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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Here is a link to the EPA showing the MCLG for drinking water. It is 2 mg/L(that's 2000mcg/L).

Link

The PDF link I gave earlier shows the LD50 from various tests. Typically above 100,000mcg.

190mcg/L is well below the average daily consumption for a human.




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
You are claiming there is an issue with the levels in blood - so you have the burden of proof.

I met that burden by explaining that the blood tests cannot be "invalidated" as you see they did on metabunk.com, and I still maintain nobody has "debunked" the correlation I noted above.



originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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.

Not necessarily. I established above why you cannot simply conclude that between 0 - 400 mcg/L barium is a "safe" range. It has been repeatedly been suggested that the elevated level found in the blood tests doesn't indicate a danger and this is not supported by the testimony of the individuals in the video. Nor is it supported by the general findings of NMS Labs as noted above.



originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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.

Rambling? Like I said above, that's just a cheap jab designed to discredit me. To explain how statistics like what you see in blood tests can be misinterpreted takes a good deal of detail. I needed to make it explicit because it's obvious the distortions are being ignored, particularly at metabunk.com, which other members have linked to as supposedly a credible source of information.


I'm watching for all the posts that will now predictably follow to distract readers from the fact that these blood tests were indeed a target to be invalidated by "debunkers" --which I maintain was a particularly lame approach given they misrepresented that the blood tests were all "normal."


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:58:35 -0600201535312 by Petros312 because: Addition



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

no it's not a cheap jab - rambling is what you do - even your shortish response above is a ramble in eth sense it tries to hide reality behind something that looks vaguely like it might be scientific in some manner.

But in reality it is not - you aer just rearranging words to try to avoid having to acknowledge that het blood tests show no evidence of ahazard, and you are using argument from ignorance to try to make others prove your baseless claim false.

Again you are saying stuff that doesn't support the position you want to claim.

the metabunk debate does not "invalidate the blood tests" - it invalidates the conclusions that the blood tests show something hazardous.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: anton74
Here is a link to the EPA showing the MCLG for drinking water. It is 2 mg/L(that's 2000mcg/L).

Link

The PDF link I gave earlier shows the LD50 from various tests. Typically above 100,000mcg.

190mcg/L is well below the average daily consumption for a human.


That's great but it pertains to DRINKING WATER. Now provide the link for EPA guidelines for barium as an airborne particulate because that would be relevant given we are talking about people in a region of the USA who suspect it was something they were breathing, not metabolizing through their digestion of water containing barium.

I'm also not quite ready to accept at face value what the EPA says is a tolerable limit for barium in drinking water. They have "tolerable" limits for lead, mercury, and arsenic too.


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:21:42 -0600201542312 by Petros312 because: addition



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Here is a link to a Pro-chemtrail site. Even they show that Zanna's levels are trivial.

Rense



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Petros312
the metabunk debate does not "invalidate the blood tests" - it invalidates the conclusions that the blood tests show something hazardous.


Nothing but double-speak.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: anton74
Here is a link to the EPA showing the MCLG for drinking water. It is 2 mg/L(that's 2000mcg/L).

Link

The PDF link I gave earlier shows the LD50 from various tests. Typically above 100,000mcg.

190mcg/L is well below the average daily consumption for a human.


That's great but it pertains to DRINKING WATER. Now provide the link for EPA guidelines for barium as an airborne particulate because that would be relevant given we are talking about people in a region of the USA who suspect it was something they were breathing, not metabolizing through their digestion of water containing barium.


The 231pg PDF gives you all the info. There is a link there to the EPA and they mention that as well. Apparently you did bother reading any of it.

Do you have an outside source to back up Zanna's claims?

Try this.

link
edit on 4-2-2015 by anton74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2015 by anton74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: Petros312

Here is a link to a Pro-chemtrail site. Even they show that Zanna's levels are trivial.

Rense



WHERE in this information does it show that Zanna's barium level of 130 mcg/L was "trivial?" More importantly, if you're paying attention, where does it show that there are no individuals who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of barium as an environmental toxin? Why does nobody care about anything but OVER-generalized information?

That link actually addresses a troublesome concern:



Subchronic and chronic inhalation exposure of human populations to barium-containing dust can result in a benign pneumoconiosis called "baritosis." This condition is often accompanied by an elevated blood pressure but does not result in a change in pulmonary function.



edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:24:31 -0600201531312 by Petros312 because: wording



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

You have to actually read it.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
"Normal" barium levels in blood are 80-400 micro-grams per liter - it has been known for ages and is identified a couple of times here.

The triviality of 130ug/L is easily derived from this:


3.1.2 Subchronic Toxicity

3.1.2.1 Human An experiment testing the subchronic toxicity of barium chloride on human volunteers was conducted by Wones et al. (1990). The diets of 11 male subjects were controlled. They were given 1.5 L/day of distilled and charcoal-filtered drinking water that contained 0 mg/L barium for weeks 1 and 2, 5 mg/L for weeks 3 to 6, and 10 mg/L for weeks 7 to 10. No clinically significant effects were observed in blood pressures, serum chemistry, urinalysis, or electrocardiograms. The 10 mg/L (0.21 mg/kg/day) dose was identified as a NOAEL.


