Manufacturing Industry - The REAL Chem Trail

The point of this thread is to highlight a few falsities and to present facts in regards to the "chemtrail" phenomena.

Specifically - Barium and Aluminium.

Firstly a brief background:


BARIUM

Barium is a silvery-white metal that occurs in nature in many different forms called compounds. These compounds are solids and they do not burn well. Two forms of barium, barium sulfate and barium carbonate, are often found in nature as underground ore deposits. Barium is sometimes found naturally in drinking water and food. Because certain forms of barium (barium sulfate and barium carbonate) do not mix well with water, the amount of barium usually found in drinking water is of a small quantity. Other barium compounds, such as barium chloride, barium nitrate, and barium hydroxide, are manufactured from barium sulfate. Barium compounds such as barium acetate, barium carbonate, barium chloride, barium hydroxide, barium nitrate, and barium sulfide dissolve more easily in water than barium sulfate.

Barium and barium compounds are used for many important purposes. Barium sulfate ore is mined and used in several industries. It is used mostly by the oil and gas industries to make drilling muds. Drilling muds make it easier to drill through rock by keeping the drill bit lubricated. Barium sulfate is also used to make paints, bricks, tiles, glass, rubber, and other barium compounds. Some barium compounds, such as barium carbonate, barium chloride, and barium hydroxide, are used to make ceramics, insect and rat poisons, additives for oils and fuels, and many other useful products. Barium sulfate is sometimes used by doctors to perform medical tests and take x-ray photographs of the stomach and intestines.

ALUMINIUM

Pure aluminium is a silvery-white metal with many desirable characteristics. It is light, nontoxic (as the metal), nonmagnetic and nonsparking. It is somewhat decorative. It is easily formed, machined, and cast. Pure aluminium is soft and lacks strength, but alloys with small amounts of copper, magnesium, silicon, manganese, and other elements have very useful properties.

In the Earth's crust, aluminium is the most abundant (8.3% by weight) metallic element and the third most abundant of all elements (after oxygen and silicon).[7] However, because of its strong affinity to oxygen, it is almost never found in the elemental state; instead it is found in oxides or silicates.

So now we have established a couple of things in regards to these chemicals.

*Both are found naturally.
*Both are widely used in modern industry and manufacturing.

Question: Why are these two singled out by chemtrail theorists?
Answer: Because high levels have been found in air and soil samples around the USA.

Now that is quite a leap to assume it's to do with chemtrails, why don't we have a look at something a little more plausible, such as tabled emissions from the EPA.

Here is a link to the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
www.epa.gov...
You can enter the relevant data to generate the same results as I have.

This table represents the amount of chemicals (In this case barium, aluminium and their alternate forms) released via numerous sources.
A detailed breakdown of sources can be found HERE


Here's a list I've drawn up showing the TOTAL amount (in pounds) of barium, aluminium and their alternate forms released over 10 years.

• 1997 - 41,479,841
  
• 1998 - 273,161,271
  
• 1999 - 367,405,383
  
• 2000 - 381,077,404
  
• 2001 - 300,338,671
  
• 2002 - 255,367,294
  
• 2003 - 252,116,329
  
• 2004 - 283,923,691
  
• 2005 - 286,765,468
  
• 2006 - 272,520,410
  
• TOTAL - 2,714,155,762
  

2,714,155,762 pounds or 1,231,120,344.6 Kilograms!

From just two chemicals.

Here is a document from the American Water Council
Link

Ten states account for about half of all legal barium released in this country:
1. Texas (17.1 million pounds)
2. North Dakota (15.7 million pounds)
3. Illinois (11 million pounds)
4. Alabama (10.2 million pounds)
5. Michigan (10.1 million pounds)
6. Colorado (10.1 million pounds)
7. Minnesota (8.8 million pounds)
8. Ohio (8.2 million pounds)
9. Montana (7.9 million pounds)
10. Indiana (7.8 million pounds)

And 26 additional states released anywhere from 1 -- 7 million pounds of barium apiece into the environment. Of course, none of these statistics take into consideration the illegal, unreported dumping of barium metals into the environment.

Now, after seeing these facts, why would anyone believe chemtrails are to blame?

The facts don't lie, over two and a half billion pounds of barium and aluminium are dumped, by industry into the environment.

You're barking up the wrong tree folks.

