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.

 

Chemtrails, the dismal EPIC failure.

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
*The mine known as Mineral Park near Golden Valley AZ does not produce barium as one of its products, so I do not know why it is being suspected as a source of elevated barium in the air both here and at metabunk.com


edit on -06:00America/Chicago31Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:26:38 -0600201538312 by Petros312 because: link




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
In order for me to consider your point, we first have to establish that SRM or as you say, geo-engineering, is actually taking place.

Not true at all. It could be in the jet exhaust itself for some reason (such as an additive) and it could be sprayed as an aerosol for some other reason that has nothing to do with geoengineering. You already said you don't consider my "point" about there being a correlation between 1) elevated levels of barium found in blood tests, 2) elevated barium levels in rainwater, and 3) barium found in the air from either jet exhaust or as an aerosol spray to be valid because you don't believe geoengineering is taking place and you think because barium was not measured in the jet exhaust this means it wasn't present.


originally posted by: network dude
Again, since geo-eningeering is not taking place, you need to be able to find a legitimate source for the contamination.

The strength of your claim is based on what proponents of geoengineering are telling the public. If you think that they care about public consent and would not act in secrecy to prevent public outcry over this, that's a bit too naive for me.



originally posted by: network dude
Scientists have discussed such strategies for decades, but (until recently) mostly behind closed doors, in part because they feared that speaking publicly about geoengineering would undermine efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Keith, who is McKay professor of applied physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, strongly advocates bringing discussion of geoengineering into the open. He says, “We don’t make good decisions by sweeping things under the rug.”

harvardmagazine.com...


originally posted by: network dude
Can you explain why they would use words like discussed, and discussion, if not to explain they have been talking about it?


Did you really just gloss right over the words "mostly behind closed doors?" That means SECRECY is being utilized here.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
In order for me to consider your point, we first have to establish that SRM or as you say, geo-engineering, is actually taking place.

Not true at all. It could be in the jet exhaust itself for some reason (such as an additive) and it could be sprayed as an aerosol for some other reason that has nothing to do with geoengineering. You already said you don't consider my "point" about there being a correlation between 1) elevated levels of barium found in blood tests, 2) elevated barium levels in rainwater, and 3) barium found in the air from either jet exhaust or as an aerosol spray to be valid because you don't believe geoengineering is taking place and you think because barium was not measured in the jet exhaust this means it wasn't present.


Yes, it could be in some additive (unlikely since jet fuel is tested quite rigorously but possible), or it could come from some other source. Again, I don't know for sure, but what I am trying to get you to understand is to instantly blame chemtrails for this without considering other alternatives is ludicrous. The mine only needs to move dirt since barium is already present in the earth. The dust will be spread in the direction of the wind and settle on everything including the drinking water. Or there might be something else miles away. But still,some investigation is needed before we assume it's part of a huge global conspiracy that's been going on for years, yet only affects a tiny part of the population.



originally posted by: network dude
Again, since geo-eningeering is not taking place, you need to be able to find a legitimate source for the contamination.

The strength of your claim is based on what proponents of geoengineering are telling the public. If you think that they care about public consent and would not act in secrecy to prevent public outcry over this, that's a bit too naive for me.



originally posted by: network dude
Scientists have discussed such strategies for decades, but (until recently) mostly behind closed doors, in part because they feared that speaking publicly about geoengineering would undermine efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Keith, who is McKay professor of applied physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, strongly advocates bringing discussion of geoengineering into the open. He says, “We don’t make good decisions by sweeping things under the rug.”

harvardmagazine.com...


originally posted by: network dude
Can you explain why they would use words like discussed, and discussion, if not to explain they have been talking about it?


Did you really just gloss right over the words "mostly behind closed doors?" That means SECRECY is being utilized here.


Did you really not understand this sentence?

strongly advocates bringing discussion of geoengineering into the open. He says, “We don’t make good decisions by sweeping things under the rug.”


If you are reading about it, it's not a secret anymore. You can find lots of articles and videos on David Kieth and what he has been discussing. What you won't find yet (as far as I have seen) is anything pointing to him claiming it's BEING DONE NOW.