Which is summarized in the Exect summaey as:


Subchronic and chronic oral or inhalation exposure primarily affects the cardiovascular system resulting in elevated blood pressure. A lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) of 0.51 mg barium/kg/day based on increased blood pressure was observed in chronic oral rat studies (Perry et al. 1983), whereas human studies identified a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 0.21 mg barium/kg/day (Wones et al. 1990, Brenniman and Levy 1984).


130 micrograms per liter of blood amounts to a total blood barium load of about 650 micrograms for a 70 kg human male (who has about 5 liters of blood), or a total of 0.65 miligrams......viz a NOAEL of .21mg/kg/day - or approx. 14.7 grams PER DAY for that 70kg male - or 22 times the total amount present in that blood.

you have nothing - you are obfuscating and dissembling.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: Petros312
You have to actually read it.


If YOU posted the article, YOU explain how it's relevant to what you claim, which supposedly is that it make's Zanna's elevated levels of barium "trivial." That's YOUR argument. I'm supposed to find how the article supports YOUR argument? That makes me think your link is just a distraction.


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:27:17 -0600201517312 by Petros312 because: Wording



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

How about this, since I posted what I thought was normal limits, you show me what a toxic level for barium in the blood is. I am not necessarily disputing any of the toxic levels, again, I am interested in your reasoning for sticking the only way these chemicals could have arrived inside 10 of the 20 people you noted is chemtrails.

For the toxic stuff, I am trying to learn something new. I honestly don't' know.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
you have nothing - you are obfuscating and dissembling.


Another cheap jab.

When someone goes through the pains of thoroughly explaining a topic like how statistics are misrepresented or distorted, in very simple terms, this is not obfuscation. Ironically, you present one study about barium in drinking water and another that pertains to rats, and you present them as relevant to a discussion about elevated blood levels of barium suspected to be caused by an aerosol associated with jet exhaust or chemicals proposed for geoengineering?

PLUS, as evidenced by your focus, readers can now see that there are indeed people here who continue to try and "debunk" the notion that these blood tests show elevated levels of barium that may be hazardous.




edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:43:45 -0600201545312 by Petros312 because: link; bold text



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312
First, read the post above.

It shows a LOAEL of .51 mg barium /kg/day. Acute doses of 8 grams (that's 800,000 mcg) can be fatal. LD50 is 1,000,000 mcg.


edit on 4-2-2015 by anton74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312


Another cheap jab.


Only cheap because they are easy and true.


When someone goes through the pains of thoroughly explaining a topic like how statistics are misrepresented or distorted, in very simple terms, this is not obfuscation.


If someone HAD shown that statistics were being distorted then that would be useful.

But someone did not. someone made claims that they didn't know what they were looking at but they were suer they did know because they wanted them to be:


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.


so there you have it - you don't know what the figure is based on, but it must be based on the average...even tho' you dont' know that.

Tell me again how that is not obfuscating and dissembling??



Ironically, you present one study about barium in drinking water and another that pertains to rats,


The study and information at Rense includes data about rats AND humans - someone else suggested you should actually read things - I can only reiterate that.

quote] and you present them as relevant to a discussion about elevated blood levels of barium suspected to be caused by an aerosol associated with jet exhaust or chemicals proposed for geoengineering?

what elevated blood levels? We've already shown that all eth blood levels so far reported are well within the normal range expected in humans.



PLUS, as evidenced by your focus, readers can now see that there are indeed people here who continue to try and "debunk" the notion that these blood tests show elevated levels of barium that may be hazardous.



Absolutely - there is no evidence at all that the blood levels that have been reported are in any way hazardous, and they have been shown to be within the normal range expected of human blood - that is exactly what debunking is - removing the bunk.

congratulations on realizing that - now all you have to do is stop spreading bunk and you might find a little less frustration.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I think Petros' argument is actually not even wrong - these gems are few and far between in real life....but a little more common on here!!




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312
there are indeed people here who continue to try and "debunk" the notion that these blood tests show elevated levels of barium that may be hazardous.





There are also people here who are waiting for you to show how those levels are toxic to humans. The ball is in your court. Just show what the toxic levels of barium in human blood is. You may have a valid argument, but without anything other than opinions from you, the documents provided tell a much different story.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Petros312
there are indeed people here who continue to try and "debunk" the notion that these blood tests show elevated levels of barium that may be hazardous.





There are also people here who are waiting for you to show how those levels are toxic to humans. The ball is in your court. Just show what the toxic levels of barium in human blood is. You may have a valid argument, but without anything other than opinions from you, the documents provided tell a much different story.


Honestly... that's not really fair to ask. There are a limited number of studies and several factors come into play with regards to "toxic" levels in humans... age, general health, pregnancy, etc...

Here's the toxicological profile for Barium provided by the CDC. I wouldn't want it in my drinking water.

Toxicological Profile for Barium



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

I doubt I'd want to drink it either, but if this is such a huge problem, knowing if it's a "real" problem is important. We have the only documents stating the levels mentioned are normal. Then we have Petros and the video claiming the levels are high and dangerous. They may well be, but so far, the documents are against that idea.

Anyone who feels the levels of these elements in the blood of the people listed in the movie are dangerous, needs to provide something other than opinion as to the reason WHY they are dangerous. (unless I am completely out of line, which I would hope would at least warrant some logical reason why)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Who cares if barium is toxic! They're using it to make the sky a giant hologram, not poison us! Come on people.




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join