So I challenge the chemtrail believers, specifically the ones who say barium and aluminium is being sprayed, to prove otherwise.


Want some more reading material?

Toxic Waste Sites

The links below will connect you to pages containing yet more links to US EPA pages describing Superfund (National Priority List) toxic waste sites throughout the United States. These are among the worst toxic waste sites in the country. Note: EPA is in the habit of regularly relocating their Superfund site pages. Links are updated as time allows.

www.eco-usa.net...

A state by state listing of contaminated waste sites.

This is where you guys should be barking.









Sources:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.eco-usa.net...
www.webelements.com...
www.epa.gov...

very interesting

however i'm not sure how this dismiss the very presence of chemtrails in our skies.

and what chemtrails have to do with "beliefs".

whatever chemicals they contain, and i 'don't have a clue about that (but would love to know better what the hell is being poured into atmosphere),

you just have to look at the sky from a western country (haven't seen any in asia so far) to see them !

don't you ever look at the sky ? or are you lucky enough that there aren't any in you place ?

i spent 6 weeks in europe last summer, and that was everyday... sometimes (about once in a week/10 days) with a grid over the whole visible sky !

thanks anyway for the post and please raise your nose !

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ::.mika.::]

reply to post by ::.mika.::


This thread isn't meant to dismiss chemtrails outright.

It's meant to show barium and aluminium ISN'T the 'smoking gun' of chemtrails.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So I challenge the chemtrail believers

(then you add specifically to barium stuff, but it is too late; amalgam has been made)

make it more clear and challenge that one theory about what chemtrail could be rather than all of those that actually look at the sky.

it somehow remind me about those people that answer illuminati are fantasm when you try to explain them about the unlimited power of a privately owned fed reserve bank over the world economics.

this shortcuts are dangerous and also promote ignorance in a way.

Many of the chemtrail debunkers pigeonhole themselves in either tangent discussions or the "there's no evidence" argument, when all anyone really has to do to acknowledge the existence of chemtrails is look at the sky regularly anywhere over a metropolitan centre in the western world, sooner or later they become apparent and undeniable for what they are. I don't know exactly what's in them, but from my observations of the after effects I suspect they are somehow toxic and very much a hinderence to normal life as we know it.

Barium and alluminium? I don't know, but whatever is in them is bad and they need to stop.

Also, this is not a belief system, those of us that have seen, know.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Zepherian]

Originally posted by Zepherian
Many of the chemtrail debunkers pigeonhole themselves in either tangent discussions or the "there's no evidence" argument, when all anyone really has to do to acknowledge the existence of chemtrails is look at the sky regularly anywhere over a metropolitan centre in the western world, sooner or later they become apparent and undeniable for what they are. I don't know exactly what's in them, but from my observations of the after effects I suspect they are somehow toxic and very much a hinderence to normal life as we know it.

Barium and alluminium? I don't know, but whatever is in them is bad and they need to stop.

Also, this is not a belief system, those of us that have seen, know.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Zepherian]

Same goes for the believers, they too pigeon hole themselves when they blindly accept whatever is written on a pro-chemtrail website.
Is it wise to take sites like rense.com at face value?

If real research was done they would know what's in chemtrails.
It's all speculation, and the gullible lap it up.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by ::.mika.::


They are contrails. Please show us how they are not. Has anyone taken a sample from one that shows these strange chemicals? No. No-one has. So to suggest they are chemtrails makes as much sense as me saying they are made from cotton candy, then getting my panties in a bunch when someone asks me for evidence.

Sheesh. This is a joke.

It's not about belief. Belief is something you have without experience. Chemtrails don't fall into that category, because there is a tangible experience there to be had, on which to form a knowledge system.

I don't like the word belief in this circumstance, it's too wishy washy, too theological and theoretical. You don't have to prove light to see it, you don't have prove chemtrails because they're just there for those not blinded by bias into not seeing reality for what it is.

Do not take my word, just keep looking untill you stumble upon the experience, it is not at all improbable.

