Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

Phage
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Don't they get PFC from PFOA? I thought they did.

Would that mean they are the same thing?

edit on 10/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I think they are both bad for human health, according to the U.S. EPA.
www.epa.gov...

reply to post by Mikeultra


Try perfluorocarbon, not perfluorochemicals.

reply to post by Mikeultra



Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are not the same as Perfluorocarbons (also PFCs). Same initials, different chemicals. Perfluorocarbon is not mentioned in your link.

Perfluorocarbons have been shown to be non-toxic and not harmfull except in very high concentrations.
www.fluorocarbons.org...


You still have not explained how any of the has to do with evidence of "chemtrails".

Mikeultra
[
It's not so bad. Isn't it strange that they repealed one law and replaced it with the exact same thing?

huh?

They didn't replace it with the same thing - theer is only 1 1997 law - it is just reproduced in 2 different places.

This amendment replaced one which had no provision for consent at all.

You can read section 1520 as it existed before this change at this link:

1996 US Code
Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
Sec. 1520 - Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by Department of Defense; accounting to Congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials
View Metadata

Download pdf

§1520. Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by Department of Defense; accounting to Congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials

(a) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under contract, involving the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall supply the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives with a full accounting of such plans for such experiment or study, and such experiment or study may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date such accounting is received by such committees.

(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors.

(Pub. L. 95–79, title VIII, §808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334; Pub. L. 97–375, title II, §203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1822.)

You will see there is no requirement for informed consent there.

Do you still maintain that 1520 is the same as 1520a??

Trying to make the people think that they're looking out for us, when the opposite is true.

no - you are trying to show that you know what you are talking about - when the opposite is true.

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Try perfluorocarbon, not perfluorochemicals.

Sorry for the mix-up. Perfluorocarbons have health risks also according to Wikipedia. Read down near bottom of page. So that means the gas is not "harmless" as NYC officials lied in saying so.

"Environmental and Health Concerns"

"Despite the presence of some natural fluorocarbons such as tetrafluoromethane, which has been reported in rocks,[8] man-made fluorocarbons are potent greenhouse gases.

Another important aspect in terms of environmental concerns, is certain fluorocarbons' bioaccumulative properties. Fluorocarbons are extremely stable and can be stored in the bodies of both humans and animals. Examples of harmful fluorocarbons include PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), frequently present in water resistant textiles and sprays conferring water resistant properties to textiles.[9] Data from animal studies of PFOA indicate that it can cause several types of tumors and neonatal death and may have toxic effects on the immune, liver, and endocrine systems. Data on the human health effects of PFOA are however sparse.[10]

The fluorocarbon, PFOA and PFOS have both been subject for numerous investigations by the EU and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding them being harmful to the environment.[9]"
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I first seen it as Public Law 105-85 Sec 1078 here;
chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com...

You showed me 50 USC 1520a at this link;
www.law.cornell.edu...

Those 2 versions are the ones I said are identical.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thanks for that 1996 original 1520 version. That only required local officials to be notified if the DoD wanted to dose the population with chemical or biological agents. Doesn't that concern you in the least?
law.justia.com...

reply to post by Mikeultra

And you think exposure to a miniscule amount on a single occasion is going to lead to bioaccumulation to dangerous levels? Didn't you read the source I cited?

Were PFOA or PFOS used in the test?

Why won't you answer my question?

What does any of this have to do with evidence of "chemtrails"?

I'm surprised mikeultra,

There have been several claims made now of contrails since the government shut down, which was the basis of the thread. Yet you seem to have no comment to make on those. You don't seem to be as interested in snatching up what THOSE people have to say about what they see as the things people think they saw before the shut down. Are we seeing another case of you being selective with the information you read? Or are you just skipping over that part of your research?

reply to post by Mikeultra

That only required local officials to be notified if the DoD wanted to dose the population with chemical or biological agents.

Good thing they fixed it, huh?

Shugo
I'm surprised mikeultra,

There have been several claims made now of contrails since the government shut down, which was the basis of the thread. Yet you seem to have no comment to make on those. You don't seem to be as interested in snatching up what THOSE people have to say about what they see as the things people think they saw before the shut down. Are we seeing another case of you being selective with the information you read? Or are you just skipping over that part of your research?

