In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: OneManArmy

If we correlate that with my previous fatal case where the urine barium level was roughly two thirds of the blood barium level, then maybe and yes its an assumption, we can assume that around 2µg/L in blood would be normal.

Is that correlation hypothetical?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OneManArmy

You made the false claim that "HUMAN" respiratory testing was "extensively" contained within the EPA document.

Funny, I recall saying something different.


Which is indeed the case. Have you read the document yet? All that is known concerning the absorption and retention of barium in the lungs, and the corresponding physical effects (which are asymptomatic) is in fact contained, as conclusions, in that document, largely in the sections mentioned. All that is known — an exhaustive survey of the data.

Allow me to draw your attention to something. Earlier on in the thread, my own principles — or, if you prefer, my own vanity — prompted me to correct an error that I had made, though none of you had even noticed it. Would I do that, yet lie merely to make a debating point in the same thread?

I have never once lied on Above Top Secret, even about little, unimportant things. The challenge for me here is to fight untruth with truth, and if I were to lie my 'victories' — not that anyone ever wins an argument on the internet — would be hollow indeed.

If you now want to backtrack to save your own face, thats your own business.

I am not backtracking. Not an inch. Now stop being so bloody rude.

Now its an assumption that dogs lungs and human lungs work exactly the same.

Yes. A reasonable one. If we look up the science we may find it isn't even an assumption, but frankly, I can't be bothered. You do it if you want to. Or, like I told Petros, go and find some volunteers willing to snort barium.

I never once called you a liar. Please show me where you feel I did.
Making a false claim does not a liar make.
To be a human being with emotions and feelings and an ego just like everyone else is normal.
You call me rude, while being sarcastic and condescending to your "angry friend".
LOL, its like a merry go round of egotism and butthurt feelings around here on all bloody sides.
Its comical. No, its a joke.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy

If we correlate that with my previous fatal case where the urine barium level was roughly two thirds of the blood barium level, then maybe and yes its an assumption, we can assume that around 2µg/L in blood would be normal.

Is that correlation hypothetical?

Oh yes, totally. But you will push.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I was curious because you just refused to answer a simple question based on it being hypothetical.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy

I was curious because you just refused to answer a simple question based on it being hypothetical.

So I ask again, if fairies and unicorns exist would the world be a better place?

Its a pointless question, and so is the answer. Thats my point. But hey we can all waste time on wild assumptions based on limited knowledge, isnt that essentially what the whole "chemtrail" conspiracy is anyway?

I thought we are supposed to be spreading knowledge and truth, not actively encouraging assumption and hypothesis.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I did post a reply to you, but it's over the page.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy


They can't affect weather, but there seems to be a genuine climatic effect which deserves greater study.

If the climate isnt the weather, then what is it?

Since chemtrails are supposed to be a deliberate and secretive operation though, any mention of them immediately prevents serious discussion of the real potential because chemtrails are a crackpot idea.

Hardly secret when you look up and see contrails everywhere and put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.
But yes it does take away from the serious debate of air traffic pollution.

Adverse environmental and pollution effects of jet aircraft are as worthy of study and discussion as the effects of road and rail traffic, industry, etc - but chemtrails are still figments of the imagination that require impossibilities of science and logistics.

"chemtrails" are an assumption based on easily observable phenomenon, mixed with some paranoia, mixed with some knowledge of governments doing chemical and biological warfare tests on its own populations.

Then when you combine that with the admitted fact that barium is in JET FUEL

I'm glad you reminded me of that. I've not seen this admission, could you furnish it? I did post information that would make it less likely for barium to be in jet fuel, as well as an open recognition that its a smoke suppressant in Diesel fuel. What did you make of that?

Uses

Barium and its compounds are used in oil and gas drilling muds, automotive paints, plastics stabilizers, case hardening steels, bricks, tiles, lubricating oils, jet fuel, and various types of pesticides. Barium sulfate is sometimes used by doctors, to perform medical tests and take x-rays of the stomach and intestines.

Source

Barium is a highly toxic metal. It's extremely poisonous - no one in their right mind would consider consuming it. At low doses, it acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses play havoc with the nervous system, causing an irregular heartbeat, tremor, weakness, anxiety, paralysis, and potentially death as the heart and lungs fail. Acute doses of less than 1 gram can be fatal to humans. Indeed barium carbonate is useful as rat poison. Unlike barium sulfate, barium carbonate dissolves in stomach acid, releasing the poisonous barium to do its rather nasty but efficient work.

Source

I can certainly see why people might believe in chemtrails if a number of fallacies are allowed to take hold. Here i mean stuff like contrails not persisting and presenting fake evidence that isn't whats claimed. Barium in jet fuel may or may not be one of those, the jury is out until i can get further into it, but basically yes I can.

Yes I agree, the barium in jet fuel may or may not be one of those. And even the significance of it may or may not be important.

It seems to be released from burning coal, oil and rubbish too.
Raises an eyebrow also.

