Chemical and Biological Research in US Law (Could spraying be legal??)

I posted this as a reply in another thread, but I feel this deserves individual attention, so...Here you go, some history and evidence from current US Law allowing chemicals/biological research and chemtrails, not contrails, to be sprayed.

It makes me sad people deny deny deny without doing research into US history. I know these are wikpedia, but it is the easiest place to go for one stop summation. Do more research on your own.

Project_SHAD

Project SHAD stands for Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense, a series of Cold War-era tests by the United States Department of Defense of biological weapons and chemical weapons. Exposures of uninformed and unwilling humans during the testing to the test substances, particularly the exposure to United States military personnel then in service, has added controversy to recent revelations of the project.

Project 112

Project 112 was a biological and chemical weapons experimentation project conducted by the US Army from 1962 to 1973. The project started under John F. Kennedy's administration, and was authorized by his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, as part of a total review of the US military. The name of the project refers to its number in the review process. Every branch of the armed services contributed funding and staff to the project.

Experiments were planned and conducted by the Deseret Test Center and Deseret Chemical Depot at Fort Douglas, Utah. They were designed to test the effects of biological weapons and chemical weapons on service personnel. They involved unknowing test subjects, and took place on land and at sea via tests conducted upon unwitting US Naval vessels. The existence of the project (along with the related Project SHAD) was categorically denied by the military until May 2000, when a CBS Evening News investigative report produced dramatic revelations about the tests. This report caused the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to launch an extensive investigation of the experiments, and reveal to the affected personnel their exposure to toxins.

LAW THAT ALLOWS:

PUBLIC LAW 105—85—NOV. 18, 1997: USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

------
DEFINITION OF BIOLOGICAL AGENT:

(e) BIOLOGICAL AGENT DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘‘biological agent’’ means any micro-organism (including bacteria,
viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance,
and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized
component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance,
whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable
of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a
human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or
materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

A PDF of the entire law, so you see I'm not a nutter:
Here

You don't even have to go to the "darkweb" to find this information. It's all common knowledge. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS INSTEAD OF JUST SPECULATING FOR YEARS!!
Have a nice day everyone.

Oh here is sub c and d--they do not have our consent, but could have gotten approval by sending documentation and having it sit for a month....

"(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) PRIOR NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after
the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of
plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department
of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving
the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent
or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives a report
setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment
or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-
day period beginning on the date such report is received by those
committees"

I found this on a website, explaining how consent can be given by acquiesce, any thoughts?? Anyone out there a lawyer?....

The other thread seems to be going down the rabbit hole of inane argument...

Informed Consent

Some argue that none of this activity can be conducted without "informed consent", as stated in section (c), which reads:


Quote

c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

Although section (c) seems to provide some protection for us in that it requires us to be notified "in advance" if this "testing" is to take place, in reality, it does not provide any protection at all.

Why not?

Because you've already been "informed in advance" and you've already given your "consent".

Because this "law" is publicly available for everyone to read, you have been "informed". Because you have not contested it (that's what the courts are for), you have provided your "consent".

This law is part of a contract between you and the government. When the terms of a contract are known and uncontested, it's called "acquiescence". Acquiescence essentially means that both parties are in agreement.

Acquiesce: "submit or comply silently or without protest"

So, when this law was published, you were "informed". Because you have not challenged it in court, you have "consented". By your own inaction, you have said, "Sure, go ahead and poison me, even if it causes death. I have no problem with it."

Because this contract meets the judicial requirements of "remedy" and "recourse", it is legally binding.

Judges like to say: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". They say this because you are expected to know all of the "law" because it is publicly available for you to read (despite the fact that this is humanly impossible).

So, in reality, section (c) is legally useless. It does not provide any additional protection, it only "seems" to. Section (c)'s only purpose for being included in this law is deception, nothing more.

Deception

Section (c) of this "law" is very deceptive because most people don't understand the concepts of acquiescence in contract law, therefore, people mistakenly conclude that this "testing" will never happen to them unless they are informed about it.

