Get Your Permit: Silver Iodide Weather Modification is REAL

reply to post by weedwhacker

Mocking derision first, then topic derailing...all whilst pushing boundaries of good taste, and feigned "ignorance".

Oh please, he made 3 straight post taking my comments out of context, I explained what the context was and that no further debate about that was needed and he still goes on about it, therefore that piece of his post was irrelevant.

And here you are again taking me out of context.

You see a pattern, me too.

Everytime I'm interested in something, I start asking questions from different angles, and you people immediately start putting me or my comments in certain boxes, and attributing more more or false meaning to it.

This is prime example:

Go to my post history and read every single post I made in this thread. Almost all responses to my comments were not about what I actually had said exactly.

It's your presumptions that cause this, it's not my fault.

I even said I didn't want to get lured into a derailing discussion, the guy keeps responding to me for stuff I didn't say nor imply, and now I'm trolling.

Stick it.

Originally posted by Point of No Return

You are delusional. Why do I have to provide evidence, I'm not trying to prove anything, I said I was wondering what the effects on health are and the effects of Wmod on natural balance?

Ehm, I said I was wondering, you just said that I said I was wondering, is this supposed to be a revelation.

I never claimed it as fact, I said POSSIBLE hazards the whole time.

You keep pulling my comments out of context, and misrepresenting me.

However, statistically its not a hazard, math and environmental studies back that up. There have been environmental studies and environmental impact statements linked to multiple times, but for some reason, the people who think there is this major hazard of silver iodide pollution, do not actually take time to reference them. I mean if you are actually wonder about the effects, have you read the articles and impact statements?

I posed the question earlier, can one of you come up with any scenario where one could encounter a toxic level of AgI from cloud seeding?

And yes, if you are challenging the data, scientific reports and environmental studies, then you should have some evidence to back it up . Wondering and speculating does not count.

reply to post by firepilot


Links to studies must have been posted after my first comments about health issues and and effects on nature, so you can hardly blame me for not reading evidence that was not yet posted at the time of my post, at least I haven't seen it, what page was it on?

www.weathermodification.org...

It gives a summary of the data, along with an extensive list of research papers published regarding AgI

www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us...

59 page California Environmental Impact study. California has some of the most stringent environmental permitting processes too, and they seem to be okay with it done.

And what actually results in more pollution? Possibly a few dozen pounds of AgI scattered of a very large over over a period of time, in order to increase snowback for Hydro power, or coal emissions to generate that same extra power?

reply to post by firepilot


The first link was a report from the Weather Modification Association, it was found that it wasn't harmfull.

So not from an independant source like I asked.

The second link was to a pdf featuring a black screen.

edit; I changed a mistake I made because I didn't read properly.



[edit on 21-7-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return

The Environmental Impact Statement opened fine for me. Maybe a right click>save as would help.

CONCLUSION:
For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts of significant environmental impacts. (No Impact)

reply to post by Phage


I get 'bad encrypt dictionairy'

CONCLUSION: For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts of significant environmental impacts. (No Impact)

The proposed project? So this report was based on the effects of one individual project?

Over how long a period?

edit: Why did you not post the "above reasons", and if the project was still only proposed, how could they test it?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Point of No Return]

Umm, any project like that required an environmental impact study, before proceeding. So any project will be "proposed", until it is approved.

Did you not read all of that paper from WMA? I mean go to the very last page, with those papers and the scientists who published them. There are a couple dozen it looked like, you cant just include them as suspect too.

Its looking like there is not anything that will satisfy some of you. It is never the right kind of news story, its never the right kind of environmental study, its never the right kind of research.

Its just going to go on and on, because what some of you want is not the reality, you want "reality" to reflect the junk science and conspiratorial views. Of all the kinds of pollution out there, and even considering the kinds of pollution you are responsible for, someone there is this boogieman now of AgI in your life, but even though no one has came up with a statistical scenario that there could ever be enough exposure to it to have an effect.

Originally posted by firepilot
Umm, any project like that required an environmental impact study, before proceeding. So any project will be "proposed", until it is approved.

Did you not read all of that paper from WMA? I mean go to the very last page, with those papers and the scientists who published them. There are a couple dozen it looked like, you cant just include them as suspect too.

Its looking like there is not anything that will satisfy some of you. It is never the right kind of news story, its never the right kind of environmental study, its never the right kind of research.

Its just going to go on and on, because what some of you want is not the reality, you want "reality" to reflect the junk science and conspiratorial views. Of all the kinds of pollution out there, and even considering the kinds of pollution you are responsible for, someone there is this boogieman now of AgI in your life, but even though no one has came up with a statistical scenario that there could ever be enough exposure to it to have an effect.

Some of "us" are just asking questions, nothing to do with the big story or the little story, yet again and again there is always someone to obfuscate. "Some of you want" [your words] remark is just plain arrogant. Studies of any sort are never difinitive, just studies, the conclusions are opinions based on knowledge gained. If there are experiments conducted in studies like these for toxicology, you can be sure that something suffered. Both Aluminum, and Silver Iodide are toxic and are health threatening, and just like Asbestos in dusty forms.

What does aluminum have to do with it? Do you think the airplanes are shedding parts and pieces into fruit trees and cattle and then getting eaten?