You mention visible contrails in the part i just quoted. Thats one of my main bugbears. Jet exhaust pollution is always there in the sky over our heads. When people post that the sky are blue because there are no planes, and these posts can be found on here, followed by dismay when 'the spraying started again', thats just delusion and lack of knowledge. If a person lives under a scheduled airline route they will have exactly the same amount of exhaust pollution over them every single day, visible or not. Do you see why i find that silly?

Of course.

You see, I'm not trying to argue that jet exhaust is all wonderful. It isn't. Its the chasing phantoms and the fixation with visible trails (which ARE only different because they are water) that I'm arguing about.

Yes I agree, the visible so called chemtrails, highlight only a fraction of the amount of air traffic causing pollution.
I have no problem with that argument. To deny ignorance is good for mankind.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Barium is a highly toxic metal. It's extremely poisonous - no one in their right mind would consider consuming it. At low doses, it acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses play havoc with the nervous system, causing an irregular heartbeat, tremor, weakness, anxiety, paralysis, and potentially death as the heart and lungs fail. Acute doses of less than 1 gram can be fatal to humans. Indeed barium carbonate is useful as rat poison. Unlike barium sulfate, barium carbonate dissolves in stomach acid, releasing the poisonous barium to do its rather nasty but efficient work.

I hope this quote shows up, but with the current system, I doubt it. It's the link you posted about barium being highly toxic.

If that was the real case, why on earth would you be given barium to ingest from hospitals and doctors for scans? They seriously give you a bunch of barium, make you drink an obscene amount to get these scans.

As I have said, I don't know spit about barium. I didn't make the claim. Petros312 did. And as of now, it seems nobody has the toxic levels to compare them to. So, should this line of discussion continue, or should we all assume that there is not any way to accidentally become poisoned by barium?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Barium is a highly toxic metal. It's extremely poisonous - no one in their right mind would consider consuming it. At low doses, it acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses play havoc with the nervous system, causing an irregular heartbeat, tremor, weakness, anxiety, paralysis, and potentially death as the heart and lungs fail. Acute doses of less than 1 gram can be fatal to humans. Indeed barium carbonate is useful as rat poison. Unlike barium sulfate, barium carbonate dissolves in stomach acid, releasing the poisonous barium to do its rather nasty but efficient work.

I hope this quote shows up, but with the current system, I doubt it. It's the link you posted about barium being highly toxic.

If that was the real case, why on earth would you be given barium to ingest from hospitals and doctors for scans? They seriously give you a bunch of barium, make you drink an obscene amount to get these scans.

As I have said, I don't know spit about barium. I didn't make the claim. Petros312 did. And as of now, it seems nobody has the toxic levels to compare them to. So, should this line of discussion continue, or should we all assume that there is not any way to accidentally become poisoned by barium?

The toxicity of barium depends on the particular compound. Some of the compounds, especially the water soluble compounds are the most likely to be toxic. From what Ive read, anyway. It depends of a compounds willingness to release the barium. And barium sulphate is a "safe" compound.

Many of the "environmental" contamination cases I read about were due to the use of barium carbonate in rat poison, contaminating food.
Barium does not exist naturally as a sole element in water or air. Which is why its used as a getter to suck oxygen from vacuum tubes.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Right, but it is plentiful in the Earth's crust.

Barium in the environment

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants.
Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.



Read more: www.lenntech.com...

This is the main reason I think this whole discussion was started. My point was since it's abundant in the Earth's crust, any operation that moved dirt and had wind, would be suspect in spreading barium and thus, leading to it entering the water, and soil samples.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: OneManArmy

Right, but it is plentiful in the Earth's crust.

EDIT:

Its like hydrogen being a fuel, but water doesnt burn.

Barium in the environment

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants.
Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.



Read more: www.lenntech.com...

This is the main reason I think this whole discussion was started. My point was since it's abundant in the Earth's crust, any operation that moved dirt and had wind, would be suspect in spreading barium and thus, leading to it entering the water, and soil samples.

Yes it is more likely to be an environmental pollutant in metal mining and manufacturing. And any burning of oil, coal and sometimes rubbish. The burning of fossil fuels can just as much be a factor in the proliferation of barium into the environment.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
"No data are available on respiratory tract absorption of barium in humans."
Perhaps you don't understand what this means. It means that no controlled clinical studies have been conducted on the subject. Any intelligent person can see why. However, there have been studies on people who have accidentally inhaled barium in compound form, and these are discussed in the document.

'What happens when humans inhale barium' is: nothing. That is what the document concludes, and that is what studies to date have shown. That document is a survey of the literature; it is complete, i.e. exhaustive. If you don't like its conclusions, tough. Go and do your own research — I don't mean googling, I mean conducting a scientific study into barium inhalation. Don't bother to reply to this post until you've found some volunteers to snort barium for you.

1. You are feigning innocence after someone has demonstrated that you made inappropriate firm conclusions from research that you selected as supposedly both relevant and "exhaustive," and you attempt now to redefine what the term "exhaustive" means so that it can be assigned in some possible way to research that is utterly NOT exhaustive for making conclusions about the toxic effects on human beings of inhaling barium particulate matter.

2. You are ignoring the fact that a mere single section of your selected research pertained to the effects of inhaling barium particulates specifically on human beings, all of which are case studies which no generalizations can be made (unless you believe confirmation bias is the same thing as the scientific method).