I firmly believe we all need to be watching for signs of that in case someone does start an SRM program and not alert the public. But the evidence at this point doesn't point in that direction. IMHO


Thanks for actually discussing your point. It makes this much more fun.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




*The mine known as Mineral Park near Golden Valley AZ does not produce barium as one of its products,


No they don't but they do use it smelting copper as a deoxidizer...you really should have researched that first.

And is that not what they mine there.


The Mineral Park Mine is a open pit copper mine with an estimated 20 year life* (as at June 2013), is currently producing copper, molybdenum and silver in concentrates and cathode copper by solvent extraction/electrotwinning ("SX/EW") leach extraction. Through a two-phase expansion program, Mercator completed at the end of the third quarter 2011 the Phase II expansion to 50,000 tons per day of throughput capacity.


www.mercatorminerals.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312
*The mine known as Mineral Park near Golden Valley AZ does not produce barium as one of its products, so I do not know why it is being suspected as a source of elevated barium in the air both here and at metabunk.com



In looking for a link between copper mining and barium, I found this and thought it was worth mentioning.

Barium is chemically similar to magnesium, calcium, and strontium, being even more reactive. It always exhibits the oxidation state of +2.[2]:2 Reactions with chalcogens are highly exothermic (release energy); the reaction with oxygen or air occurs at room temperature, and therefore barium is stored under oil or inert gas atmosphere.[2]:2 Reactions with other nonmetals, such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon, and hydrogen, are generally exothermic and proceed upon heating.[2]:2–3 Reactions with water and alcohols are also very exothermic and release hydrogen gas:[2]:3

link

It's interesting that barium and strontium are both mentioned as being similar, both come from the Earth's crust and dirt, and both are mentioned in your video as being positive in blood tests. This seems like a bit more than just coincidence.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312
I'm not "fixated" on anything.


ah - well my apologies - you sure had me fooled.


Again, "normative" is not necessarily "normal." Statistics that are above the median may well be at toxic levels, and the effects of this can vary among individuals.

Typical distortion of statistics.


yes levels above the median may well be at toxic levels - got any evidence that these are?

Because all you have said is that they are above median therefore "bad" in some way shape or form.

And indeed your distortion of statistics is quite glaring - being above median is irrelevant - being at toxic levels IS relevant. So what are toxic levels?
edit on 1-2-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tags



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
yes levels above the median may well be at toxic levels - got any evidence that these are?


I find no reason to believe the testimony given in the video posted above called "Shade" is intentionally false.

Forget about Alan DiCiccio's case for the moment.


Video: 54:10 Luca Zannah says, "We went to our local doctor, of course he has no idea...so he put it on record these levels [barium 800% higher than normal from the blood test results] they're not what a normal person is supposed to have, and yes it can be deleterious for your health. It can be dangerous. Me and my wife after we received the results of this blood test started to get really concerned. After a little research, yes, I had all the symptoms of barium intoxication...we wanted to see if it was just us, me Alan and my wife, or somebody else. We decided to have a pool of people, about 20 people, and we really encouraged them to do the blood test. These people, they live in different areas between Golden Valley, Kingman, and Bull Head, some also in Phoenix, some also in Texas. As I said we had about 20 people and 90% came back with very high levels of barium or aluminum."

Assuming Luca Zannah is not intentionally making a false testimony, if you disagree his barium level was NOT elevated and NOT the source of his symptoms, you are disagreeing with a doctor.



edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:46:21 -0600201521312 by Petros312 because: video link



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

How about testimony based on false information?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

What are your thoughts on the source of their elevated levels?

Are you convinced it has to come from chemtrails, or do you think it's remotely possible that other sources could be to blame?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I am not able to find an easy to understand document showing at what levels the mentioned elements become toxic to humans.
This discussion seems way to circular at this point do to that lack of clarity.

I don't doubt that what is listed at metabunk is correct, but without a clear understanding of what these levels mean, It's very difficult to just brush off. That's why I am not arguing the levels, as much as the source. If you have something that could clear that up, it would make this much easier.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: Petros312

How about testimony based on false information?


