In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OneManArmy

I never once called you a liar.

No?

Your bad tempered friend as you like to call him was correct.

My bad-tempered 'friend' accused me of lying outright. You say he was correct. That amounts to calling me a liar.

You call me rude, while being sarcastic and condescending to your "angry friend".

When people are sarcastic and condescending towards me, I repay them in the same coin.

So because I said someone was correct when they called you out on your claim that...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted earlier. As you would have noticed if you had bothered to read even the table of contents.

No it is not. As what you yourself also posted confirms with...

No data are available on respiratory tract absorption of barium in humans. Animal studies provide evidence that barium compounds, including poorly water-soluble compounds such as barium sulfate, are absorbed from the respiratory tract. Morrow et al. (1964) estimated that the biological half-time of 131BaSO4 in the lower respiratory tract was 8 days in dogs
inhaling 1.1 :g/L barium sulfate (count median diameter [CMD] of 0.10 :m, Fg of 1.68) for 30­ 90 min. Twenty-four hours after an intratracheal injection of 133BaSO4, 15.3% of the radioactivity was cleared from the lungs. The barium sulfate was cleared via mucociliary clearance mechanisms (7.9% of initial radioactive burden) and via lung-to-blood transfer (7.4%
of radioactivity) (Spritzer and Watson, 1964). Clearance half-times of 66 and 88 days were calculated for the cranial and caudal regions of the trachea in rats intratracheally administered 2 :g 133BaSO4 (CMD of 0.34 :m, Fg of 1.7) (Takahashi and Patrick, 1987).

Now Im not sure of your interpretation of the word person, but persons are people as in human beings. Not dogs, not rats, and not anything else, except maybe a corporate person, but I dont think they suffer with barium poisoning.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: network dude
The truth is that barium, like most light metals, simply isn't very toxic.

Its not light and its very toxic. As I have shown.

So you are saying that falsehoods are the truth. You are spreading disinformation, either on purpose or by making the same assuption I made about the EPA document. That it would hold the answers, when it doesnt.
Data is very limited, the data on respiratory tract absorption is NON EXISTENT.

You are making assumptions about the nature of barium also and calling it "truth".
You assume its light and base its toxicity on that false assumption.

Yes he was correct, you are spreading disinformation, I dont know if thats on purpose or not, thats between you two.
Do I have to qualify every point of agreement with someone else, a special clause stating Im not accusing you of lying all just for you?

Thats a stretch, it really is. Im calling you a liar because I agreed with something someone else said.
But if you say so.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But maybe just concentrate on things I actually say, rather than theoretical assumed presumptions of deeper meanings of calling someone correct, that do not exist. It must be a conspiracy.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I know what I see & I choose to believe what I want.

Maybe not, could be holograms.

Our world is going to hell in a handbasket

Not very optimistic myself sometimes

exposing chemtrails as real isn't a high priority of mine

That's too bad but seems to be common. Seems no believers have any interest in proving it.

nor would it affect the waking nightmare we currently live in.

Maybe Pres. Wigington could change that?

a reply to: mrthumpy

If someone was wanting to prove that barium in in the environment was from geoengineering projects then all they would have to do is look for those particles.

Nobody will find them, because nobody will go looking for them.

Here's the truth about chemtrailers: they already know they're wrong. They know that if they go looking for evidence they will not find it, that their 'conspiracy theory' is really a desperate fantasy. For some reason, however, they are compelled to embrace it and insist upon its reality.

##SNIPPED##

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: mrthumpy

If someone was wanting to prove that barium in in the environment was from geoengineering projects then all they would have to do is look for those particles.

Nobody will find them, because nobody will go looking for them.

Shame because that would be their 'smoking gun', just like a sample from an actual trail which showed something other than exhaust products. They don't seem interested in that either

Lest it be thought that the post I had removed was nothing but an angry rant, allow me to point out that it did contain specific, page-numbered references to portions of the EPA document under discussion: portions in which there are several pages of discussion about the inhalation of barium and its observed effects. This work was done on people who had accidentally inhaled barium salts. The reason there are no human studies is, of course, that such studies would be unethical and dangerous.

I can't be bothered going to the trouble of linking it all again. In fact, I've had about enough of this.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Lest it be thought that the post I had removed was nothing but an angry rant, allow me to point out that it did contain specific, page-numbered references to portions of the EPA document under discussion: portions in which there are several pages of discussion about the inhalation of barium and its observed effects...I can't be bothered going to the trouble of linking it all again...

