[smart (OP)]

How can a rainwater study determine if any contamination present is intentional or accidental?

[alancalverd]

It has been raining for zillions of years, with carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sand, clay, various bits of volcanic and wood ash, and occasional frogs and fish all appearing as natural solutes, suspensions or accompaniments. Anything else you find in rainwater is almost certainly the result of human activity, and therefore intentional.

[Bored chemist]

It has been raining for zillions of years, with carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sand, clay, various bits of volcanic and wood ash, and occasional frogs and fish all appearing as natural solutes, suspensions or accompaniments. Anything else you find in rainwater is almost certainly the result of human activity, and therefore intentional.

Until mankind started making them there were no freons in rain.
But their presence is not intentional.
There's still quite a lot of lead in the air from its use as a patrol additive.
But the presence in rain wasn't intentional.
Nobody "intended" to introduce 90Sr and such like to rain- it was an incidental effect of nuclear testing etc.

The point is that coal ash in the air is almost certainly mainly because of people burning coal (and a bit of natural coal fires)
But it's not evidence of someone deliberately loading the stuff onto aircraft and spraying it out the back.
It's because the filters in power stations don't work perfectly.

[alancalverd]

If you knowingly and deliberately discharge stuff to the atmosphere, that's intentional. Nuclear fission fragments were known from calculation and laboratory tests - atmospheric explosions were (nearly) all intentional. Nobody was under any illusion that the fairies would eat lead, soot, freon, or anything else we have put there, and it was almost all put there by conscious decision (however ignorant).

[smart (OP)]

The point is that coal ash in the air is almost certainly mainly because of people burning coal (and a bit of natural coal fires)
But it's not evidence of someone deliberately loading the stuff onto aircraft and spraying it out the back.

That is just one hypothesis. You seem to forget the highly relevant photochemistry of atmospheric aerosol oxidations to act as cloud condensation nuclei.

[evan_au]

cloud condensation nuclei

There are also natural cloud condensation nuclei, which you will find in rainwater.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaerosol#Cloud_formation

A study published in the past year found microscopic meteorite fragments on people's roofs and rain guttering. These researchers started by scraping dust off the roofs and waving a strong magnet over it. Examination under microscope and element analysis confirmed the extraterrestrial composition.

Both of these forms of contamination could be considered not due to human intentions.

[mrsmith2211]

Gee, look at readings and determine the source, or did I miss something?

[Bored chemist]

The point is that coal ash in the air is almost certainly mainly because of people burning coal (and a bit of natural coal fires)
But it's not evidence of someone deliberately loading the stuff onto aircraft and spraying it out the back.

That is just one hypothesis. You seem to forget the highly relevant photochemistry of atmospheric aerosol oxidations to act as cloud condensation nuclei.

Got any evidence?

[Kryptid]

Gee, look at readings and determine the source, or did I miss something?

The user tkadm30 thinks that coal fly ash contamination in rainwater is evidence for chemtrails. Since coal fly ash contamination also comes from coal power plants, chemical analysis alone cannot distinguish between those two potential sources. The big difference is that we know that coal power plants exist, whereas chemtrails are a little lacking in the evidence department. It's rather like taking chlorine readings in a swimming pool and claiming that the government put it there when we know that chlorine was already put there by the pool owners themselves.

[smart (OP)]

The user tkadm30 thinks that coal fly ash contamination in rainwater is evidence for chemtrails. Since coal fly ash contamination also comes from coal power plants, chemical analysis alone cannot distinguish between those two potential sources.

The coal fly ash hypothesis was developed by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon. Until a better hypothesis gets experimentally verified, it is against my scientific education to ignore Herndon conclusions. To differentiate the coal fly ash compositions, an aerosol mass spectrometer can be used.

[Kryptid]

The coal fly ash hypothesis was developed by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon. Until a better hypothesis gets experimentally verified, it is against my scientific education to ignore Herndon conclusions.

What evidence did he have to support his conclusions? Certainly not that study you posted, as it does nothing to tell us the source of the coal fly ash.

To differentiate the coal fly ash compositions, an aerosol mass spectrometer can be used.

How will that tell you where it came from?

[smart (OP)]

What evidence did he have to support his conclusions? Certainly not that study you posted, as it does nothing to tell us the source of the coal fly ash.

Coal power plants are presumely the source of CFA. The process of coal fly ash recycling is a highly profitable business
in the US.

[Bored chemist]

What evidence did he have to support his conclusions? Certainly not that study you posted, as it does nothing to tell us the source of the coal fly ash.

Coal power plants are presumely the source of CFA. The process of coal fly ash recycling is a highly profitable business
in the US.

Yes, it gets used for things like making concrete.
However the stuff in the air is either
Put there by aircraft or
put there by chimneys.

Nobody has seen these aircraft being loaded with ash.
Everyone has seen the chimneys.
You still think it's the aircraft.

Do you see why nobody believes you?

[smart (OP)]

Don't be silly, the potential for coal fly ash recycling is far greater than your expectations.

[Bored chemist]

Don't be silly, the potential for coal fly ash recycling is far greater than your expectations.

I'm sure we all look forward to you providing evidence for that, especially since I didn't give any indication of what my expectations are.

So, once again it's a case of:
Got any evidence?

[Kryptid]

Coal power plants are presumely the source of CFA. The process of coal fly ash recycling is a highly profitable business
in the US.

What does that have to do with chemtrails?

[smart (OP)]

What does that have to do with chemtrails?

Follow the money...

[Bored chemist]

What does that have to do with chemtrails?

Follow the money...

Interesting idea; can you show us the invoices for all this geoengineering?
That would actually be evidence.

[evan_au]

The US Environmental Protection Agency has rules since at least 2014 for disposal of coal ash.
Local plans are supposed to include how they will control ash blowing from landfill sites.

You can see some of these plans here: https://www.epa.gov/coalash/list-publicly-accessible-internet-sites-hosting-compliance-data-and-information-required

[Kryptid]

Follow the money...

Show me the money trail that leads to chemtrails so that I can follow it.