Chemtrails are terraforming earth for the aliens!

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
As to the previous poster who rebutted my claim, dilution is irrelevant. The point is that, just becuase something is naturally occurring does not mean it is safe. And dilution certainly doesnt mean anything unless you qualify it with the information of at what level it becomes toxic.

It means it is safe in the dilutions that it naturally occurs at. So natural levels of aluminum or arsenic in our food and water are non-toxic.

The dilution of aluminum is of special interest though. You could drop a million tons of aluminum oxide every year and it would not have one jot of impact on the existing quintillions of tons already there.

But it you dropped a ton of arsenic out of a plane, then it would be a major disaster.

Dilution is actually the only thing that is relevant when talking about toxicity.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

The average adult in the U.S. eats about 7-9 mg aluminum per day in their food.

So 7-9 mg of aluminum per day is perfectly natural. Humans have evolved to be tolerant of aluminum because there is so much of it everywhere, in our food, air and water.

\

You missed the point completely.It isnt about what levels occur naturally. It is about at what unnatural levels these things become toxic. So no, the natural dilution is not relevant, except as a comparison.

Now, you claim dropping a million tons of aluminum oxide would not cause a health issue. This is where dilution DOES become relevant. The naturally occurring aluminum in our environment is not ingested or absorbed as a direct hit. If a million tons of it were dropped directly into our air, the concentration that would be taken into the human body would be GREATLY elevated over what is naturally here.

Again, arsenic is fine in small doses. Take a swig of pure asenic goodness, and you are dead. Breathing in diluted aluminum is not harmful. Breathing in a cloud of the stuff most definitely is.

Now, again, I want to say, I am not arguing for or against chemtrails. I am simply saying that "it occurs naturally" does not debunk anything.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Your case also requires a particular method of dispersal - what I read in Uncinus's post is that a a large amount of solid aluminium - 100% pure, undiluted - is harmless due to being a lump of metal.

moreover it will not blow in the wind, nor will it disolve in water, therefore it will never become available to be ingested.

Toxicity requires that the substance be available in toxic form - for aluminium as dust or dissolved into water. These are measureable - and all concentrations found so far are harmless.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your case also requires a particular method of dispersal - what I read in Uncinus's post is that a a large amount of solid aluminium - 100% pure, undiluted - is harmless due to being a lump of metal.

moreover it will not blow in the wind, nor will it disolve in water, therefore it will never become available to be ingested.

Toxicity requires that the substance be available in toxic form - for aluminium as dust or dissolved into water. These are measureable - and all concentrations found so far are harmless.

Fair enough, although, I read 'aluminum oxyde' in his post.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Now, again, I want to say, I am not arguing for or against chemtrails. I am simply saying that "it occurs naturally" does not debunk anything.

It does if the claim is that it should not be found in the air and water.

And here again the dilution comes into effect. People claim that they have found excess amounts of aluminum. However they generally ignore how much aluminum you would expect to find. They also ignore how much aluminum it would take to actually raise the background level by a detectable amount (how much do you have to add to 1% to 30% to notice a difference?).

Dilution also comes into effect when we are talking about the toxicity of proposed geoengineering schemes. By the time it reaches the ground several months later, how much will adding the tons of Aluminum oxide per year actually raise the aluminum content of the air. Negligible amounts, especially when compared to other much larger sources of pollution. Example:

www.earthspirituality.org...

The Four Corners power plant, rated at 2040 megawatts, sits on Navajo land in Fruitland, N.M., 25 miles west of Farmington. It is licensed to emit 157 million pounds of sulfur dioxide per year, 122 million pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 8 million pounds of soot per year. Plus it emits 2000 pounds of mercury.

Fifteen miles northwest of Farmington — just outside Navajo territory — we have the 1800-megawatt San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow, New Mexico. It burns an estimated 6.3 million tons of coal each year, releasing more than 100 million pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2), more than 100 million pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOx), roughly 6 million pounds of soot, and at least 1000 pounds of mercury.

Just 185 miles to the west lies an even larger coal plant on Navajo land, the 2400-megawatt Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona, which burns 8.5 million tons of coal each year, emitting 185 million pounds of sulfur oxides, 143 million pounds of nitrogen oxides, 9 million pounds of soot, and 2400 pounds of mercury.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Your case also requires a particular method of dispersal - what I read in Uncinus's post is that a a large amount of solid aluminium - 100% pure, undiluted - is harmless due to being a lump of metal.

No, really I mean aluminum oxide.

Because it's really essentially mineral dust. And proposed schemes are a small fraction of the existing mineral dust load in the atmosphere. Consider lake Michigan gets 5 million kg per year of aluminum form the atmosphere.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

It's not like aluminum oxide is manna from heaven. It's dirt. You don't want to breathing in any particulates if you can help it. But any comparison to arsenic is ludicrous.

And don't forget in all of this that NOBODY IS ACTUALLY SPRAYING IT. Yet.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Your case also requires a particular method of dispersal - what I read in Uncinus's post is that a a large amount of solid aluminium - 100% pure, undiluted - is harmless due to being a lump of metal.

No, really I mean aluminum oxide.

