Chemtrails 303

In this, the third and final installment of the 'Chemtrails 101' series, we will examine scientific data supporting the chemtrail hypothesis. Hundreds of independent lab test results from around the world too numerous to mention here have formed a consensus. The main ingredients in chemtrails are Aluminum, Barium and Strontium. As you are about to see, professional scientists have corroborated these findings.

Frances Mangels has a Bachelor of Science in Forestry from the International School of Forestry at Missoula, spent 35 years with the U.S. Forest Service as a wildlife biologist and worked several years with the USDA Soil Conservation Service as a soil conservationist. Today he lives in Mt. Shasta, CA and works as a master gardener. He took a sample of water from his backyard rain gauge on Feb. 1, 2009 and submitted it to Basic Laboratory of Redding, CA on Feb. 2, 2009. This sample showed Aluminum at a level of 1010 micrograms per liter (ug/l). This same sample also showed Barium at a level of 8 ug/l. Using the same sample method and laboratory, he took a sample on Oct. 14, 2009 which showed Aluminum at a level of 611 ug/l. The Barium should not be there in any amount. Barium carbonate is used in rat poison. The normal level of Aluminum in rainwater is .5 ug/l. These samples show levels of Aluminum at 2020 times and 1222 times the normal levels. There is no heavy industry in the Mt. Shasta area. There is no reason, other than chemtrails, for this stuff to be showing up at these levels.
Mr. Mangles writes on Oct. 30, 2009:
"The soil scientists from the USDA Soil Conservation Department visited private property east of Shasta Lake, California, on Oct. 27, 2009. Mr. Bailey, Komar, and Owens tested the pH with standard federal meters. All agreed the pH should be 5.5.
Under Douglas fir, the ph was 7.4, astoundingly basic for that habitat.
Under Poderosa pine, at the precise soil-needle interface, I would expect a pH of 5. At that point, Bailey's meter showed 6.5. This is high for a microhabitat that should be very acid. Old soil surveys indicate this soil should be very acid, around pH of 5.5.
I bought a house in Mt. Shasta old black oak/pine pasture in 2002, tested the pH at below 6, good for vegetable gardening. It was a major reason for purchase, and proceeded with highly acid composting of leaves and grass to drive the pH down or at least keep it low, as every master gardener knows. I added a touch of sulphur and avoided wood ash to insure acidity, and proceeded to teach organic gardening courses out of my yard through COS. The pH tests were an embarrassment because now my garden is pH 7, sometimes higher. This is the opposite of what should happen.
The pH meter of Jon McClellan proceeded to show pH in McCloud gardens also running close to 7 or 8, which is too high for heavy organic mulch with no ashes. General lawns were also running over pH 7 under oaks and pines and fir trees. This is contrary to everything I learned in college and the Soil Conservation Service for 35 years. The old data sheets say these soils should be running at a pH of 5-6.
I tested my rainwater in a plastic NWS rain gauge set high on a pole, and got 1010 ug/l aluminum, with substantial amounts of barium and strontium included, where it should be non-detectable. Others from the West Coast have similar repeated results, from the Bay Area to Washington."

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) produced data showing elevated levels of Barium in surface water between 1988-2001. Along with other elevated readings, a sample from the East Verde River near Payson, AZ taken on July 19, 1999 showed Barium at a level of 340 micrograms per liter (ug/l). This is significant because, unlike such elements as Aluminum, Barium is not commonly found in our soils and water.
The ADEQ analyzed many water samples taken at different times from the Nogales Wash Channel between 1993 and 2002. Among other elevated readings, they found Barium at levels of: 850 ug/l, 950 ug/l and 900 ug/l.
The ADEQ analyzed many water samples taken at different times between 1988-2004 at the Verde River Below Horseshoe Dam. Among many other elevated readings, a sample taken on July 19, 1990 showed Barium at a level 560 ug/l and another sample taken within a year showed Barium at a level of 700 ug/l.
In June of 1996, the ADEQ analyzed water samples taken from the Buckeye Canal. The lab report showed Barium at a level of 570 parts per million.