3. Once again, it is a blatant lie to say "What happens when humans inhale barium' is: nothing. That is what the document concludes." This claim is the antithesis of what actually appears in the summary section:

From your selected research, pg.47

5.2. INHALATION REFERENCE CONCENTRATION The human (Seaton et al., 1986; Doig, 1976; Pendergrass and Greening, 1953) and animal inhalation (Tarasenko et al., 1977) and intratracheal (Uchiyama et al., 1995; Tarasenko et al., 1977) studies suggest that the respiratory system is a target of barium toxicity. The data also suggest that systemic effects, such as hypertension, may occur following inhalation exposure (Zschiesche et al., 1992; NIOSH, 1982; Tarase nko et al., 1977).

I truly cannot understand why you continue to expose yourself as intentionally spreading disinformation and lies, perhaps it really is nothing but desperation to draw attention to yourself and "win" an argument, much like I've seen you try to do before. But to quote another member here at ATS who also detects the error of your ways:

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: Astyanax
The simple response would have been to apologise for not reading the document you made false claims about.

This purpose of this thread is to expose the kind of dishonest "debunking" of anything and everything associated with geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory. My intention is not to win an argument, not to offend anyone, and to continue demonstrating how even in THIS thread you see these deceptive debunking efforts are relentlessly employed.

originally posted by: Petros312


This purpose of this thread is to expose the kind of dishonest "debunking" of anything and everything associated with geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory. My intention is not to win an argument, not to offend anyone, and to continue demonstrating how even in THIS thread you see these deceptive debunking efforts are relentlessly employed.

So you are accusing people of being dishonest, not actually pointing out anything dishonest at all, and say that this is not intended to offend anyone.

Well I for one can point out that you are being dishonest - your thread fails to identify anything actually dishonest.

Not to offend anyone of course.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I think we've learned a great deal.
A. Snarky humor is both identifiable,and effective.
B. Asking someone to back up their assertions really makes them angry if they cannot.
C. Posting literally ANYTHING on the PRO side of chemtrails will garner massive stars and flags.

They don't teach this in school.

a reply to: network dude

If that was the real case, why on earth would you be given barium to ingest from hospitals and doctors for scans? They seriously give you a bunch of barium, make you drink an obscene amount to get these scans.

The paragraph preceding OMA's quoted portion answers that question directly.

Barium sulfate can be taken into our body because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. And if this sounds like an unpleasant experience, it's lucky that it's barium sulfate and not just barium that is used for the exam.

Barium is a highly toxic metal. It's extremely poisonous...

The link won't post. Use this to see the source

ww w.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Trans cripts/Barium.asp

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I think we've learned a great deal.
A. Snarky humor is both identifiable,and effective.
B. Asking someone to back up their assertions really makes them angry if they cannot.
C. Posting literally ANYTHING on the PRO side of chemtrails will garner massive stars and flags.

They don't teach this in school.

Come on man, dont worry about stars and flags, the truth is whats important.
But yeah I think you are right about the rest.
Snarky humour is a bit trollish. And yes its effective. And often a tool employed by ego to "save face" or discredit someone when they fall for the emotional triggers it inspires.
I would be a liar if I said I had never employed such a tactic.
I can be egotistical too, its a battle I find myself fighting with myself often. I am a musician after all, ego comes as standard.
Especially when not restricted to the ATS T&C's.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: network dude

If that was the real case, why on earth would you be given barium to ingest from hospitals and doctors for scans? They seriously give you a bunch of barium, make you drink an obscene amount to get these scans.

The paragraph preceding OMA's quoted portion answers that question directly.

Barium sulfate can be taken into our body because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. And if this sounds like an unpleasant experience, it's lucky that it's barium sulfate and not just barium that is used for the exam.

Barium is a highly toxic metal. It's extremely poisonous...

The link won't post. Use this to see the source

ww w.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Trans cripts/Barium.asp

Thanks. Its good to see someone reading the material posted.
Im not wasting my time after all.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
It is not that people have different opinions, it is that people are putting out as FACT a position that has no supporting evidence and says that I am a criminal.

I might have missed that Aloysius, who claimed that you're a criminal, does it have something to do with this chemtrail or weather modification discussion?

I always respected your posts, and thought you were a good guy, explain if you can my friend? ~$heopleNation

a reply to: waynos

Well it surprised me Waynos, cause you're usually a very straight forward shooter. All I brought up was possible weather modification, never any chemtrail stuff.

Well to be honest my friend, I am guilty of the same exact over reactions, so you're not alone concerning your current online social error.

But hey bro, Like Voltaire once said, "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible". However, tomorrow is always another day. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: OneManArmy

I never once called you a liar.

No?

Your bad tempered friend as you like to call him was correct.

My bad-tempered 'friend' accused me of lying outright. You say he was correct. That amounts to calling me a liar.

You call me rude, while being sarcastic and condescending to your "angry friend".

When people are sarcastic and condescending towards me, I repay them in the same coin.

*

a reply to: Petros

I see you have made another post full of foul-smelling wind but entirely lacking in substance. Have a nice day.