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.

 

A report on the dangers of SRM.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
www.ehjournal.net...


Abstract
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale manipulation of environmental processes that affects the Earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of climate change. Injecting sulfate aerosol precursors and designed nanoparticles into the stratosphere to (i.e., solar radiation management [SRM]), has been suggested as one approach to geoengineering. Although much is being done to unravel the scientific and technical challenges around geoengineering, there have been few efforts to characterize the potential human health impacts of geoengineering, particularly with regards to SRM approaches involving stratospheric aerosols. This paper explores this information gap. Using available evidence, we describe the potential direct occupational and public health impacts of exposures to aerosols likely to be used for SRM, including environmental sulfates, black carbon, metallic aluminum, and aluminum oxide aerosols. We speculate on possible health impacts of exposure to one promising SRM material, barium titanate, using knowledge of similar nanomaterials. We also explore current regulatory efforts to minimize exposure to these toxicants. Our analysis suggests that adverse public health impacts may reasonably be expected from SRM via deployment of stratospheric aerosols. Little is known about the toxicity of some likely candidate aerosols, and there is no consensus regarding acceptable levels for public exposure to these materials. There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management. We offer several recommendations intended to help characterize the potential occupation and public health impacts of SRM, and suggest that a comprehensive risk assessment effort is needed before this approach to geoengineering receives further consideration.


This is likely the beginning of many studies to be done on the effects SRM might have. SRM is Solar Radiation Management, which is proposed to be spreading aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic volcanic eruptions and aid in cooling the planet.

The chemtrail community latched on to this topic as a last ditch effort to save a sad and pathetic conspiracy that was dying. The damage that has been done to this topic with regard to nutters clinging to bits and pieces of this to promote "chemtrails" is palpable. Most cringe with the "oh no, it's them" when geo-engineering is mentioned, when in fact, it's a real issue that should be looked at closely and by many. This is why I won't leave this topic alone. It's too important. One day, a decision to start SRM might take place, and based on public knowledge, it might happen below the radar. We need to be aware of what's being done, and what's being discussed. Sadly, most here who claim to care about the Earth are merely paying lip service, and pretending to give a #.

If any chemtrail believers actually do want to venture into reality, this is the subject you should be putting your efforts into. (IMHO) but you need to learn from the people who are involved with this, the one's who really do know what's going on and how it works. Otherwise, just post pictures of contrails and tell everyone to look up.




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Nice find.

Personally, I believe there will come a time when our atmosphere won't be able to handle the Suns radiation to a point that it will be extremely harmful to most living organisms on Earth. When that happens, or when it gets close to happening, then global engineering will have to be done (in one way or another).

I think the SRM is a good first step, but would need some fail safes to ensure we don't cool too much. But as the article you linked to was saying, trying to find something that isn't harmful to us is also a concern.

Would it come down to the lesser of two evils? Increased solar radiation to the extent of killing us quickly. Or, SRM that have some nasty effects on human (and other biological bodies)?

I'm sure they will find a way to make SRM less, or not, harmful to us in the future though.

On a side tangent.....don't forget to look up



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I keep hoping that what we are in is just another cycle and it will correct itself in time. But I can't help but think this is a band aid over something that if real, needed stitches. We can do a whole lot to put things back as they were, before we need to resort to spraying stuff and not fully comprehending the ramifications of such an action.

Re-forestation seems like the easiest step. If a cleaner energy was to be found, (and if big oil went bankrupt and allowed it to happen) we might reverse this in the same time span it took to created it. (if it really is an issue)

I just don't trust us to do something of this scale without screwing something up.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The way I see it is this. We are in a natural cycle that's been going on for millennia. That being said, I also believe we've sped things up considerably.

We always here about holes and thinning in the ozone layer. I think you're right about your bandaid/stitches analogy. But whose to say in 50 years someone won't have found something to plug the hole, repair the thinning and so on? Technology/medical science and, well, everything is moving at such an incredible rate that I'd be surprised if someone won't at least come up with a better idea.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

SRM is exactly the sort of large scale project that can potentially make things much, much worse. I would rather build sea-walls around ports than run the risk of accidentally triggering an ice age.
edit on 26-1-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

oh come on - dont you see the level of disinfo you have uncovered ?????????????????

is so " obvious " the report you cite allows them deniability of the " chemtrails " they are " spraying " as - they can point to the report and claim that thats evidence that they are not spraying

sheesh - wake up - look up

disclaimer - < CENSORED > *

* this disclaimer violated the ATS terms and conditions on 14 points

if you needed to read the disclaimer then < CENCORED >



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I don't think this thread will get even that much of a response from chemtrail theorists.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

SRM is exactly the sort of large scale project that can potentially make things much, much worse. I would rather build sea-walls around ports than run the risk of accidentally triggering an ice.


How would sea walls stop solar radiation?

SRM=Solar Radiation Management



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

SRM is exactly the sort of large scale project that can potentially make things much, much worse. I would rather build sea-walls around ports than run the risk of accidentally triggering an ice age.


How would sea walls stop solar radiation?