The powers-that-be play upon public ignorance by inducing people into having a false sense of security. As a result, the public believes this activity could not be occurring because they believe that they would have personally heard about it. This false belief then provides insurance that this law will never be contested in court, and as long as this law remains uncontested, chemtrail spraying will continue unhindered.

The final result is that this craftily-written law has done its job. It has enabled chemtrail spraying to continue without being contested in court. Additionally, this law continually provides legal protection for those doing the spraying. After all, by your inaction you have given them your permission.

And some wonder why there exist so many "anti-government" people out there...

This is just one reason...and it is good enough a reason all by itself...

reply to post by alienreality


I am anti-ignorance. People need to know. Ignorance may be bliss, but being informed is power.

We can speculate all we want, but when it's in the law...ugh!

Then you ask government officials about this and they have no clue or think you are a nutter? Everyone elected should be informed or know how to research to find the laws. It's so easy!!!!

OOOOOOO!!!! I just thought of something! I live in FL and have since I was a kid....

During summertime and the change of seasons they spray MOSQUITO/GENERAL INSECTICIDE throughout the neighborhoods on the back of a truck at night. You know it's coming by the distinct errrr...errrrrrrrrrrrrr...errrrrr noise and if you look out the window it has a flashing light and a hose spraying out the back.

This still happens every other year or so. I have never in my life received a notification or letter asking if this was OKAY with me. Does this happen in other states? I always wondered what would happen if someone was outside while they sprayed! It's not like it was super late and it never happened at the same times....

I understand mosquitos can bring disease, but shouldn't the citizens have a choice?!?!?!??!!!

reply to post by donatellanator


As I wanted to point out in that other thread....these are all examples of "old news".

Furthermore, such experiments when conducted were target to smaller areas, from lower altitudes. It simply has NO relationship to the "chem"-trail hoax....the hoax that relies on ignorance and fear-mongering in people.

The premise of "chem"-trail believers is a "spraying" program of some sort from altitudes of 30,000 feet and higher!! Absolutely worthless way to "apply" any sort of "spray", and expect accuracy in any way, shape or form.

Not only are there way too may variables with that distance (over 6 to 8 miles!!) there is also the three-dimensional fact of VOLUME, and dilution. Try to think in three dimensions....

There is a reason that crop dusters do their thing at just a few feet off the ground!! Even those (old, Cold War-era) tests were done from mere hundreds of feet altitude.

High altitude so-called "chem"-trails are the "Hoax of the Century". Maybe even bigger than "nibiru" and "2012" combined!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Please read my last post on mosquito spraying and give me your thoughts. I understand your point of dispersion and your frustration with people evading science, but there are biological and chemical weapons out there.

From an about.com description, most simplified I could find..not for you but the general, disinterested reader:

How Chemical Weapons Work

Chemical agents may be released as tiny droplets, similar to the action of a bug bomb used to release insecticide. For a chemical weapon to cause harm, it must come in contact with the skin or mucous membranes, be inhaled, or be ingested. The activity of the chemical agent depends on its concentration. In other words, below a certain level of exposure, the agent won't kill. Below a certain level of exposure, the agent won't cause harm.

Protective Measures

The best protective measure you can take against chemical weapons is to become educated about them. Most of us don't have gas masks or atropine (an injectible used in cases of nerve agent exposure) and won't be on a battlefield, so the recommendations presented here are intended for the general public.


1.Don't Panic
Yes, chemical weapons are more likely to be used in a terrorist scenario than nuclear or biological weapons. However, there are several steps you can take to minimize exposure and protect yourself in the event you encounter a chemical agent. Realistically speaking, you are more likely to witness an accidental chemical spill than a chemical attack. Your best defense is to face the situation with a level head.


2.Seek High Ground
Chemical agents are more dense than air. They sink to low-lying areas and will follow wind/weather patterns. Seek the highest storey of a building or the top of a natural land formation.


