[scienceofscience (OP)]

Can someone tell us the physical consequences of being sprayed upon with the above subject matter?
and any possible antidote or protection?

[evan_au]

Aluminium is a quite reactive metal, with a melting point of 660 °C, 1220 °F.
Barium is a very reactive metal, with a melting point of 727 °C, 1341 °F.

If you were sprayed with liquid aluminium or barium, you would be burnt to a crisp, and there is no antidote.

In fact, both metals are so reactive that they quickly oxidise in air, to form a much safer and more stable oxide.

So most likely, you would be exposed to a chemical compound containing these elements.

• Aluminium (with its aluminium oxide coating) is used in cookware and soft drink cans.
  
• Barium Sulphate is very safe, and is fed to people when taking X-Rays of the digestive system (a Barium meal). On the other hand, Barium Carbonate is used as a rat poison.

So if you can find out what compound it was, we could provide some more information.

[Bored chemist]

If there is any chance of this turning into some discussion about "chemtrails", forget it.
They myth just isn't possible- for a start the Ba and Al oxides would coat the turbine blades and trash the engines.
It isn't even remotely possible so there's no need to discuss the other issues like- why nobody has ever actually analysed jet fuel and found Ba or Al or how they managed to get the entire world to play along.
Or even, why don't air crashes burn with a green flame?

It gets even stupider when you look at the numbers.
According to this
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption world

jet fuel use is about 5 million barrels a day.
Imagine that they could get 10% (w/v) barium into that (which is absurdly optimistic)
that's about 70 million kilos of barium per day (never mind that they don't mine that much, I said it was absurdly high).
Most of that is spread sufficiently high up in the atmosphere that it won't fall straight down- it will spread out over the whole of the earth's surface.
That's 500,000,000 Km^2
So each square kilometre gets 0.14 Kg
So each square metre gets 140 micrograms of barium each day.
On average the earth;s crust contains about 400 ppm Ba by weight. That's 400 mg in each kilo.
So a square metre of a layer 1 cm thick would contain about 10 litres of soil something like 12Kg
So, the top 1 cm of soil will contain something like 4800 mg of barium (it will vary a lot from place to place- but that's a fair guess at the average).
So if that gains 140 micrograms per day from the impossibly high estimate from the mythical chemtrails, over a year it will pick up 50mg of barium
But it already contains about a hundred times that much.
It wouldn;'t make any difference
Since aluminium is much commoner in the soil the same sort of calculation for aluminium is even more absurd.

Why would anyone bother?
Since world barium production from mining is only 6 million tons per year or about 16000 tons  or 16 million kilos per day they can't be adding 70 million to jet fuel

How come this idea ever gained any sort of credibility?

[lightarrow]

Aluminium is a quite reactive metal, with a melting point of 660 °C, 1220 °F.
Barium is a very reactive metal, with a melting point of 727 °C, 1341 °F.

If you were sprayed with liquid aluminium or barium, you would be burnt to a crisp, and there is no antidote.

If you were sprayed with a liquid metal at those temperatures, it woudn't make much difference if it were aluminum or barium or brass or else  []

[Skyli]

Now that's not a question one hears every day. I don't know about protection or antidote, but a bit of blue touch paper could be fun

[smart]

They myth just isn't possible- for a start the Ba and Al oxides would coat the turbine blades and trash the engines.
It isn't even remotely possible so there's no need to discuss the other issues like- why nobody has ever actually analysed jet fuel and found Ba or Al or how they managed to get the entire world to play along.
Or even, why don't air crashes burn with a green flame?

Dear Bored chemist, a nozzle is a specific type of device for aircrafts to deliver chemicals in a downward direction:

Aerial delivery system
US 7413145 B2
Abstract
A method and apparatus for aerial fire suppression utilizing a potable fire retardant chemical dispensing system, readily adaptable, without extensive aircraft modification, to various makes of aircraft, for dispensing current types of forest and range fire fighting chemicals. The aerial delivery system is self contained and reusable. It enables cargo/utility aircraft to carry and dump a load, under control. The aerial delivery system is capable of attachment at the wing box, pressurized delivery from the nozzles, and nozzles directed straight downward.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US7413145

jet fuel use is about 5 million barrels a day.
Imagine that they could get 10% (w/v) barium into that (which is absurdly optimistic)

Barium and aluminium fumes are simply by-products of the reaction of dumping [coal fly ash] particles in the atmosphere, reacting with oxygen to form oxides. Theses chemicals are not blindly mixed with the jet fuel... It's foolish and absurd to think the delivery mecanism would involve burning them. Why don't you educate yourself on how coal fly ash reuse has emerged into clandestine geoengineering activity? Why don't you get informations on the chemical composition of coal fly ash ?