Remember that, because of these fools on the internet, we are debating whether the phenomenon is even real or not, which is silly in the face of it, and only possible because people are alienated from their physical reality by a tv and internet heavy culture. People don't look up anymore and just go by word of mouth and not personal experience. If this behaviour is broken, and it will be, truth will force it, then the debate will progress into the exact nature of chemtrails, which is something I don't pretend to know for sure, although I certainly have theories.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Zepherian]

yeah right dave they are from airlines plane,

and that's why this phenomenon occurs only in the west for now,

it is because in asia, south america etc

there are no airlines and no airports

clear as crystal water.

or if there are airports there also (there are and in asia, even much more planes, many more, let me tell you) it must be because they switch propulsion method once they leave the western skies.

even clearer than crystal water.

or if they cannot change engine during the flight (well they cannot in fact) then it is because... because... sorry i'm running out of ideas there.

do you have a sky to look at in germany ?

can you go and spend 2 hours near an airport and see for yourself how contrails look ?

Originally posted by Zepherian
Remember that, because of these fools on the internet, we are debating whether the phenomenon is even real or not, which is silly in the face of it, and only possible because people are alienated from their physical reality by a tv and internet heavy culture. People don't look up anymore and just go by word of mouth and not personal experience. If this behaviour is broken, and it will be, truth will force it, then the debate will progress into the exact nature of chemtrails, which is something I don't pretend to know for sure, although I certainly have theories.

Actually in this thread we're debating what's in chemtrails, or more specifically what ISN'T in chemtrails.

Until someone can prove that aircraft are dumping more than 300 million pounds of chemicals a year on the USA alone, which if factories can do it with JUST 2 chemicals to no ill effect the the general populace, the poisoning theory is BUNK.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Two questions.
1. What are thought to be chemtrails started being noticed in 1997 and that's when your figures start. What about before then?
2. Why the dramatic jump (7,8 and 9 times as much) from 97-01?

300 000 000lbs appears to be a large number, but it's not that big if you think about it. Much more than that is probably used by firefighting aircraft in california in the summer season...

That said, I do not know exactly what is in chemtrails, but if we take into account the number of built aircraft and the sheer scale of the industrial park in the industrial world, it's not the scale of the operation which negates it's possibility, not at all.

So you have to do more than throw big numbers around, you have to get samples, which will be hard, and to pressure authorities, which, while we still have a fac simile of democracy, is somewhat easier, if enough people start waking up to the chemtrail reality.

And they will, especially as by losing their jobs they will have more time to look up and to think about the state of the world, which, over a few months, will bring more people into the NWO conspiracy fact that is forming place in the group mind.

As to no ill effects... the average IQ in the US is plummeting, and cancer is skyrocketing and people are more and more complaining about chronic fatigue... there are effects, except people have not correlated them with chemtrails, for the most part, but that's changeing. I suspect there will be a connection with some if not all of the aspects I mentioned.

Some theories will be bunk, of course, but there is a truth to be found here, and it will not be a pretty one.

Originally posted by marsha law
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Two questions.
1. What are thought to be chemtrails started being noticed in 1997 and that's when your figures start. What about before then?
2. Why the dramatic jump (7,8 and 9 times as much) from 97-01?

1. My figures started in 1997 because it gives us a decade of data. Plus there is no data past 2006 yet. Also the statistics go back as far as 1988 which incidentally recorded 1,425,272,250 pounds of aluminium and barium waste. That figure is quite interesting actually, might have to look into that more.

2. No idea in the jump, but seeing as in 1988 had nearly 1.5 billion pounds of waste, It's probably safe to say that modern technology and more stringent monitoring of these emissions are the reasons for the reduced amount.

The government spraying chemicals on the populace is real,but they dont leave fancy lines in the sky for everyone to see...obviously.

www.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Solomons]

Originally posted by Zepherian
300 000 000lbs appears to be a large number, but it's not that big if you think about it. Much more than that is probably used by firefighting aircraft in california in the summer season...

That said, I do not know exactly what is in chemtrails, but if we take into account the number of built aircraft and the sheer scale of the industrial park in the industrial world, it's not the scale of the operation which negates it's possibility, not at all.

So you have to do more than throw big numbers around, you have to get samples, which will be hard, and to pressure authorities, which, while we still have a fac simile of democracy, is somewhat easier, if enough people start waking up to the chemtrail reality.

And they will, especially as by losing their jobs they will have more time to look up and to think about the state of the world, which, over a few months, will bring more people into the NWO conspiracy fact that is forming place in the group mind.

As to no ill effects... the average IQ in the US is plummeting, and cancer is skyrocketing and people are more and more complaining about chronic fatigue... there are effects, except people have not correlated them with chemtrails, for the most part, but that's changeing. I suspect there will be a connection with some if not all of the aspects I mentioned.