3.Seek Open Spaces or Seek a Self-Contained Air Supply
From the point of view of a terrorist, a heavily populated area is a more attractive target than a sparsely populated region. Therefore, the threat of a chemical attack is lessened in rural areas.

In the event of an attack, there is some sense in isolating your air supply. Most chemical agents disperse after a certain amount of time (a notable exception is VX, which is designed to persist), so refraining from contacting exposed air may be a good protective measure.


4.Use Your Senses
How do you know if you have been exposed to a chemical agent? You may not be able to see or smell one. In their pure forms, most chemical weapon agents are clear liquids. Impure chemicals may be yellowish liquids. Most are odorless and tasteless, but some have a slightly sweet or fruity smell. Skin irritation, respiratory distress, and gastrointestinal upset all may signal exposure to a chemical agent. However, if you don't die within minutes, you probably won't die at all. Therefore, if you believe you have been exposed to a chemical agent, wait until you feel secure before seeking out medical attention (but do seek it out).

Not all planes fly at high altitude leaving these onoing trails (most fly low, maybe not hundreds of feet up, but pretty darn low). And many trails have diffrent patterns and loops, indicating possible adulterants other than vapor or exhaust (why would exhaust leave knots instead of smooth flow?).

Also, it's not about accuracy. It's about spraying areas all over affecting humans, vegetation, and weather. It's common knowledge you can shoot silvernitrate and create rain...... And that certain chemicals have substances added to keep them from dispersing. I can try to find the actual chemical names for you. I Like researching and finding out the truth. I am not some looni.

A video about cadmium sulfide being sprayed in the UK from weather balloons and trucks (yes this was during war time, but it doesn't mean this doesn't still happen-- see my mosquito repellent post). This video also discusses the US's trials during the same time.

Video here, give it a sec to load

I understand trying to hush to clamoring of people who are ignorant, but there is so much evidence that spraying in one form or another has occured and still does to this day. Maybe not every picture of a "chemtrail" is poison spray, but you almost have to give credence to this based on rational evidence and past history.

reply to post by donatellanator


OK....clarificaitons:

Not all planes fly at high altitude leaving these onoing trails (most fly low, maybe not hundreds of feet up, but pretty darn low).

The regulations (in the USA, but most jurisdictions under International aviation rules are similar) require at least 1,000 feet above the ground, over "populated" areas, except for takeoffs and landings of course. OR, when exempted for specific purposes. As in the "mosquito spraying" examples, and such. These are infrequent, well publicized events. Helicopters, and many other types of aircraft, such as lighter-than-air, are exempted from that altitude restriction. Helos are used often for that type of low-level, low-speed pest or agricultural spraying too.

NONE of those examples are in any way, shape or form similar to contrails. Contrails will only form (unless you're in Antarctica!! Because it is SO cold there...) at altitudes above 25,000 feet, generally. They require a combination of very, very cold (and it is ALWAYS well below freezing, at 24,000 and above...even at the equator) and they need enough Relative Humidity in the atmosphere. BTW, the term "relative" is key, there. Take any parcel (quantity) of air, add water vapor. It will have a percentage of relative humidity. If you make that air colder, the RH % increases....even if you add no more moisture. Colder air cannot "hold" as much evaporated water in vapor form. This is a basic property and key to understanding.

And many trails have diffrent patterns and loops, indicating possible adulterants other than vapor or exhaust (why would exhaust leave knots instead of smooth flow?).

Again...we are seeing contrails that form simply as a result of combustion of the fuel. The atomic and molecular components of the fuel break down, as they burn, and re-combine into a very very common molecule, that "likes" to form when ever "free" hydrogen and oxygen atoms are floating around, looking for partners. H2O is a "natural" in chemistry, so to speak. The configurations of the two elements are conducive to joining each other. Oil-based fuels are "hydro"-carbons, right?? "Hydro" for hydrogen. See? The hydrogen atoms are freed from bonds with other atoms, in their other complex arrangements...and they "find" free oxygen atoms from the very air they are burned in....and WATER is the result! Out the exhaust....so, it then contributes to any OTHER water vapor or even visible moisture that is also present in the air, at any given time. This is why the size, shape and longevity of contrails varies so much...and, sometimes they don't show up at all....because the air is dry enough that nothing will condense out, but remains in vapor form. Look at photos or video, you can see a definite distance, behind the engines, each and every time....it comes out hot (in vapor form) and invisible...and it cools rapidly, in the very cold environment. IF the air is dry to begin with, then the water vapor remains in vapor state....so, NO contrail! Etc....variations in between account for the differences.

