facts on that page.Your repeated failure to accept that there is no actual evidence of clandestine geoengineering is scientific misconduct.
Unlike you, I don't discard scientific facts that easily.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72262
It's just another of your baseless assertions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 19:12:10
You can start by understanding how exactly clandestine geoengineering activity is a source of PM2.5.Not until you show that it exists.