As far as water contamination is concerned, I must report that a lot of available data which would otherwise support the chemtrail hypothesis is misleading and unreliable. The data to which I am referring is that which comes from the California Department of Public Health Drinking Water Program (CDPHDWP). Online, this organization is also referred to as the California Department of Health Sciences Drinking Water Program. The CDPHDWP produces and distributes publicly a data CD entitled 'California Drinking Water Data'. This CD purports to represent toxicology data collected from all California water districts. The problem is that, after checking with my local water districts and the CDPHDWP, it is apparent that the data contained in this CD is very unreliable. My local water districts tell me that this is because the CDPHDWP is using an outdated data collection method. Furthermore, websites which use this data as support for the chemtrail hypothesis miss the point that the data CD in question represents (and poorly so) PROCESSED DRINKING WATER when we should be looking at UNPROCESSED or 'SURFACE WATER' (the water found in reservoirs). Online you will find many graphs based on data contained in the CDPHDWP data CD showing incredible levels of many different toxins. All these graphs are not to be trusted without a local water department confirmation and even in that case, the data is not wholly pertinent.

Data produced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shows elevated levels of chemtrail toxins. Between 1990 and 2002, CARB ambient air statewide average data shows elevated and increasing levels of Aluminum and Barium. From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to 2000 nanograms per cubic meter. Even more concerning is Barium which between 1990 and 2002 consistently trended upwards, reaching a peak of 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter in 2002. The CARB classifies Aluminum and Barium as toxic compounds. The CARB website says, "For toxics compounds, there is generally no threshold concentration below which the air is healthy. For toxics compounds, the greater the quantified health risk, the more unhealthy the air is." In other words, ANY Aluminum or Barium is unhealthy. There ARE NO SAFE LEVELS except zero. These Aluminum levels are disturbing, but the Barium levels are totally inexplicable except in the light of the chemtrail hypothesis. Remember, these are STATEWIDE AVERAGES. God forbid you might be living in an area that increased the average.
You may ask why I am only referencing data up to 2002. This is 2011. Where is the missing data? The answer is that data from between 1990 and 2002 is the only data which the CARB has widely distributed. As far as statewide averages for ambient Aluminum and Barium are concerned, these years are the only years which their website and their 'California Ambient Air Quality Data' DVD show. Their Public Information Officer Dimitri Stanich curiously refused to answer questions about the missing data. He referred me to documents which did not address the issue. After discussions with staff, Mike Miguel, the chief of the Quality Management Branch of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division, wrote me saying, "It is my understanding that the toxics air monitoring network (samples collected in Summa canisters) stoped analyzing for these compounds due to the low concentrations.  However, the PM2.5 network does analyze for these compounds and that data was provided in the analyses and CD."(sic) A statewide average of Barium at 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter and Aluminum at 2000 are low concentrations?! A yearly statewide average should not show ANY Barium and any levels of detectable Aluminum or Barium have been classified as unhealthy. The concentrations were trending upwards. They stopped analyzing for these compounds?! I have scoured their website, written letters and made many phone calls to the CARB and I have not heard of or seen this missing data presented in any CD. Thankfully, other people have been asking for this missing data as well. The organization known as Environmental Voices requested the missing data and on September 15, 2010 they got it. Amazingly, after data showing many years of elevated and increasing levels of Aluminum and Barium, this newly produced data showed MUCH LOWER levels. That's good news, right? I want to believe that everything is as it has always been. The only problem is that, upon scrutiny of the numbers, you will find that the newly released data contradicts the previously released data.
Let us look at data for the year 2002 both new and old. 2002 is a year for which the CARB widely distributed data AND it is a year for which they have provided data to only a select few researchers such as I due to the efforts of Environmental Voices. I will refer to the widely distributed data as the 'old' data and the thinly distributed data as the 'new' data. The old data says that in 2002 the statewide average for ambient Aluminum was 1980 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says that the statewide average in 2002 was 67.5 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data also says that statewide average Aluminum concentrations generally remained at this level through to 2009. As far as Barium goes, the old data says that the statewide ambient air average Barium concentration for 2002 was 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says it was 27.5 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says that statewide average Barium concentrations only trended lower from 2002 to 2009. Why does the new data contradict the old data?
Are certain people at the CARB trying to hide something? Why does their Public Information Officer, whose job is to answer questions from the public, refuse to answer questions about missing data? Why does he obfuscate the truth by referring me to documents that don't answer the question? Why does one of their division chiefs' response not make sense? How is it that data released to only a select few magically makes the problem go away? Why don't they post this new data on their website? All their answers so far only leave me with more questions.