Now....consider the motion of the air itself, irrespective of the airplane's disturbance as it passes. Air currents...(what are normally responsible for the turbulence you sometimes encounter, when flying) will disrupt the contrails, once formed. THAT makes them alter shape, to include the "knots" as you called them, amongst other shapes. Also, accounts for the spreading out too. In a "no wind" or very light wind situation, then contrails evolve differently. Staying more compact....but, in all cases they are exactly, exactly the same as any other regular cirrus cloud, and behave the same way. Just as air currents account for the shapes, and changes you see in cirrus, and their many forms. The same factors are at work to make contrails alter shape, even to spread outllto "grow"....since, I hope, nobody will disagree that clouds, also, do in fact "grow" as well??

Also, it's not about accuracy. It's about spraying areas all over affecting humans, vegetation, and weather.

In order for that concept to be valid, you have to imagine that anything "sprayed" would actually reach the ground. DO you understand the concept of "terminal velocity"? And mass, and shape" In the atmosphere?

A stone, even a pebble, being compact and dense, will fall more readily than say, a feather of equal mass (weight). BUT, strong enough updrafts of air currents (and light enough pebble) and the rock will go UP! This is how hail forms, BTW. What begins as a smallish raindrop freezes solid, as it falls...but, before reaching the ground, it is carried upwards....more water is added (usually in a "super-cooled" state) that surrounds the sphere of ice, and makes it bigger...it begins to fall..BUT, another strong updraft grabs it, and the cycle repeats. That is how hailstones grow in size. Eventually they become large (dense) enough that their terminal velocity is higher than the updraft forces...and they fall to the ground.

NOW....clouds, whether composed of tiny water droplets (when lower in the sky, and named "stratus" or "cumulus", plus their sub-species) and even cirrus, (and contrails) composed of tiny ice crystals....each of those individual particles has a low terminal velocity, so they remain aloft. THAT is why clouds can stay up, in apparent defiance of gravity.

It's common knowledge you can shoot silvernitrate and create rain......

Well, yes but.....that is done, again, at LOW altitudes. And generally OUT of freezing levels....that means, below the altitudes where temperatures have lowered to the freezing point. This altitude varies by location, latitude and season....and also, by the very nature of the atmosphere, too. The "freezing level" (altitude) is never fixed...it can even be other than horizontal! Sloped, diagonally, if you could view it form the side. If that makes sense.....

Also, "cloud seeding" is either from inside or just above the clouds (and therefore, if you were on the ground, you wouldn't even see it) ... and also, from below.....again, in warm air above freezing temperatures. Below because they (the pilots) seek updrafts, so the silver nitrate will be carried up into the clouds, to "seed" them.

This operation has only one purpose....to make precipitation. 99% of the time, the goal is rain. Not so much to make snow, that I've heard of....no real point, even for skiers.....ski resorts use machines on the ground for that, anyway....more reliable!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for your response. The mosquito insecticide was done on the ground in trucks, just to clarify.

Do you think it is impossible to release chemicals from a plane at high altitude? I've been researching because I want to know if this is a possibility or not. Is it within range to think that one could release a "packet" that makes an aerosol cloud or a low lying trail?

........

