It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
Been reading up on Hydrogen Sulphide. Flamable at ranges of 4.3% - 46%. Concentrations of 1000pm cause instant unconciousness even after only one breath. If these cars are catching fire due to hydrogen sulphide,wouldn't there be loads of dead and dying people in the surrounding area ?
I accept that methane could be a real global game changer, but i'm not conviced we're in immediate danger, next generation and the one after will be the ones to pay the piper.edit on 17-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
Been reading up on Hydrogen Sulphide. Flamable at ranges of 4.3% - 46%. Concentrations of 1000pm cause instant unconciousness even after only one breath. If these cars are catching fire due to hydrogen sulphide,wouldn't there be loads of dead and dying people in the surrounding area ?
I accept that methane could be a real global game changer, but i'm not conviced we're in immediate danger, next generation and the one after will be the ones to pay the piper.edit on 17-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)
That's a reasonable question. However, what's the flammability range when it's mixed with gas fumes, or methane fumes, or both? Good luck finding the answer to that question. Also, it's absorbing into absorbent materials, thus the people spontaneously combusting (their clothes). Other similar incidents, like the homeless guy going into the hospital with his clothes that were emanating some 'unknown chemical' that immediately sickened the hospital staff. (Sign of a 'knockdown agent' there, to work that fast on people.) So it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Experiments would need to be done to see what the mix ratios are in terms of flammability, not just with normal air, but when flammable fuel fumes are present, or electrified copper, taking into account material absorbency of materials that are present and how much they've absorbed, and more. The government has probably done those experiments, but seeing as they're hiding this from us, I doubt they'll be sharing that information.
jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com...
edit on 17-12-2012 by JonnyMnemonic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Rezlooper
Hey Johnny, would like to hear your theory on solutions if there are any. What can be done to stop this or slow it down? Can the gas leak be stopped or not? Or, is more chemtrails the solution?
Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
Originally posted by Rezlooper
Hey Johnny, would like to hear your theory on solutions if there are any. What can be done to stop this or slow it down? Can the gas leak be stopped or not? Or, is more chemtrails the solution?
I think the problem is that a lot of the heat is coming from beneath us. That's also why all the volcanic eruptions. How do you cool the Earth itself? I don't think we can. We can prevent new heat from getting added to 'the system' from above. I think that's what the chemtrails are for. A better idea would be to put some kind of nano-mesh between us and the Sun, in a stable orbit (not in Earth's orbit, but between us and the Sun). It'd have to be huge though. But then, there have been lots of mysterious gigantic Delta IV launches, and maybe they are doing that, using that secret space plane to deploy or assemble the shield. Lots of people have seen a 'black dot' in the middle of the Sun when taking pics. And they didn't USED to see that dot. So the 'sensor overload' excuses don't make much sense. Could that be a solar shield? I think...maybe. I hope so.
Practically speaking though, we have to go underground and/or vacate the Earth. Once the oceans belch up enough hydrogen sulfide, it simply won't be survivable on the surface, at all. The Moon, with a vacuum, would be more survivable, and there's water there, some at least. You can survive vacuum for 30 seconds or a minute. You won't survive hydrogen sulfide that long; the 'Slaughterhouse Sledgehammer Effect' will kill you quicker once the gas concentrations pick up. Remember Andrew Breitbart? Outside, on the coast, dropped dead. Then the coroner who examined him dropped dead. He got hit by hydrogen sulfide, fairly sure. Knocked him dead, got in his clothes. The coroner had no idea that he should expect a lethal gas, so he went to take the clothes off, and he got dosed too. So concentrated plumes (1 part per thousand or more) are ALREADY blowing around, here and there.
Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
And you think I'm trying to scare people? LMAO. No, just presenting the facts. If I was trying to scare people, I could do a much, much, much more impressive job of it. You really underestimate me if you think this is me trying to scare people. I could start whipping out some really horrifying stuff, I assure you, which is what I would do if I WERE trying to scare people. I keep my tone calm so as NOT to scare people. Unfortunately, the truth is, in this case, pretty scary. That's not my doing, just the way it is. If you're rather reject the truth because it's scary, go ahead. That won't save you, no, but maybe you'll die more peacefully or something.
And what am I doing here if there's so little time left? Um, what else would I be doing? You think I can pull out a billion dollars and have a huge underground bunker built in the Himalayas, like the rich folks are doing? Hah, no. The only way the common man survives is to work together. Well, we can't do that if everyone is asleep. So I am seeing if it's possible to wake people up.
Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
I suspect it will take a massive event to wake people up to the dangers of the methane, i 've talked about it to a few friends and family and they're not even aware of the Siberian or Arctic releases. These are intelligent people too, doctors, physics msc's. Methane level of700 nmol/mol in 1750. By 2008, however, global methane levels, which had stayed mostly flat since 1998, had risen to 1800 nmol/mol, somethings going on for sure. ( thanks wiki )
The Earth's methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases. Usually, excess methane from landfills and other natural producers of methane are burned so CO2 is released into the atmosphere instead of methane because methane is such a more effective greenhouse gas. Recently methane emitted from coal mines has been successfully converted to electricity.
Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
There weren't 4000 square miles of methane hydrates dissociating in 1998 were there? No. Israel hadn't found 700 gas leaks of their coast in 1998, had they? No. And there wasn't hundreds or thousands of seething methane seeps in the Arctic gushing methane 24 hours per day in 1998, were there? No. So, I rest my case.
And as I've always said, watch all the fires. Idaho's fire season was almost 100% worse year over year. If that continues, and it may, then in five years it will be 2X2X2X2X2 times worse than THIS year, or 32 times worse. And in ten years about 1000 times worse. Maybe it won't be that bad. Or maybe it'll be worse than that, a rapidly steepening hyperbolic curve. But the fires will be easier to survive than the poison gas anyway, or at least I think so.
Originally posted by JonnyMnemonic
Dude, I get it, you don't accept my hypothesis. Fine. Move along then. Let people judge for themselves, after a review of the information.
Got no problem with that, personally. You're starting to seem like you have some kind of agenda here. No other life or interests? Is this your job, to try to distract people? If it's NOT your job, then you're really starting to seem a little, you know, whacked. Maybe you've breathed in some neurotoxic hydrogen sulfide and don't know it? If faces start looking edible, get some help, bro.