I hope you learn that clandestine geoengineering activity is designed as a military technology, and that the reuse of coal fly ash is an evidence of the weaponization of this poorly understood chemical agent.

"Myths which are believed in tend to become true." -George Orwell

[Bored chemist]

Dear Bored chemist, a nozzle is a specific type of device for aircrafts to deliver chemicals in a downward direction:

Aerial delivery system
US 7413145 B2
Abstract
A method and apparatus for aerial fire suppression utilizing a potable fire retardant chemical dispensing system, readily adaptable, without extensive aircraft modification, to various makes of aircraft, for dispensing current types of forest and range fire fighting chemicals. The aerial delivery system is self contained and reusable. It enables cargo/utility aircraft to carry and dump a load, under control. The aerial delivery system is capable of attachment at the wing box, pressurized delivery from the nozzles, and nozzles directed straight downward.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US7413145


 Why don't you get informations on the chemical composition of coal fly ash ?

I hope you learn that clandestine geoengineering activity is designed as a military technology, and that the reuse of coal fly ash is an evidence of the weaponization of this poorly understood chemical agent.

I see you have brought up an old dead post to show that you still don't understand the nature of evidence.

The patent shoes that it's possible to spray things from planes. We know that.
However the chemtrails lie was that the stuff was mixed into the fuel. And I was pointing out that it is nonsense.

I don't need information of the composition of fly ash- though you might want to explain why it's got so much barium (which is relatively rare) in it   and yet so little silica which is very common.
The reasons I don't need to look up data are firstly that I know it- at least well enough to show that your idea is dross,and also
There is no evidence of fly ash being used in any sort of high altitude spraying operation except- possibly- on a very small experimental scale.

Also, it's not actually very toxic so it's not much of a weapon.
And there's the old problem - the one you persist in ignoring.
If "they" put chemicals in the air, what do "they" breathe?

[smart]

I see you have brought up an old dead post to show that you still don't understand the nature of evidence.

You don't need evidences to ponder on the nature of chemtrails. The stuff they are spraying is by itself an evidence that this is NOT water vapor. An empirical evidence can be acquired by simply observing the phenomenon and formulating an hypothesis.

The patent shoes that it's possible to spray things from planes. We know that.
However the chemtrails lie was that the stuff was mixed into the fuel. And I was pointing out that it is nonsense.

Good to know you're making progresses in your understanding of chemtrails. However the mecanism to deliver chemicals via a nozzle attached to an aircraft is a patented technology from Evergreen International Aviation, a CIA front company who ceased its operations in 2013.

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

I don't need information of the composition of fly ash- though you might want to explain why it's got so much barium (which is relatively rare) in it   and yet so little silica which is very common.
The reasons I don't need to look up data are firstly that I know it- at least well enough to show that your idea is dross,and also
There is no evidence of fly ash being used in any sort of high altitude spraying operation except- possibly- on a very small experimental scale.

The research of Dr. Marvin Herndon provides substantial evidences that coal fly ash is the prime suspect in the chemical agent being sprayed on a global scale. However you don't seem to recognize his work as legit. Why? What is your definition of scientific progress if you refuse to examine the evidences put forward by a trained scientist?

Also, it's not actually very toxic so it's not much of a weapon.
And there's the old problem - the one you persist in ignoring.
If "they" put chemicals in the air, what do "they" breathe?

We are breathing and drinking potentially neurotoxic aluminium sulfate, thanks to Philip Lader.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946821/

[evan_au]

You don't need evidences to ponder on the nature of chemtrails. The stuff they are spraying is by itself an evidence that this is NOT water vapor.

OK, so what stuff are they spraying?

My guess is: Kerosene + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide (gas) + Water (vapour)
                   C_nH_2n+2 +  (2n+1) O₂ =     nCO₂        +       (n+1) H₂O

Perhaps you are assuming that it must not be water vapour, so it must be something else; then clearly it is not water vapour! If so, this is a logical fallacy called a "circular argument".

[smart]

OK, so what stuff are they spraying?