I thought the OP was trying to figure out if the shutdown was causing a halt or decrease in chem-trails?

reply to post by Mikeultra


Consider this

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are chemically inactive, nontoxic, and nonflammable compounds that are found in the atmosphere at very low levels. PFCs present no known danger to humans if inhaled or ingested.

Flyers designed to mislead Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) customers about the Subway-Surface Air Flow Exchange (S-SAFE) study are being mass produced and posted at various locations in the subway system, and some have subsequently been circulated online. This hoax literature is purposely designed to resemble official agency communications, and lists false claims about health effects supposedly linked to the perfluorocarbon tracer gases used in the S-SAFE study.

The perfluorocarbon tracer gases used at very low concentrations in the S-SAFE study are stable, inert, nonreactive, and nontoxic even at much higher concentrations. Some acidic, reactive chemicals in the perfluorocarbon family, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), are thought to be potentially harmful to human health, are not effective for use as tracer gases, and ARE NOT being used in the S-SAFE study.

www.bnl.gov...

reply to post by Mikeultra


Yet as we've seen it has not caused a stop to contrails because - as it has been pointed out - contrails are cirrus level clouds that are formed due to variations in the atmosphere. Hence the taxonomy of the word "contrail" - condensation trail. That was the point of this thread, no? The result being there are no decreases in contrails, and there are no pieces of evidence for chemtrails that you, nor anyone else has presented. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

Phage
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

And you think exposure to a miniscule amount on a single occasion is going to lead to bioaccumulation to dangerous levels? Didn't you read the source I cited?

Were PFOA or PFOS used in the test?

Why won't you answer my question?

What does any of this have to do with evidence of "chemtrails"?

I didn't know you asked a question... apparently they used PFT's and claim they're completely harmless. I found this article which reveals that the Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory was involved in the test.
www.bnl.gov...

This is not evidence of chem-trails, it's evidence of using humans in government testing without their consent, which I believe they're doing with the chem-trail campaign.

Shugo
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Yet as we've seen it has not caused a stop to contrails because - as it has been pointed out - contrails are cirrus level clouds that are formed due to variations in the atmosphere. Hence the taxonomy of the word "contrail" - condensation trail. That was the point of this thread, no? The result being there are no decreases in contrails, and there are no pieces of evidence for chemtrails that you, nor anyone else has presented. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

But chem-trails could be deemed essential by them, just as the paychecks for our useless politicians. If that's the case then nothing would appear different.

reply to post by Mikeultra


It was a harmless test that showed the effects of a gas released in the subway. There was no testing of anything on people.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And yet you have airlines in it, as well as a few thousand other people.

Mikeultra
But chem-trails could be deemed essential by them

Who's "them?" I see people using "them" all the time. Who are "they?"
As far as I'm concerned there is no "them." Just a paranoid manifestation of individuals created by a paranoid person.

What you have presented has no relevance to the existence of chemtrails. At all. You have not proven they exist, and you haven't provided any real evidence that they have plans of being used. You're leading people in a Mobius Loop of off topic banter.

If that's the case then nothing would appear different.

Nothing is different. Don't you understand that? It's the same now as it was in the 2000s, the same as the 1990s. Before that even. There's no further debate to be had here.

reply to post by Mikeultra

which reveals that the Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory was involved in the test.

"reveals". That's funny.
Yes. Brookhaven was involved because they have the equipment and expertise which can detect the extremely small amounts of material used. Here's another "revelation" for you. www.bnl.gov...

This is not evidence of chem-trails, it's evidence of using humans in government testing without their consent, which I believe they're doing with the chem-trail campaign.

Well then, you can add these to your list:
www.wwdmag.com...
ascelibrary.org...

Day 15 of the U.S. shutdown. Sky has absolutely no chem-trails! It's beautiful.

10/15/2013 - 9:25 am eastern - 45 degrees F

Yet the sky is full of airliners? What could this mean? Not all of the aircraft are at low altitudes, some are at cruising altitude. Why no contrails or chem-trails?


This photo is from yesterday afternoon.

Delta Airlines
FCO Rome to ATL Atlanta
aircraft - Airbus A330-323X
registration - N816NW
altitude - 38,000 feet
speed - 439 knots
vertical speed - 0 feet per minute
track - 230 degrees
location - 40.5016, -75.1409
date - 10/14/2013
time - 3:16 pm eastern
temperature - 70 degrees F

aircraft photo from airliners.net
www.airliners.net... rt_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&thumbnails=