It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions (USAF 2001).
Training for military personnel, particularly aircraft pilots, in the use of chaff is necessary to deploy this electronic countermeasure effectively. As with most acquired skills, the deployment of chaff must be maintained by practicing in-flight release during training.
It is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces dispense about 500 tons of chaff per year (USAF 2001), with most chaff being released during training exercises within the continental United States.
Concerns have been raised since the early 1950s by both the public and government officials on the potential impacts of chaff on the environment. In response to these concerns, the Department of Defense (DOD) has sponsored or conducted research to address issues related to the use of chaff by the military including: (a) questions on its persistence and fate in the environment, (b) the effects of chaff on human, livestock, and wildlife health, and (c) the impact of chaff release on natural and cultural resources
Chaff fibers are approximately 60% glass and 40% aluminum by weight. Lead was used as a weighting material in early versions, but this metal is no longer incorporated into chaff (GAO 1998, USAF 1997). Chaff fibers are also coated with a lipid to prevent clumping.
originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
While I agree many of the claims made are exaggerated and unproven they do have an ounce of truth to them.
If or when SRM tests take place there would be adverse side effects for humanity.
originally posted by: MagicWand67
Chaff (unrelated to chemtrails) is also a health concern IMO.
There is some question about whether the aluminum deposited through chaffing exercises is toxic. A research survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2005, prompted by concerns about the potential for impact of chaff upon endangered pronghorn antelopes, noted the existence of studies that concluded that chaff containing aluminum would not be harmful to either humans or animals: “Although there is potential for inhalation hazard to wildlife, two reports found that the risk is negligible. A study in the United Kingdom found that chaff particle size was too large for inhalation in humans and livestock (USAF 1997). Therefore, chaff is considered too large to be respired. When broken down, chaff would not cause adverse effects to terrestrial wildlife because aluminum and silicon are not very toxic when inhaled (NRL 1999).” The survey also noted a 1999 study of a worst case scenario at a military base in Nevada where chaffing exercises had been frequently run. That study, by the Naval Research Laboratory, “concluded that the deposition of chaff did not result in the accumulation of toxic substances in soils and that inhalation and ingestion exposure to domestic livestock and non-domestic grazers was not a concern due to the large size of chaff fibers, and because ingestion of unreasonably large amounts of chaff would be required to produce toxic effects.” Conducting its own worst-case scenario research, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that “Sonoran pronghorn are not likely to be at risk from aluminum toxicity at BMGR due to chaff releases.”
5. Proposed Timeline
This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise within five years.
Phase I – Laboratory Research and Institutional Development: A consortium to include the national leaders in SRM, would conduct preliminary research and technical development work and draft a detailed plan to accomplish the necessary pilot scale testing of SRM, to include funding requirements.
The ideal leader of this consortium would be Professor Wood (with significant assistance by Professor Caldeira and his colleagues), and would include institutional experts such as Professor Barrett at Johns Hopkins. Most physical research would involve laboratory scale physics and chemistry, as well as computer simulations, modeling, and analyses of the kind routinely conducted by climate scientists today.
Simultaneously, the institutional research branch would identify alternative means to regulate and manage SRM use, to include formation of a specific objective such as presented in the first Element above. The plan would include a detailed proposal for formation of a control institution to test and regulate the use of SRM. The plan would ideally be reviewed and accepted by experts from a very wide spectrum of relevant disciplines (18 months, $3.5 million estimated).
Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months). Phase III: Review research results and propose and take comment on an SRM schedule of events. This would be the first major action of the international SRM control body. It would include a reexamination of the objective to ensure adequate global support (18 months).
So long as modest low-level field studies designed to answer these questions are done in an open and transparent manner, we believe they should not be subject to any formal international process of vetting and approval. Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases.
A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about
SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible. Such a regulation would, at best, make conducting modest low-level SRM research extremely difficult and, at worst, impossible
Weird Weather Radar 'Blob' Tied To 'Chaff' Used In Military Test
"What we were able to see from the dual-pol radar data looked similar to military chaff cases previously, but the primary difference was that the winds weren't blowing the stuff away," Havin said.
"The releases were happening primarily below 3,300 feet [1,000 meters] above the ground and the low-level winds that afternoon were almost nonexistent (less than 3 mph [4.8 km/h]), so the chaff was basically pluming outward over a good portion of the Huntsville metro area."
In fact, the chaff was visible on their radar for more than nine hours, and the news stories lingered even longer.
"Officially, Redstone Arsenal disclosed that it was a military test using RR-188 military chaff," Havin said, referring to aircraft used to spread a cloud of aluminum-coated silica in the case of RR-188.
Boron trioxide (or diboron trioxide) is one of the oxides of boron. It is a white, glassy solid with the formula B2O3. It is almost always found as the vitreous (amorphous) form; however, it can be crystallized after extensive annealing (that is, under prolonged heat). It is known as one of the most difficult compounds to crystallize
Boron trioxide is produced by treating borax withsulfuric acid in a fusion furnace. At temperatures above 750 °C, the molten boron oxide layer separates out from sodium sulfate. It is then decanted, cooled and obtained in 96–97% purity.
Boron oxide will also form when Diborane (B2H6) reacts with oxygen in the air or trace amounts of moisture:
Based on mammalian median lethal dose (LD50) rating of 2,660 mg/kg body mass, boric acid is poisonous if taken internally or inhaled in large quantities. The Thirteenth Edition of the Merck Index indicates that the LD50 of boric acid is 5.14 g/kg for oral dosages given to rats, and that 5 to 20 g/kg has produced death in adult humans. For comparison's sake, the LD50 of salt is reported to be 3.75 g/kg in rats according to the Merck Index. But this is highly misleading, as humans have been known to die from amounts only a small fraction of the LD50. "The minimal lethal dose of ingested boron (as boric acid) was reported to be 2–3 g in infants, 5–6 g in children, and 15–20 g in adults", according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 
Long term exposure to boric acid may be of more concern, causing kidney damage and eventually kidney failure (see links below). Although it does not appear to be carcinogenic, studies in dogs have reported testicular atrophy after exposure to 32 mg/kg bw/day for 90 days. This level is far lower than the LD50.
The toxic effects of diborane are primarily due to its irritant properties. Short-term exposure to diborane can cause a sensation of tightness of the chest, shortness of breath, cough, and wheezing. These signs and symptoms can occur immediately or be delayed for up to 24 hours. Skin and eye irritation can also occur. Studies in animals have shown that diborane causes the same type of effects observed in humans.
People exposed for a long time to low amounts of diborane have experienced respiratory irritation, seizures, fatigue, drowsiness, confusion, and occasional transient tremors.
Because of vigorous reaction of quicklime with water, quicklime causes severe irritation when inhaled or placed in contact with moist skin or eyes. Inhalation may cause coughing, sneezing, labored breathing. It may then evolve into burns with perforation of the nasal septum, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. Although quicklime is not considered a fire hazard, its reaction with water can release enough heat to ignite combustible materials.
Magnesium oxide is easily made by burning magnesium ribbon, which produces a very bright white light, and a powdery ash. The bright flame is very hard to extinguish and it emits a harmful intensity of UV light. Inhalation of magnesium oxide fumes can cause metal fume fever. When burned in open air, the magnesium gets hot enough to produce noticeable amounts of yellow magnesium nitride. Burning in a covered crucible, letting in just enough air to support combustion, will reduce the burning temperature, minimizing the production of the nitride.
originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: network dude
Are we really supposed to believe this is not bad for us to breath, drink, and land on our skin?
What a thing to be a cumulative environmental toxin.
And nor is it related to geoengineering, solar radiation management, or even chemtrails.