So, that is it for Chemtrails 303. Again, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of other scientific confirmations of chemtrail toxins available. I have left those out in favor of only the most reputable data. Although the logical subject matter of Chemtrails 404 would be the health effects of exposure to chemtrail toxins, I do not feel the need to write that paper. Aside from the fact that it is difficult to prove; I don't need to tell you that. I don't need to tell you that breathing particulate toxins all day and night is bad for you. I don't need to tell you that adding to the myriad of toxins in our food, water and air is bad for us. We know it is. There are many scientific papers supporting this position, but it is just common sense. We need to reduce the amount of toxins in our ecosystem, not increase them. The chemtrail phenomenon is nothing short of genocide. Whether or not that was the intention, that is exactly what it is. I have now proven to you that chemtrails are real. Do not live in denial. Denial equals death. Our collective ignorance is what is killing this society. Ignorance causes chemtrails. I ask that you reverse this trend. Ask the questions. Demand answers. I have armed you with the verifiable truth; now go out there and shake the trees. Call and write your local office of: the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Air Resources Board, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, ALL your government representatives, talk radio shows, and television stations. You are the one you have been waiting for. Thank you.

Notes:
-geoengineeringwatch.org
-arizonaskywatch.com
-arb.ca.gov
-azdeq.gov
-'What in the World Are They Spraying' by Michael Murphy, G. Edward Griffin and Paul Wittenberger (video) 2010 Truth Media Productions

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

reply to post by TheRealMrX


I may be called by some a fool, but I even think that Morgellons was started as an experimental release of nanobot-like things.

I DO think We are being sprayed with stuff all the time, and different things from place to place.

Your information is fascinating. The Environmental Voices site is good, particularly liked the section on clouds and hope to see that expanded to combat the nonsense on the web stating how normal these freaky clouds are. The aluminum/barium levels are awfully high. Very disturbing. Thanks for your tremendous work in bringing this out.

God preserve us from "wall o' text"

But let's have a look at one of the very specific claims:

Data produced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shows elevated levels of chemtrail toxins. Between 1990 and 2002, CARB ambient air statewide average data shows elevated and increasing levels of Aluminum and Barium. From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to 2000 nanograms per cubic meter. Even more concerning is Barium which between 1990 and 2002 consistently trended upwards, reaching a peak of 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter in 2002. The CARB classifies Aluminum and Barium as toxic compounds.

Where?

Here's the Toxic Air contaminant identification list - alumium (or aluminum) and barium are not on it.

In fact Aluminium & Barium and their compounds are identified here as Class IVb contaminants, which is:

Substance NOT identified as Toxic Air Contaminants, known to be emitted in California and are
TO BE EVALUATED for entry into Category III.

(emphasis in the original)

Which is to say they are NOT toxic, but they are measuring their levels.

Hmmm...??!!

The CARB website says, "For toxics compounds, there is generally no threshold concentration below which the air is healthy. For toxics compounds, the greater the quantified health risk, the more unhealthy the air is." In other words, ANY Aluminum or Barium is unhealthy. There ARE NO SAFE LEVELS except zero. These Aluminum levels are disturbing, but the Barium levels are totally inexplicable except in the light of the chemtrail hypothesis.

Unless you apply a little rational thinking and explore how Barium exists in nature and in society.

1/ Barium us used in brake linings - for cars. Eg see here, and here.

2/ Barite dust is also a by-product of the mining process - which is often open cast - eg here

Clearly then, barium dust in the atmosphere IS explicable in terms other than chemtrails.

So that's 2 pieces of shoddy analysis that were pretty easy to identify.

How about you actually provide some evidence to support the rest instead of just telling us that it is all true on your say so??

i think you fail to miss the overall point to the main post, replyer stating this gov doc say this, this gov doc say that... the bottom line... the water that covers our ground that gives us life isn't chemically what it used to be... why?? doesn't matter why... what matter is.. what are you going to do it about it. dont think globally, think you personally, what are You going to do about it??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Wow! They really provide you with some great disinformation! How did you know that? It's funny how you are always there to deny the chemtrail posts. Ok, it looks like Barium is used in brake pads, but how do you account for it showing up in rainwater in Mt. Shasta? How is it showing up in massive amounts in Arizona surface water? Let's not assume that Barite is used in ALL brake pads, because I doubt it is. You would think that the makers of brake pads might use a more common substance as a filler. It has also been indicated to me that the use of Barite in break pads is a recent development. Might you provide us with information that tells us for how long Barite has been used in brake pads, Mr. Gaul?
Your other point is easily dismissed. Here is Aluminum and Barium listed by the ARB as toxics www.arb.ca.gov...

reply to post by CautiousObserver


No I didn't miss the point.