SRM=Solar Radiation Management


Exactly, sea walls are a safer alternative, they would stop the rising sea from inundating ports. SRM could potentially set off a vicious circle of cooling, leading to glaciation.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

SRM is exactly the sort of large scale project that can potentially make things much, much worse. I would rather build sea-walls around ports than run the risk of accidentally triggering an ice age.


How would sea walls stop solar radiation?

SRM=Solar Radiation Management


Exactly, sea walls are a safer alternative, they would stop the rising sea from inundating ports. SRM could potentially set off a vicious circle of cooling, leading to glaciation.


So to counteract solar radiation you would build sea walls to stop the rising sea levels?

That's treating a symptom, but ignoring the disease.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
As global warming becomes more severe, won't evaporation cause water vapor to block solar heating to a greater degree?.

These people need to stop messing around with things they know too little about.

Acting on Theories and hypotheses could potentially do more damage than good considering the natural potential for environmental systems to balance themselves.

Good intentions don't make up for bad ideas.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


So to counteract solar radiation you would build sea walls to stop the rising sea levels?


Why would anyone want to counteract solar radiation? We need insolation for plants to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and food! That is one reason why SRM is so dangerous. Mega-volcanoes can cause a decrease in light reaching the Earth's surface, resulting in famine. This is believed to be what happened around 500 CE, and is known to have happened in Europe in the 1700s.


That's treating a symptom, but ignoring the disease.


Climate is not a disease. We need to adapt society to climate, not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think you're missing the point completely.

No one is on about completely neutralising solar radiation. It's about managing it so not too much comes down to earth. Too much can have some very serious effects, just as not enough.

Also, at this moment in time, it wouldn't be something anyone would do as it can't be refined properly to serve the correct purpose. That's why it's still being talked about and not being done.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner


As global warming becomes more severe, won't evaporation cause water vapor to block solar heating to a greater degree?.


Not necessarily. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. If the water vapor causes clouds to form, that would increase the Earth's albedo and it would cool things off. If too much sunlight is reflected, the water could be deposited as snow, cooling the atmosphere further and leading to an ice age. On the other hand, if the water vapor is not carried aloft to form clouds, the humidity near the ground could make things warmer.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


I think you're missing the point completely.


You're the one who thinks SRM is feasible, not me.


No one is on about completely neutralising solar radiation. It's about managing it so not too much comes down to earth. Too much can have some very serious effects, just as not enough.


The surface are of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. Fine tuning insolation over that area is not possible. Adaptation is the only viable path.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TerryDon79


I think you're missing the point completely.


You're the one who thinks SRM is feasible, not me.


No one is on about completely neutralising solar radiation. It's about managing it so not too much comes down to earth. Too much can have some very serious effects, just as not enough.


The surface are of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. Fine tuning insolation over that area is not possible. Adaptation is the only viable path.


I'm not saying it's feasible at all. Not in its current state of theory. Look at my first reply.

I do believe that in the future we will have a solution for increased solar radiation. Be it some form of SRM, orbital mirrors, gm plants/trees etc. Who knows?

As for us adapting? If solar radiation gets to the point where we can't step foot outside for being radiated I think our "adaptation" won't possible as it will be too late.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I tend to agree with DJW001 on this. I think we would have a much better chance of screwing things up massively, before we got lucky and found a way to adjust the global thermostat.

The climate has changed in the past, and regardless of our existence or damage, it will change again. How much influence we have on the whole cycle remains to be seen. But we will have to adapt to those changes. If it means letting Miami wash away into the ocean, then so be it. Perhaps in the future, we will learn and not build superstructures at sea level a few feet from the ocean.

It's just sad that all the chemtrail folks are the ones' claiming to care about this, yet, they are too busy chasing clouds to comprehend a discussion like this.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

As for us adapting? If solar radiation gets to the point where we can't step foot outside for being radiated I think our "adaptation" won't possible as it will be too late.


People already live in some pretty inhospitable conditions. (by choice) and they adapted. If global warming attacks us and the temps jump up 20 degrees, I can see Alaska land becoming a pretty hot commodity. (investment opportunity)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


I do believe that in the future we will have a solution for increased solar radiation. Be it some form of SRM, orbital mirrors, gm plants/trees etc. Who knows?


There are already viable mitigation proposals on the table, but there is a lack of will to implement them. Roads could be painted white to increase local albedo and plants could be raised on rooftops to increase photosynthesis. Obviously, the failed suburban developments from the real estate bubble should be scrapped and returned to agriculture, if not the wild.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: network dude

oh come on - dont you see the level of disinfo you have uncovered ?????????????????

is so " obvious " the report you cite allows them deniability of the " chemtrails " they are " spraying " as - they can point to the report and claim that thats evidence that they are not spraying

sheesh - wake up - look up

disclaimer - < CENSORED > *

* this disclaimer violated the ATS terms and conditions on 14 points

if you needed to read the disclaimer then < CENCORED >


Funny enough, this was used on another site as proof of spraying. The one's using it seem to have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension. It is very useful information though.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join