Some theories will be bunk, of course, but there is a truth to be found here, and it will not be a pretty one.

Don't forget, that figure is just aluminium and barium, the total of all combined chemicals is a little scary, in 2006 alone there was 4,294,568,026 pounds of chemicals released into the environment.

See what I'm getting at here? That is a massive amount.

As you say though, cancer, chronic fatigue plus many other ailments could be due to industrial emissions, then you couple that with processed foods, lack of exercise etc etc you probably have an answer to it all.

And to me, that is more plausible than targeted high altitude spraying.

True, there are alternative causes and you're right, they are more plausible. But at the end of the day, the causes you listed are also elitist conspiracy material, so I see the difference in form, not in content.

They are pushing humanity down, chemtrails is just another piece in the puzzle.

And also remember about the whole sunlight aspect, because reducing people's exposition to sunlight has adverse health aspects without any direct chemical interaction, as it functions at an energetic level. If anything they are reducing our exposure to the sun, which in my view is terrible, although I think there is more to it than that.

And again, big numbers don't impress me, we live in a big world, it's doable.

Originally posted by Zepherian
True, there are alternative causes and you're right, they are more plausible. But at the end of the day, the causes you listed are also elitist conspiracy material, so I see the difference in form, not in content.

They are pushing humanity down, chemtrails is just another piece in the puzzle.

And also remember about the whole sunlight aspect, because reducing people's exposition to sunlight has adverse health aspects without any direct chemical interaction, as it functions at an energetic level. If anything they are reducing our exposure to the sun, which in my view is terrible, although I think there is more to it than that.

And again, big numbers don't impress me, we live in a big world, it's doable.

The only plausible article I've read regarding blocking of sunlight, or more specifically the ozone layer, was a White paper drawn up in the 60's I think (Don't quote me on that, I'm only thinking off the top of my head).

But that's all it was, a proposal.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Don't you find it strange that the numbers turned around exactly when the alleged spraying started.
Actually 98 not 97 is the accepted year for the onset of mass spraying.

Good to see objective, clear headed research. kudos

Originally posted by marsha law
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Don't you find it strange that the numbers turned around exactly when the alleged spraying started.
Actually 98 not 97 is the accepted year for the onset of mass spraying.

Good to see objective, clear headed research. kudos

Not at all, The drop off is explained here:

2000-2002 For 2000, EPA made changes to the list of chemicals that must be reported and to reporting thresholds for some chemicals. EPA has the authority both to add chemicals to the TRI reporting list if they meet the statutory toxicity criteria and to delete chemicals from the list if EPA determines that they do not meet the toxicity criteria. For the 2000 reporting year, PBT chemicals already on the list had the reporting thresholds lowered and other PBT chemicals were added to the list. In addition, vanadium compounds were added to the list and the qualifier for vanadium was changed to exclude vanadium when contained in alloys starting with the reporting year 2000. These chemicals are included for analyses covering the 2000- 2002 period, but not for periods covering years prior to 2000. The reporting thresholds for the PBTs lead and lead compounds were lowered starting with the reporting year 2001. Lead and lead compounds are not included for analyses covering the 2000-2002 period or for periods covering years prior to 2001.

Additional considerations also apply to analyses of TRI data for 2000-2002. Beginning with reporting year 2002, amounts sent off-site to landfills/disposal surface impoundments are reported in three separate categories (RCRA Subtitle C landfills, other landfills, and surface impoundments). These types of transfers to disposal or other releases cannot be analyzed separately for years prior to 2002. 1998-2002 Chemicals whose reporting requirements changed starting with the 2000 or 2001 reporting year (see above) are excluded for analyses covering the

1998-2002 period. Seven industry sectors were required to report starting with the 1998 reporting year, including metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities, chemical wholesale distributors, petroleum bulk storage/terminals, hazardous waste management facilities and solvent recovery facilities. These industries are included for analyses covering the 1998-2002 period, but not for periods covering years prior to 1998.

Link

Don't forget these figures are direct from the source, with no outside contamination.


[edit on 27-11-2008 by Chadwickus]

Chadwickus, regarding the sunlight thing, do you think you know or have read everything?

There are many levels to reality, what the general population is told is usually nothing but a layer in a bigger picture, usually a picture working against them.