The OP has said lots of things without actually backing up his assertions that they are true with any evidence.

It has been very easy to show that some of his statements are untrue which makes me think that his information is unreliable.

So I have asked him to provide links to support all his othe conclusions.

We all know that pollution means that air and water quality are not what they were before the industrial revolution - and there are programmes all over the place to improve it.

but such programmes are interested in actual, verifiable sources of pollution - cars, industry, waste - which we KNOW chuck billions of tons into the environment.

those sources of pollution are REAL - there is a mountain of information about them. Chemtrails are ephemeral - no-one has actually managed to measure one that I'm aware of - despite the OP's statement that there are hundreds or thousands of such measurements - I've seen the bad science for Airzona Skywatch, the lies on WITWATS, and the errors and disinformation all over the place by chemmies saying something "must be from chemtrails" when the evidence says nothing of the sort.

But even if "chemtrails" were real, the miniscule of that "ordinary" pollution generated at ground level.

If you are REALLY worried about barium then consider that the 1 mine I mentioned above will generate 100,000 tons of barium ore per annum - world wide production of barite (barium ore) is as much as 8 million tons. It is used as a diesel fuel additive, it is used in brake pads, it is used cathode ray tubes (so you can expect more intthe atmospehre as they get broken up), it is used in drilling mud, and for taking x-rays (barium meals & enemas), it is used in fluorescent lamps and it makes fireworks green.

You have a normal level of barium in bloodof 80-400 micro-grams per liter (0.08-0.4mg/l), you consume an estimated 0.03–22 μg/day, from air, food and water in the USA. This last is a WHO pdf report which has a lot of detail about how barium is used, and such effects as it has on rats at very high doses - yes barium can kill you - but the dose to do so is 3-4 grams taken orally.

There is also some evidence that too much or too little barium may be a factor in high blood pressure, and having an average amount of barium in a water supply has been suggested as a source of better dental condition as opposed to having very low amounts in your water supply - but the ample was small and it was not a controlled trial.


This paranoia that it is:

1/ particularly toxic (or at least any more toxic that pretty much every other element in the universe!), and
2/ can only possibly come from a mysterious chemical spray from aircraft

is just nonsense

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by CautiousObserver

 

If you are REALLY worried about barium then consider that the 1 mine I mentioned above will generate 100,000 tons of barium ore per annum - world wide production of barite (barium ore) is as much as 8 million tons. It is used as a diesel fuel additive, it is used in brake pads, it is used cathode ray tubes (so you can expect more intthe atmospehre as they get broken up), it is used in drilling mud, and for taking x-rays (barium meals & enemas), it is used in fluorescent lamps and it makes fireworks green.

Talk about unsubstantiated claims!

Ba and Al are very common in crustal earth. Just driving down a dirt road in some parts of the world will create an aerosol of barium and aluminum.
Using surface water is also problematic. You need to EXCLUDE all possible sources of the disputed elements. For the entire watershed. All sources including industry, construction, mining, ground transportation, agriculture, and just ordinary mineral contamination from running water over rocks. To claim that the elements come from 35K+ in the air requires finding that contamination at that altitude actually in the air. Do your tests take this step? I've never seen any that did.
Using precipitation has it's own problems. Yes, there is air pollution, vastly from the ground up, not the upper atmosphere down. You would need to exclude all possible contamination of the air, and therefore the precipitation. These would include industry, construction, mining, ground transportation, agriculture and driving down dirt roads.
What makes air pollution especially hard to trace is the vast distances that air pollutions travels before deposition. Assuming your scenario, and you see a "chemtrail", does not mean those "chems" are falling on you. They will not because they can not. The atmosphere is dynamic and chaotic. Things in aerosol will be incredibly small. Assuming an absolutely still column of air (which is factually impossible), it would take over 24 hours for anything in aerosol at flight altitude to fall to the ground. Add in winds, updrafts, downdrafts, the possibility of becoming a nucleating particle, and precipitation and there is no way in God's good earth it can get to ground any faster. Consider the ash (actually ground rock) from a volcano. It can remain suspended long enough to circle the globe several times and can change the weather, even the climate on occassion. For something from a supposed "chemtrail" to affect the viewer below it would need to be the size of fairly large hail. Air pollution studies have tracked some pollutants found on the ground of the US all the way back to China, where there is little or no emissions control. Source If their industry can pollute our air and land, thousands of miles away, how can US air flights possibly be "credited" with what was found in the samples you tout?
Without testing of a trail itself, no claims can be made conclusively that "chemtrails" exist.
Except by conspiracy theorists who believe only science that hs been skewed to their "side".
Everyone else in the world knows that exhaust is hot, the atmosphere up there is cold, so exhaust trails will be made. Just like a car or your own breath during winter. And the rest of the world knows clouds persist for hours sometimes, so claiming an exhaust plume can't is just nonsensical.