If you can be bothered enough to look above here you'll see it's already been done. It was noted that of the very limited case studies available, inhalation of barium particles appears to be the cause of lung disease and hypertension for human beings, which means your selected research indicates the exact opposite of what you claim above:

originally posted by: Astyanax
'What happens when humans inhale barium' is: nothing. That is what the document concludes, and that is what studies to date have shown. That document is a survey of the literature; it is complete, i.e. exhaustive. If you don't like its conclusions, tough.

Do you understand?

##SNIPPED##

a reply to: Astyanax

This one isn't going to measure up. Best to throw it back, and find a better pond.
The trebble hooks are rusty and blunt. Much better fishing down the road.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Lest it be thought that the post I had removed was nothing but an angry rant, allow me to point out that it did contain specific, page-numbered references to portions of the EPA document under discussion: portions in which there are several pages of discussion about the inhalation of barium and its observed effects. This work was done on people who had accidentally inhaled barium salts. The reason there are no human studies is, of course, that such studies would be unethical and dangerous.

I can't be bothered going to the trouble of linking it all again. In fact, I've had about enough of this.

You mean the same things I had already stated. You then come along and use to support your own argument.
You didnt rub my nose in anything. There is nothing in your removed post that hasnt already been stated by me.

Are you saying that the EPA are lying when they say that no data exists?
Funnily the UN said exactly the same thing. Are they lying too?

And also regarding your claim that "the truth is barium is a light metal and like other light metals, isnt very toxic"
How about actually addressing it before you go running away with your tail between your legs, I recall the same thing happening when I debated you over vaccinations.
Do you still stand by that statement as a statement of truth?
Or will you actually admit to and apologise for spreading disinformation and outright falsehoods, like, to your credit, you did before?

Light metals are metals of low atomic weight. The cut-off between light metals and heavy metals varies. Lithium, beryllium, sodium, magnesium and aluminium are almost always included. Additional period 4 element metals up to nickel are often included as well. Metals heavier than nickel are usually called heavy metals. Light metals are generally less toxic than heavy metals. Beryllium is toxic, but it is rarely found in large concentrations. Vanadium, not always counted as a light metal, is also toxic. Other light metals are toxic in large amounts.

Source

26 Fe Iron 55.845(2)
27 Co Cobalt 58.933194(4)
28 Ni Nickel 58.6934(4) 2
29 Cu Copper 63.546(3) 2
30 Zn Zinc 65.38(2) 2
31 Ga Gallium 69.723(1)
32 Ge Germanium 72.630(8)
33 As Arsenic 74.921595(6)
34 Se Selenium 78.971(8)
35 Br Bromine 79.904 6
36 Kr Krypton 83.798(2) 1, 3
37 Rb Rubidium 85.4678(3) 1
38 Sr Strontium 87.62(1) 1, 2
39 Y Yttrium 88.90584(2)
40 Zr Zirconium 91.224(2) 1
41 Nb Niobium 92.90637(2)
42 Mo Molybdenum 95.95(1) 1
43 Tc Technetium [97] 4
44 Ru Ruthenium 101.07(2) 1
45 Rh Rhodium 102.90550(2)
46 Pd Palladium 106.42(1) 1
47 Ag Silver 107.8682(2) 1
48 Cd Cadmium 112.414(4) 1
49 In Indium 114.818(1)
50 Sn Tin 118.710(7) 1
51 Sb Antimony 121.760(1) 1
52 Te Tellurium 127.60(3) 1
53 I Iodine 126.90447(3)
54 Xe Xenon 131.293(6) 1, 3
55 Cs Caesium 132.90545196(6)
56 Ba Barium 137.327(7)
57 La Lanthanum 138.90547(7) 1
58 Ce Cerium 140.116(1) 1

Source

To be fair I have seen barium described as light, medium and heavy. But as for the toxicity, that is only highly toxic.

So I ask again, do you stand by your statement as a statement of truth?

This is so ironic, I thought it was supposed to be the "chemtrail believers" that resorted to tantrums and running away when they lose the argument. I have to admit, Im really enjoying this. Its so funny that the shoe is on the other foot.

As for giving an apology on one hand and taking it back with the other, I really feel I didnt have anything to apologise for.
I just did so because I seemed to have touched a nerve with you, and I didnt want you to be upset. Cant have two angry people on one thread eh?

a reply to: OneManArmy
You misquoted him here

And also regarding your claim that "the truth is barium is a light metal and like other light metals, isnt very toxic"

Now, what he actually said

The truth is that barium, like most light metals, simply isn't very toxic.