False information from whom? -- From their own doctors and the practitioners responsible for compiling the blood test results? Why would all these people lie or be misinformed?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

For what it's worth, if you look here:
www.dcf.state.fl.us...

and go to page 9, you see the allowable limits for barium listed. Coincidentally, I think this is the same company that provided the blood work for your group.

(the concentration of barium in normal human blood is approximately 2-400mcg/l)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




False information from whom?


The people that made the video.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:48:36 -0600201536312 by Petros312 because: Post contains errors and was deleted.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
[I don't know why this posted twice. This post and the one above should be removed.]


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:54:05 -0600201505312 by Petros312 because: Double post



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312

For what it's worth, if you look here:
www.dcf.state.fl.us...

and go to page 9, you see the allowable limits for barium listed. Coincidentally, I think this is the same company that provided the blood work for your group.

(the concentration of barium in normal human blood is approximately 2-400mcg/l)



Here is a link from the CDC. If you go to #6 on additional resources you can download a 231pg PDF that gives plenty of info on Barium and covers every type of exposure.

Barium CDC



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

(the concentration of barium in normal human blood is approximately 2-400mcg/l)

No. That's what the people at metabunk.com want you to believe based on a toxicology report from NMS Labs and reported by a medical examiner in 2009.

Below is Luca Zanna's blood test from NMS Labs (which he made available to the public here mohavecountyconstitution.com... )


1. Reported Normal Level for Barium
At the lower left of the form for the blood test, done by NMS Labs in February of 2011, under the heading "Barium," it clearly says, "Reported normal: less than 10 mcg/L." Forget about what was underlined in marker as "reporting limit" because this has nothing to do with results considered to be "normal" (It's the minimal amount that can be detected). Luca Zanna's results for serum barium at 130 mcg/L is clearly above the stated normal.

I see no reason to dispute this "normal" benchmark, certainly not based on a possible range found in humans, and certainly not based on whatever the median within this range is. It must be based on an average, even if they do not disclose what the average is. Above, I already stated that one source used at metabunk.com using the "normal" levels of barium found in human blood is suspect because of the disclaimer at the website, "Spectrum Laboratories provides this information in its website as a free value to anyone who cares about environmental or chemical issues. The sources of this information could not be validated. This site is a compilation of information meant for casual reference only," which basically means they do not know the accuracy of the information placing 400 mcg/L barium as the upper limit for a "normal" finding.

From the second source used at metabunk.com to try and raise the normal limits of barium in the blood to 400 mcg/L (at www.dcf.fl.us) I see on page 9 of the medical examiner toxicology report in which NMS labs in May 2009 indicate, "The concentration of barium in normal human blood [my emphasis] is approximately 2- 400 mcg/l, most of which is found in the plasma fraction." This is not the same language you see being used in 2011, and the blood test that is relevant (from Luca Zanna) also done by NMS Labs only says regarding barium: "NMS Labs derived data: Median, 21 mcg/L; range 0 - 489 mcg/ (N = 1155)"

I also said above that a number such as this should not be referred to as "normal" even if it is common or an average (which it should be based on). The number should be referred to as statistically "normative," primarily because the term "normal" suggests that there's nothing wrong with having this amount of barium in your blood, which may not be established. What is established based on a data set of 1155 people is a benchmark by which you can claim the test result is at "elevated" levels above the normative finding, and this is referenced from 10 mcg/L.

2. The Median and Range of Results for Barium as a Point of Reference
From the test results of Zanna's blood test: "NMS Labs derived data: Median, 21 mcg/L; range 0 - 489 mcg/ (N = 1155)"
--which means out of 1155 people tested there were some people with no barium detected in their blood, the amount found that was in the middle of the entire range of test results was 21 mcg/L (which is very limited information without having the complete data set of 1155). Despite seeing that the range of barium found among these 1155 individuals goes as high as 489 mcg/L, consider what we do not know:

a) if the large majority of test results from 1155 individuals are way below the median (21 mcg/L)

b) how many from the data set of 1155 had levels of barium between the range found for Luca Zanna (130 mcg/L), and the highest amount (498 mcg/L)

c) whether or not every person who did have levels at or above 130 mcg/L had the same symptoms of barium toxicity that Luca Zanna claims to have experienced.