reply to post by TheRealMrX


You have a curious definition of "disinformation".

The sources were provided by the OP - all I did was search the site of the organisation he mentioned, which I had never heard of before - and very quickly found that his information was not accurate.

And yet you say that I am the one providing disinfo??

How does that work??

You could have searched yorself - or the OP could have searched - but neither of you did so.

Or if you did you failed to find the information or you suppressed it - I think you need to look to your own efforts befoer you accuse me of providing disinfo!

Originally posted by stars15k
Ba and Al are very common in crustal earth. Just driving down a dirt road in some parts of the world will create an aerosol of barium and aluminum.

Assuming your scenario, and you see a "chemtrail", does not mean those "chems" are falling on you. They will not because they can not. The atmosphere is dynamic and chaotic. Things in aerosol will be incredibly small. Assuming an absolutely still column of air (which is factually impossible), it would take over 24 hours for anything in aerosol at flight altitude to fall to the ground.

Without testing of a trail itself, no claims can be made conclusively that "chemtrails" exist.

Ba is not common. According to Wikipedia, it is "0.0425 % in the Earth's crust."

What goes up must come down.

I know a chemtrail when I see one.

Originally posted by TheRealMrX

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by CautiousObserver

 

If you are REALLY worried about barium then consider that the 1 mine I mentioned above will generate 100,000 tons of barium ore per annum - world wide production of barite (barium ore) is as much as 8 million tons. It is used as a diesel fuel additive, it is used in brake pads, it is used cathode ray tubes (so you can expect more intthe atmospehre as they get broken up), it is used in drilling mud, and for taking x-rays (barium meals & enemas), it is used in fluorescent lamps and it makes fireworks green.

Talk about unsubstantiated claims!

And are they wrong??

While I did not link to anywhere except the amount to be mined from 1 mine in particular, oh and also to barium in brake pads earlier too, oh and hte WHO report noted many of hte uses of barium, and I personally have had a barium meal (about 30 years ago - but not the other!!) the rest of information is readily available to anyone prepared to do a minimal amount of work.

Aer you unable to do this extremely basic research for yourself?

I'm happy to provide links if it is too much for you......

Originally posted by TheRealMrX

Ba is not common. According to Wikipedia, it is "0.0425 % in the Earth's crust."

which makes it more common that molybdinum, bromine, tin, nickel, chlorine, chromium, copper, lithium, lead, mercury, platinum, gold, silver - according to one measure it may even be more common that carbon in the form of oil, gas and coal!

- wiki

What goes up must come down.

Relevance??

I know a chemtrail when I see one.

Seems unlikely.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Clearly then, barium dust in the atmosphere IS explicable in terms other than chemtrails.

gotta agree on that. in fact my husband works at a mine that extracts crap loads of barium (along with all other types of earth minerals) from the ground to be used for...well whatever they use it for.


what comes up must come down?

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Your other point is easily dismissed. Here is Aluminum and Barium listed by the ARB as toxics www.arb.ca.gov...

Which also lists silicon as a "toxic metal".......along with iron, calcium, nickel and potassium.

Ever tried to live without potassium or calcium or iron??

I'm sure you think this page defines what is toxic and what is not, and of course my suggestion that it does not willbe sen by you as disinformation.

But to me it is just another case of a chemmie reading something on the surface and not trying to find out anything more than a headline that supports his preconceptions.

to answer your other qwuestion - it seems to me that barium was introduced to brake pads as a replacement for asbestos in the early-mid 1990's - it generally being thought that replacing asbestos with a non-carcinogen like barium sulphate was and remains a good idea.