If you quote someone, please try to be accurate.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy
You misquoted him here

And also regarding your claim that "the truth is barium is a light metal and like other light metals, isnt very toxic"

Now, what he actually said

The truth is that barium, like most light metals, simply isn't very toxic.

If you quote someone, please try to be accurate.

That is a fair point, and I apologise for it.
After all it does prevent me from being accused of calling someone a liar.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Just so I can say i walked away a winner and learned something, please correct this if it's wrong.

The original discussion started with the link to the movie Shade. A claim was made that a small group of people had been tested and found to have "high" levels of barium in their system. Through much discussion and digging, it was found that barium, in it's most common form is, well, common. (in some form of barium sulfate or other form) pure barium, which doesn't occur in nature, is highly toxic. The question that originated from that discussion, (how much barium in the blood is considered "high" has not been answered.)

Now please understand I am not asserting any of that is true, merely stating what I understand about it and asking for corrections is needed. (my attempt to limit the tears)(not you OMA)

Thanks

a reply to: network dude

The only thing you need to understand is that CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL & THEY ARE EVIL.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: rebelv

But that doesn't make sense either since the contrails are so thin. How much sunlight are they going to reflect exactly? A standard stratus cloud reflects more heat than a contrail and doesn't produce rain either. Sounds like it would make more sense to make a big fluffy cloud to reflect sunlight not a thin strip of cloud that barely covers the sky.

That's how they start out, but then they spread and spread and spread,
and on days when there's just dozens of these trails being made over an hour
so all day long, after three hours or so, the entire sky has a cloud layer.

The high altitude aircraft, produce contrails, and they are the type I was
taught about in school, and they are so high up, if it wasn't for the contrail
you wouldn't even be able to see the plane, as a matter of fact, you still
can't se the plane. I have used binoculars and then I could see the plane.

I guess, the second type of contrail (from what people are telling me), that's quite
distinct from the first, are flying, oh I estimate 10,000 to 15,000 feet maybe lower,
and I can see the aircraft that are leaving these long lasting contrails (I guess);
not exactly low, but certainly not high enough to produce temperatures in the minus
degrees.

So, I guess their is a second type of contrail (I never observed as a kid, even when
we were studying contrails at school) and believe me, I was fascinated with aircraft,
I could identify every one of them, if they were flying low enough, so I was constantly
looking up into the sky,

So, this second type of "contrail" seems to be markedly distinct with a completely
different set of characteristics of contrails I learned about in school and which I
observed until that last 15 years or so when I started noticing this new type of
"contrail"

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: network dude

The only thing you need to understand is that CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL & THEY ARE EVIL.

Actually the only thing I need to understand is that something asserted without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

a reply to: rebelv

That's how they start out, but then they spread and spread and spread,
and on days when there's just dozens of these trails being made over an hour
so all day long, after three hours or so, the entire sky has a cloud layer.

What chemical other than water can do that?

a reply to: rebelv

Most of what you have talked about seems like what contrails are. But the way they form is the moist heated air freezes around tiny particles, and they (usually) only do that at or above the 25,000 foot level, since that is where the air is cold enough and the conditions are right.

From what I understand a contrail under 15,000 feet is something of an anomaly. If we could get verification of something like that, I think this forum would get interesting quite quickly.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

As long as they aren't "real evil" I can deal with it. Baby steps.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: OneManArmy

Just so I can say i walked away a winner and learned something, please correct this if it's wrong.

The original discussion started with the link to the movie Shade. A claim was made that a small group of people had been tested and found to have "high" levels of barium in their system. Through much discussion and digging, it was found that barium, in it's most common form is, well, common. (in some form of barium sulfate or other form) pure barium, which doesn't occur in nature, is highly toxic. The question that originated from that discussion, (how much barium in the blood is considered "high" has not been answered.)

Now please understand I am not asserting any of that is true, merely stating what I understand about it and asking for corrections is needed. (my attempt to limit the tears)(not you OMA)

Thanks

You are entirely correct, a high level for barium in the blood stream cannot seem to be found. Except for that any amount of barium above 9.9mg/l can be considered high when the person is dead as a result.
A normal level for urine can be found however. So Id assume they would have a normal level for blood, but the information isnt forthcoming. And like a "dog with a bone", i have tried finding the information too.

Wouldnt it be safe to assume that given we know a normal level of barium in urine, we just do a urine test and if its considerably higher than the "normal" level, we can call that high?

At what point does "high" become toxic? Or even fatal?

With the lack of data, I would wonder if its even established what constitutes "high" other than higher than normal.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

At what point does "high" become toxic? Or even fatal?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, when the person who ingested the barium stops breathing.

ETA: thanks for clarifying.