Because it's really essentially mineral dust. And proposed schemes are a small fraction of the existing mineral dust load in the atmosphere. Consider lake Michigan gets 5 million kg per year of aluminum form the atmosphere.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

It's not like aluminum oxide is manna from heaven. It's dirt. You don't want to breathing in any particulates if you can help it. But any comparison to arsenic is ludicrous.

And don't forget in all of this that NOBODY IS ACTUALLY SPRAYING IT. Yet.

\



Is my point really that lost on you?

I AM NOT COMPARING IT TO ARSENIC IN TERMS OF HOW POISONOUS IT IS.

I simply using arsenic as an example of a naturally occurring thing that can be dangerous in the right concentrations. Thats it, and thats all. Any other comparisons being made are in your head, not by me.

And, again, my statement is all based on hypothetical. I am not claiming it is being done. I am saying IF it were being done.

get it yet??

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Yes, I get it. But at the risk of bad metaphors, you were poisoning the well by introducing arsenic as the element you chose to compare it with. You could have made the point that "everything is toxic" equally well with oxygen. However you did not because everyone knows there's already a load of oxygen in the air, so you'd have to add rather a lot very suddenly for there to be any harm.

Same as with aluminum oxide. It's not like arsenic. In terms of it's existing prevalence in the environment, it's more like oxygen.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Yes, I get it. But at the risk of bad metaphors, you were poisoning the well by introducing arsenic as the element you chose to compare it with. You could have made the point that "everything is toxic" equally well with oxygen. However you did not because everyone knows there's already a load of oxygen in the air, so you'd have to add rather a lot very suddenly for there to be any harm.

Same as with aluminum oxide. It's not like arsenic. In terms of it's existing prevalence in the environment, it's more like oxygen.

I chose arsenic because it is something that most people are aware of and it would resonate as actually getting the point across.

I get it that the 'debunkers' here have to have their say, and have to attack anything which may challenge them, but my comparison was succinct, correct, and relevant. Im sorry that it got lost on you. Everyone else sure seemed to get it.

You still seem to think I am actually comparing the two. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DONE. I am pointing out arsenic as something that occurs naturally, that can be deadly. Thats it. Just proof that being natural does not mean its not bad for you. All this other nonsense is what you are dragging into the conversation, and has nothing to do with what i have said.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You still seem to think I am actually comparing the two. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DONE. I am pointing out arsenic as something that occurs naturally, that can be deadly. Thats it. Just proof that being natural does not mean its not bad for you. All this other nonsense is what you are dragging into the conversation, and has nothing to do with what i have said.

This is the post you responded to:
post by Aloysius the Gaul

Of course George has gotten something very basic wrong here.......namely that aluminum is going to kill us.

It isn't - as is pointed out ad nauseum, aluminium is already ubiquitous in the atmosphere - it it comprises about 8% of the crust, it is the 3rd most common element there and the most common metal. we breath it in dust every day - and what's more life evolved on this planet with all that alumium already in place!!

Kind of hard to see how "we and our present-day plants and animals will definitely be killed
off by the aluminum" given we evolved with it.

And here's what you said:
post by captaintyinknots

One flaw with the so-called "aluminum debunking". You know what else is ubiquitous in our environment? Arsenic. Its present in our drinking water, in our soil, in the rain. Does that mean it is good for you? That in high enough concentrations, it wont have a negative health impact?

Aloysius the Gaul's point was that there was already an incredibly large amount of aluminum in the environment so adding more was not going to kill everyone.

Your point was what then? That if we dump tons of arsenic it would be a bad thing, hence it might also be a bad thing is we dump tons of aluminum?

The specific point that was being debunking was "we and our present-day plants and animals will definitely be killed off by the aluminum". It was debunked by noting we already live with gigatons of aluminum in the atmosphere. You did not actually address any flaws in that, but simply brought up the meaningless point that "everything is toxic in sufficient quantities".

.reply to post by Uncinus


Just wow. Admit you misunderstood and move on. As I've said, the only point I was making is thatnaturally occurring things caan be dangerous when introduced in unnatural levels.

I'm not sure what else you are getting on about. You are trying to ad some dimension to what I'm saying that isn't there. It was said that dumping tons of aluminum oxide into our air would not have a negative affect. The fact is, if you are breathing in concentrated levels, as would be the case if it were introduced into our air, it would be harmful.

Again, anything else you are trying to make out of what I have said is simply your defensive nature.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Pointing out that natural things can kill when introduced in unnatural levels does not debunk my point about aluminium at all.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It. Certainly brings into question the statement that dumping aluminum oxide wouldn't be dangerous.

But I digress. I'm not here to "debunk" anything, that's what you guys love to do. Truthfully, the whole chemtrail argument is moot at this point.. between the fanatics who seems to have made a career out of claiming they aren't real and attacking all those who would dare question them, and the believers that buy into anything without research and evidence, I think both sides are downright stupid.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It. Certainly brings into question the statement that dumping aluminum oxide wouldn't be dangerous.

Do you have any data that shows how much aluminium would be dangerous in order to support your statement?

But I digress. I'm not here to "debunk" anything, that's what you guys love to do.