I am going to guess that you think this timing is significant, ans it provides a cover for "spraying" barium from aircraft? If so then perhaps you should consider the illogic of making barium dust by the ton, at sea level, in highly populated areas, as a cover for "spraying" miniscule amounts of barium - so miniscule as to be undetectable - over vast swathes of barely inhabited country and the ocean from 30,000 feet with no guarantee it'll land where "they " want it to land.

think about it just a second - the brake pads are already introducing barium....so why bother spraying at all??

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
Below Horseshoe Dam. Among many other elevated readings, a sample taken on July 19, 1990 showed Barium at a level 560 ug/l and another sample taken within a year showed Barium at a level of 700 ug/l.

So, if we assume you are right, and these elevate levels or Barium indicate some HUGE spraying program going on in 1990, then why did nobody notice it until 1997?

Can you provide references for all the figures you quote? Actual figures in context? Figures for the ten years prior?

And consider these figures of 520 to 1120 ug/L from the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 1967:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/547648510472.jpeg[/atsimg]

Which they say are comparable to earlier figures, dating back to 1924.

metabunk.org...

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
Ba is not common. According to Wikipedia, it is "0.0425 % in the Earth's crust."

What goes up must come down.

I know a chemtrail when I see one.

You need to learn about the distribution of elements. Ba is the 14th most prevalent element in the earth's crust Source.
Al is the most common metallic element found in the earth's crust. Source
So, yes, both are common.

Yes, pollution goes up from industry, construction, mining, ground transportation, and agriculture. Oh, and dusty roads. Then, when it's not being blown about by wind or other movement in the atmosphere, it comes down. It's called gravity.
And two things no one can harness and control at whim are gravity and wind.

Mighty unusual eyesight you have. When people are looking for elements, they usually have to use some type of spectrometer. You must be very special.

Here's an excerpt from this thread:

Manufacturing Industry - The REAL Chem Trail

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.

Aluminum, Barium and Strontium are metals. Drinking and/or breathing these metals in unacceptable levels causes serious health problems.

From janethull.com 'Toxic Barium Levels and Multiple Sclerosis'

"According to some very recent research, high levels of industrial sources of barium (Ba) have been associated with a high incidence of Multiple Sclerosis."

"Some of the most toxic Multiple Sclerosis (MS) clusters of barium have been found in Saskatchewan, Sardinia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Guam and NE Scotland where elevated levels of barium have been found in the soil."

"Most of the health risks are caused by breathing in air that contains barium sulphate or barium carbonate."

From acu-cell.com 'Strontium'

"High levels/Overdose/Toxicity/Negative Side Effects - Symptoms and/or Risk Factors: Tooth decay, rickets, abdominal spasms, nausea, diarrhea, headaches, skin irritation, blood clots, fainting, memory problems, breathing difficulties, swelling legs, face or throat, seizures."

From seekerscentre.com 'Aluminum'

"Aluminum has long been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). This has been widely reported in the media, making most people aware of this connection. We actually know very little about the health risks of aluminum, but what we do know is not good."

"A recent Norwegian review found an increased risk of AD in 15 out of 20 studies conducted in Newfoundland, Ontario, Norway, England and France."

"One study actually confirmed the diagnosis of AD by examining the patient's brains after they died."

"The diagnosis of aluminum toxicity is not discussed in the published literature, because it is not really known. The one exception is in patients with kidney failure who undergo dialysis. It was discovered over thirty years ago that in these patients, if special attention is not paid to preventing aluminum from accumulating, dementia rapidly develops."

From extension.oregonstate.edu 'West of the Cascade Mountain Range in Oregon and Washington'

"Aluminum sulfate also lowers soil pH, but we do not recommend its use because of potential harmful side effects (aluminum toxicity) to plant roots, which can significantly reduce plant growth."

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Aluminum, Barium and Strontium are metals. Drinking and/or breathing these metals in unacceptable levels causes serious health problems.

Drinking water in unacceptable levels causes serious health problems.

Everything is toxic at a certain level. The question is what is the level.

Do you drink beer or soda out of cans? You probably are getting high levels of aluminum. It's not considered dangerous though, and there's no evidence that it is.

But this is all a bit off topic. How do all these random reading of aluminum tie up with the lines in the sky? The main gist of the OP seems to be that they find is suspicious that official figures show a fall in barium levels, not that there was a rise.

OP, where are the actual sources of your figures? Post the documents, so people can see them in context.