Sourced From Federation of American Scientists

"A more recent attempt to control aerosol particle size on target has been the use of aerodynamic dissemination and sprays as line sources. By modification of the rheological properties of the liquid, its breakup when subjected to aerodynamic stress can theoretically be controlled and an idealized particle distribution achieved. In practice, the task is more difficult, but it represents an area where a technological advance could result in major munition performance improvements. The altitude of dissemination must be controllable and the wind direction and velocity known for a disseminated liquid of a predetermined particle size to predictably reach the ground and reliably hit a target.

Thermal dissemination, wherein pyrotechnics are used to aerosolize the agent has been used particularly to generate fine, inhalable clouds of incapacitants. Most of the more complex agent molecules, however, are sensitive to high temperatures and can deteriorate if exposure is too lengthy. Solids are a notoriously difficult problem for dissemination, since they tend to agglomerate even when pre-ground to desired sizes.

Dispersion considers the relative placement of the chemical agent munition upon or adjacent to a target immediately before dissemination so that the material is most efficiently used. For example, the artillery rockets of the 1950's and early 1960's employed a multitude of submunitions so that a large number of small agent clouds would form directly on the target with minimal dependence on meteorology. Another variation of this is multiple "free" aerial sprays such as those achieved by the BLU 80/B Bigeye weapon and the multiple launch rocket system. While somewhat wind dependent, this technique is considerably more efficient in terms of agent quantities."

Perhaps these long lingering trails are tests for things to come? A different technology that we are unaware of? It would be of benefit to the military if they could relase chemicals without having to detonate anything...

reply to post by donatellanator


Nope.....100% unlikely:

Perhaps these long lingering trails are tests for things to come? A different technology that we are unaware of?

Again, it is a complete waste of time to "spray" anything at such altitudes if you are intending to deliver it to the ground.

Further, any experimentation would be done (once more, low altitude) in confined areas...specific areas where results can be studied and controlled. In the USA, this would be in any of many places in the deserts, where many military activities take place, of all types.

Reading further, in your own source, just below the part you external quoted:

The agent must be dispersed within the boundary layer (

Spraying for insects is common enough the world over - as has been pointed out it is well publiscised and usually exttremely controversial, and there is a much better corelation between it and illness than between contrails and illness (other than hypochondria!!)

In these parts we have recently (in the last 15 years) had 2 large operations to spray for exotic moth types in Auckland and Hamilton - eg see here and here - there were vast numbers of protests, enquiries after teh event as to the effectivenes, what illnesses resulted, etc.

I've seen low planes spray trails also. I really appreciate your knowledge on this subject but I can't quite shake the feeling that something isn't right. I know planes need to be within a few hundred feet to effectively spray, but with the new advances in nano tech I see feasibility in developing something that could hit and disperse.

I've seen white pellets in my own yard in 2 different cities and I know they aren't fungus or mushroom spores. When rained on they melt away into the soil and stay in tact in other places. I will root around later to see if I took pictures, or the next time I find some I will. I actually picked one up with gloves and it was hard to the touch???... Yet they "melt" over time?...

Hmm maybe someone else has seen these? I just don't want to be like the victims of the 50s in the US and Uk having no idea I'm the test subject of new "research" chemicals.

Originally posted by donatellanator
I understand trying to hush to clamoring of people who are ignorant, but there is so much evidence that spraying in one form or another has occured

Yes - that is accepted.

and still does to this day.

no ther isn't i unless you mean the well publicised events discussed after your post and above this one, in which case yes - but that "yes" is qualified solely to those evernts - which are completely different in intent and execution from the chemtrail hoax.

Maybe not every picture of a "chemtrail" is poison spray, but you almost have to give credence to this based on rational evidence and past history.

No you don't - past history is past history - the programmes of the 40's, 50's 60's and early 70's are completely different in execution from the chemtrail hoax. By all means you can be suspicious of Government in general based upon them - but pretty much all the people who thought they were OK are now dead or at least retired, and the world is now a vastly different place in terms of information and photography!

apart from that there is no rational evidence whatsoever for a programme to spray something....anything.....from every jetliner in theworld, including those made in Europe, Brazil, Russia and the PRC, over the entire world, without anyone involved revealing a single thing about it.