That's clearly not true - you are trying to debunk my suggestion that aluminium is not dangerous.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It. Certainly brings into question the statement that dumping aluminum oxide wouldn't be dangerous.

Do you have any data that shows how much aluminium would be dangerous in order to support your statement?

But I digress. I'm not here to "debunk" anything, that's what you guys love to do.

That's clearly not true - you are trying to debunk my suggestion that aluminium is not dangerous.

I'm on a smart phone so I can't really supply links right now, but that's obviously an empty question. Google aluminum oxide negative health effects and you'll get all you need

Second, no I'm not here to debunk, again, that is what you are here to do. I pointed out a fact, one that you and your buddy are trying to deny. And that's fine, like I said before, both sides of this argument are full of idiots.

You got one side that tried to cause a fight, that attacks, that's attempts to draw people in to their debate so they can attack.

This side is obviously full of idiots, considering that, if they are all so sure its a bunch of bull, they wouldn't keep talking about it, starting threads about it, and continuing the discussionns on a topic that by their own account is stupid and empty.

Then you've got a side that lives on the web, linking to editorial sites and beleiving every tidbit that they read. This side is obviously full of idiots, as if they were so sure that they were real, would do their own research and actually perform some tests so they could actually back up what they say.

Both sides just go round and round. Neither side budges. Its asinine. None of you prove you are smarter than the other.

So with that, carry on. I won't bother you with anymore facts.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

So with that, carry on. I won't bother you with anymore facts.

I looked through the posts...still waiting on the first one...

reply to post by jeichelberg


Yup. You are correct. Its not a fact that aluminum oxide is poisonous at high enough concentrations and its certainly not a fact that being natural does not mean its safe.

You guys sure do post in packs....kinda like feral dogs...

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Those are facts...no doubt...aluminum oxide is toxic at high levels...and natural does mean safe, similar to poison ivy...natural, but you do your best to avoid it...

What does this mean to you anyway, within the context of the OP?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by unityemissions

 

But no - I haven't noticed any great problem - pollution and respiratory issues are certainly problems for some, but the air is actually better now than when i was a kid - as a personal example, I used to go to a highschool next to a bus depot, and on cold mornings the smoke of diesel busses was a major health hazard - but diesel busses now are cleaner burning than they used to be.

AFAIK air quality around the western industrialised world has improved over my lifetime - awareness of pullutino is massively increased, organisation such as Greens & others have actually mobilised public opinion in many good ways on the environment.

edit on 1-12-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

maybe the air is better where you come from... but on my planet its not. I live on earth and have been informed on more than one occasion that chemtrails are real and to keep that in mind, they aren't good but they are far from our biggest concern. I have to disagree with your view on the good of the environment though, more and more people are being diagnosed with things like chrons, colitis, fibromyalgia, im partial to think there is a reason for that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Yup. You are correct. Its not a fact that aluminum oxide is poisonous at high enough concentrations and its certainly not a fact that being natural does not mean its safe.

You guys sure do post in packs....kinda like feral dogs...

You cannot truly say that aluminum oxide is really in the atmosphere, in such toxic levels....you can only say that if it were (in such levels), it would be toxic.
The problem is, no one has proved it IS in such mass concentrations,...ever. So your point is only theoretical.....as is the theoretical "what if"...if there was mass amounts of ANY substance.
Water in mass amounts can kill.
Carbon Dioxide in mass amounts can kill.
Nitrogen in mass amounts can kill.
....so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, based on real-life evidence ??

reply to post by N3v3rmor3

maybe the air is better where you come from... but on my planet its not. I live on earth...

Do you have a source the air quality is not better? I know the air quality is better where I live. And I also live on Earth. Take a look at this...it demonstrates air quality in Europe has improved...

www.eea.europa.eu...

This site gives you present AQI information...nothing in the red here...

www.airnow.gov...

As far as historical records, everything I have read on the Web indicates our overall air quality in the US is much better than 40 years ago...This site is about as liberal and as environmentally active a news site as I could find, but even they admit it...

America's air is markedly cleaner than it was nearly 40 years ago, when the Clean Air Act was passed. Toxic chemicals, smog and soot are less pervasive today. But science has also taught us, since then, that lower levels of pollutants do serious harm -- to our lungs, our hearts and circulatory systems and to the development of our children. Science has shown that, despite significant reduction in acid rain, mountain streams are still struggling to recover from decades of abuse, leaving water there toxic to much fish and plant life.

EDIT: ADD SOURCE: articles.sfgate.com...

I agree we have work to do, but I think the words, "struggling to recover," are a bit overblown and hyperbolic...the Earth has a tremendous ability to heal...

...and have been informed on more than one occasion that chemtrails are real and to keep that in mind, they aren't good but they are far from our biggest concern...

Whoever has been informing you chemtrails are real is lying to you...and since they do not exist, you are right...they can be of NO concern...

I have to disagree with your view on the good of the environment though, more and more people are being diagnosed with things like chrons, colitis, fibromyalgia, im partial to think there is a reason for that.

You have some source material to prove the claim that more and more people are being diagnosed with chrons, colitis, fibromyalgia? I would like to see that...