3. The Major Finding Expressed as a 10 - 90% Range
Then there's this very broad statement:
"10 to 90% of concentrations range from 1.8 - 165 mcg/L." Assuming this means "Most people's blood barium levels fall into the range of 1.8 to 165 mcg/L." (as quoted by the post you see at Metabunk here: www.metabunk.org... )
we still do not know:

a) if the large majority of this range is actually below the median (21 mcg/L, a number much smaller than 165 mcg/L)

b) if anyone with levels in this range from approximately 130 mcg/L and higher has any symptoms of barium toxicity, which can depend on the individual's tolerance.

*However, given everyone no doubt looks at the upper limit of 489 mcg/L and thinks this number represents "safe" levels, you should realize it's only the case that within a mere 10% of 1155 individuals do you find levels this high, which is definitely NOT the basis by which anyone should be establishing what is the upper limit of a "safe" level.



One more point about the metabunk.com attempt to "debunk" the blood test results and render them as not elevated for barium: It's interesting if you go to the metabunk link above you'll see that where one member phoned to ask a customer rep several questions he glossed right over questioning what it means for the report to say "reported normal: less than 10 mcg/L" How convenient that he didn't ask about this because, as I say, I see no reason to dispute this. The number must be based on an average finding, even if the average is not given.)


To summarize, to say "normal human blood" does not mean that the individual who has a level of 400 mcg/L barium is healthy. Nor does it mean someone with 130 mcg/L is healthy, as was Zanna's case. The term "normal human blood" actually means something based on a statistically normative finding, and the unknowns regarding the finding are outlined above. Given this language stated as "normal human blood" (and the power everyone apparently wants to assign to it), 400 mcg/L is a number that is based on the range that was found in 2009. That data set has been updated and appears as noted in Zanna's blood test results from 2011 in the specific language that reflects their finding, not what is in "normal human blood."



edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:51:16 -0600201516312 by Petros312 because: spelling



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Did you read the whole thing - it also clearly says that from almost 1200 patients the range was from 0-489, that "10-90% had from 1.8 to 168 - which includes eth reported value.

And, of course ......IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THESE VALUES ARE TOXIC.

the blood test results are not what is being debunked - it is that they represent a health hazard that is being debunked - and you have just done a fine job of not showing any evidence that any of these values represent any sort of actual hazard at all.

Well done for not supporting your case in any meaningful manner.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Did you read the whole thing - it also clearly says that from almost 1200 patients the range was from 0-489, that "10-90% had from 1.8 to 168 - which includes eth reported value.

I did address this issue above. Apparently you are not reading my posts completely.



originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
And, of course ......IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THESE VALUES ARE TOXIC.

It also does not say they are NOT toxic. Again, most people will see a range 0 - 489 mcg/L and think if this is labeled as "normal" that means safe even when it hasn't been established as so.



originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
the blood test results are not what is being debunked

Not true. Clearly at metabunk.com they are saying that the people in the Shade video are wrong about the levels of Barium being elevated, and they cite questionable sources why but no doubt they are trying to say the people who had their blood tested are wrong about their results. I believe someone above also agrees.



originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
...you have just done a fine job of not showing any evidence that any of these values represent any sort of actual hazard at all.

Nor has anyone provided the evidence to support the people in the video base their testimony on specifically FALSE information and that they were not exposed to hazardous conditions at the time of these blood tests. I see nobody disproving that there is a correlation between a) the blood tests that indicated elevated levels of barium, b) the elevated barium and aluminum in the rainwater of this region, and c) the kinds of aerosol sprays proposed for geoengineering. What I do see is a lot of distractions, cheap jabs at my points, and dismissal of a distortion of statistics being upheld as why the people at metabunk.com have "debunked" the issue presented in the Shade video.


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:38:19 -0600201519312 by Petros312 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
You are claiming there is an issue with the levels in blood - so you have the burden of proof.

the metabunk debates points out nothing more than what has already ben said here - there is nothing in the tests to suggest that ay of the levels that are reported are high enough to be any sort of health problem.

If I missed part of your post I apologise - but to be honest your posts are long and rambling and fail to make any significant point.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join