My guess is: Kerosene + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide (gas) + Water (vapour)
                   C_nH_2n+2 +  (2n+1) O₂ =     nCO₂        +       (n+1) H₂O

I assume you guess that this patented aerial delivery system uses jet fuel, but as I explained to Bored chemist there must be some kind of nozzle attached to a pressurized tank in the cargo of the aircraft. And yes, practically all aircrafts emits some water vapor, I'm sorry for the confusion.

[alancalverd]

Barium dust will make you heavy. Aluminium dust will make you reflective. Any molten metal (apart from mercury) will burn and possibly kill you.

[jeffreyH]

I believe there is a conspiracy to produce conspiracy theories. It is insidious, addictive and should be prohibited by law.

What do you think?...

[smart]

I believe there is a conspiracy to produce conspiracy theories. It is insidious, addictive and should be prohibited by law.

What do you think?...

Disinformation should be prohibited by law, not the opposite. The "conspiracy theory" label is just a marketing strategy created by the CIA for anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative. It is the job of scientists to shed light on the truth, and to dispel the propaganda we sought to believe without using a scientific method.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

[jeffreyH]

I believe there is a conspiracy to produce conspiracy theories. It is insidious, addictive and should be prohibited by law.

What do you think?...

Disinformation should be prohibited by law, not the opposite. The "conspiracy theory" label is just a marketing strategy created by the CIA for anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative. It is the job of scientists to shed light on the truth, and to dispel the propaganda we sought to believe without using a scientific method.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

So you agree that we should outlaw the disinformation. Then start with the disinformation of the conspiracy theorists.

[smart]

So you agree that we should outlaw the disinformation. Then start with the disinformation of the conspiracy theorists.

Disinformation and propaganda are not created by random peoples who report chemtrails. It is websites like wikipedia that spread insidious conspiracy theories and disinformation.

Meanwhile, a recent scientific study reported that bumblebees contains high levels of aluminium. This is likely an epistemological evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity may cause their populations to decline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456414/ 

[smart]

However, we do not know how commonly bees are exposed to aluminium, and no studies have investigated whether such exposure may contribute to bee health problems. Here, we quantify the concentration of aluminium in bumblebee pupae taken from colonies that had been foraging naturally in the UK landscape. We also examine whether aluminium concentration correlates with measures of colony fitness.

I think it's necessary we connect the dots... The increased levels of aluminium in the biosphere has been validated scientifically (Exley 2015) and new evidences suggests that aluminium exposure is neurotoxic and could be involved in Alzheimer pathogenesis (Kawahara 2011). Furthermore, the causality of aluminium poisoning by clandestine geoengineering activity has been characterized scientifically (Herndon 2015).

What else is needed to connect the dots?

[Bored chemist]

I assume you guess that this patented aerial delivery system uses jet fuel, but as I explained to Bored chemist there must be some kind of nozzle attached to a pressurized tank in the cargo of the aircraft. And yes, practically all aircrafts emits some water vapor, I'm sorry for the confusion.

And as I explained you have no evidence that this "nozzle attached to a pressurized tank in the cargo of the aircraft" is anything but a figment of your imagination.
You can't say "because I made something up, the things that depend on it must be real".

[Bored chemist]

Meanwhile, a recent scientific study reported that bumblebees contains high levels of aluminium. This is likely an ...

It isn't "likely" at all- you just made that idea up.

[smart]

It isn't "likely" at all- you just made that idea up.

Yeah right. I suppose I imagined that bees are dying for nothing. And the increase of Alzheimer cases must be also the product of my imagination. The persistent trails made by aircrafts must be water vapor I suppose...  How can you make such nonsense claims without even examining the evidences from scientists with higher education than you?

[Bored chemist]

It isn't "likely" at all- you just made that idea up.

Yeah right. I suppose I imagined that bees are dying for nothing. And the increase of Alzheimer cases must be also the product of my imagination. The persistent trails made by aircrafts must be water vapor I suppose...  How can you make such nonsense claims without even examining the evidences from scientists with higher education than you?

Ignoring the fact that there is noway that either you or I know how well educated those scientists are and you don't know how well educated I am so you are not in a position to say "scientists with higher education than you". That's just another example of you not understanding  what evidence is.

No, you didn't imagine the dead bees- and nobody said you did- that's a straw man argument.
However you did imagine the idea that it is likely that the source of the aluminium in the bees is from nozzles spraying fly ash from aircraft.
And, having dreamed up that idea, you somehow came to the conclusion that it was "likely" when a better assessment would be "bloody near impossible".