Russ


If they were actually testing the atmosphere I’d agree but they weren’t, at least not in the tests they documented on the websites, they were measuring the dust collected in water left out for an indeterminate time. Dusts will blow past many objects but will be trapped and concentrated by water so the levels found don’t reflect atmospheric concentrations. They made a mistake I guess when they compared the levels in that water to the safe exposure levels for airborne materials. It’s certainly scary that those levels were found in the water of course especially as one who relies on rain water tanks for drinking water.



That’s another problem I see with this, those websites point out that contrails can persist for long periods and that they can form at ground level in the right conditions also that they can look grey and dark or brightly coloured in the right conditions. How, given that, can you visually detect chemtrails?

They also state that chemtrails are produced by military tankers yet the picture they use to illustrate that point is of an A330, a civilian airliner with no military or tanker variants.

So how do we know what trails are contrails and what are chemtrails? How do we know where those high levels of metals come from or the high levels of bacteria and other biological materials? Sure the levels of metals may be high though the testing methodology was flawed so we can’t know from these tests but there’s no actual evidence presented that they come from aircraft and all of them have earth bound sources too, sources that are not necessarily related to malicious activities.



Your experience sounds nasty whatever it’s cause and those samples certainly appear to have come from the air in those locations, even if the methodology can’t give you accurate figures on it, so whatever their source, airborne spraying, factory emissions etc or other sources you are wise to take precautions.



On Carnicom’s site a researcher offered to do testing for anyone who wanted to send her samples. She didn’t mention a cost and I got the feeling she wasn’t charging but I didn’t look into that so I don’t know for sure.



Exactly my point, how do we know? The short answer is that we simply don’t. All of these chemicals are produced at some level by industry, some are quite common in some natural soils and so even wind over dry land (given the current drought conditions this is likely to be higher than usual at the moment) could produce some of these readings. If they are spraying us with this stuff for some reason it seems a very expensive and ineffective approach. I could easily believe that local industry in these areas is releasing all sorts of dangerous stuff into the environment whenever the EPA is not watching producing some if not all of these levels.

The only obvious way to get a pure sample would be to tail one of the aircraft doing the spraying. That would cost money but it’s not as hard as you might think, you don’t have to follow right behind them, given how long the visible trails last you could be quite a long way behind and if you are seeing the trails at low altitude even conventional aircraft would be able to intercept and sample the trails.



I think we need to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge here before we jump to conclusions, if we focus on contrails as a culprit and ignore the local power station or factory and they turn out the be the real culprit we’ve done ourselves a disservice wouldn’t you agree. Equally if the testing method concentrates the dusts so significantly that it elevates safe levels into the dangerous range we could be fooling ourselves about the true nature and extent of the problem. Does that all makes sense?

Thanks for your time Russ.

DG