And again, I will post the question. Can you come up with any possible scenario, where you can get exposed to a significant level of AgI? I mean so many numbers and data have been supplied...

reply to post by smurfy

Some of "us" are just asking questions, nothing to do with the big story or the little story, yet again and again there is always someone to obfuscate.

Why are you asking questions if you consider any reasonable answer to be an "obfuscation?" The general trend on this thread seems to consist of people being shocked and outraged by things that are considered common knowledge. If you (and I don't mean you, personally, but rather the collective shocked and outraged "you") don't like the answers to the questions you pose, go out and do your own research. If you truly feel that cloud seeding is dangerous, take political action. But, please, stop quibbling about who said what and focus on the issues.

reply to post by Sri Oracle


Under the Texas info heading it says many of these projects have been permitted since 2000. Isn't that the year the term "Morgellons" as we know it was coined?

reply to post by MamaDukes


No. "Morgollens" was officially suggested as a name by some housewife/mother in 2002. She just happened to have a degree in biology, and briefly (five years) worked as a lab technician in a Boston-area hospital.

Cloud seeding with silver iodide and dry ice (frozen CO2) has been going on for DECADES.

The Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization established in 2002 in honor of a two-year-old child with an unknown illness, which his mother labeled "Morgellons disease".

www.morgellons.org...

From same website, in the FAQ section:

Where did the name "Morgellons" come from?
The name comes from a condition involving "black hairs" emerging from the skin of children that was documented in France in the 1600's.

There were no airplanes performing any cloud seeding activities in the 1600s...not in France, nor here.

Therefore, "Morgollens" seems to be a chronic (and as yet undetermined cause) condition that has manifested, occasionally, for centuries.

What is the source of the skin lesions and fibers?
So far, we have no idea whether Morgellons skin lesions and related material such as colored fibers are (1) biological agents, (2) produced by such agents, (3) are products of the body’s attempt to rid itself of pathogens, or (4) an aberrant body system unrelated to any agent. Serious efforts are finally now underway to characterize the dermal-related material that should solve part of the puzzle.

Cloud seeding activities do NOT utilize any agents that could possibly account for this "phenomenon"...


Further reading, another 'take' on "Morgollens".

From the above source, this notation (in Comments, Section 3) particularly jumps out at me:

Causes and pathophysiology

Delusional parasitosis and other neuropsychological disorders:

Most dermatologists, psychiatrists, and other medical professionals view Morgellons as a new name for a well established condition, delusional parasitosis...

[edit on 22 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by firepilot

Umm, any project like that required an environmental impact study, before proceeding. So any project will be "proposed", until it is approved.

So they say it is safe beforehand, without doing field research after the project?

Umm?

Did you not read all of that paper from WMA?

I asked for independant sources. You and others were claiming that there were studies all over the place, please guide me towards the plethora of independant studies.

The study from WMA is not independant, so, no, it's not good enough.

Off course the Weather Modification association is going to say it's harmless.

Maybe they're right, but a monkey would understand that they are biased, ever heard of conflict of interest?

I also was wondering about the effects of WMod on natural weather patterns, are you aware of any research in that area?

reply to post by weedwhacker

(I am really not responding directly to "PONR" here, just using his post and selected quote snippet as example of what I have to say..

Uhuh,

reply to post by Point of No Return

You didn't push the reply button on one of my posts?

At least try to be a man about it, Wack.

Quite a good, independent, article about cloud seeding here:

science.howstuffworks.com...

I note it mentions that concerns exists about the toxicity of silver iodide ....

However, one of the big private US firms conducting such activities, Weather Modification Inc, assure us it's quite safe. Some good FAQs on their website

I can find plenty of papers studying the efficency of silver iodide for cloud seeding, but none, off hand, regarding environmental concerns about subsequent concentrations of silver iodide in soil or water.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by firepilot

 

Umm, any project like that required an environmental impact study, before proceeding. So any project will be "proposed", until it is approved.

So they say it is safe beforehand, without doing field research after the project?

Umm?

Did you not read all of that paper from WMA?

I asked for independant sources. You and others were claiming that there were studies all over the place, please guide me towards the plethora of independant studies.

The study from WMA is not independant, so, no, it's not good enough.

Off course the Weather Modification association is going to say it's harmless.

Maybe they're right, but a monkey would understand that they are biased, ever heard of conflict of interest?

So, thats basically it. Any paper they have used in their own research, is suspect. They could cite 1000 academic research papers, and those will all be suspect too.

You obviously did not look at those research papers, you claim they are all just WMA studies so therefore are not independent. You really think these groups are WMA stooges? These were NOT WMA STUDIES, it was STUDIES THE WMA CITED. Do you not understand the different in that?


US Forest Service
Environmental Science and Technology (publication)
US National Biological Service
US EPA
Desert Research Institute

Or is this yet again, an example how it will never be the right research studies, or the right people doing it, like has been demonstrated over and over?

I also was wondering about the effects of WMod on natural weather patterns, are you aware of any research in that area?

Not sure, I doubt it because there is no evidence or any foreseable speculation on how, but you are welcome to look for it yourself. I am rather tired of having to dig up everything, for the multitudes of people who have all this speculation, wondering and alarming, that apparently never reached enough alarming though to do a search of their own.

But if you can find something like that, or even come up with a way how, then go for it. But you would have to think silver iodide is the main pollutant out there we are putting into the atmosphere, and not care about the billions and billions of tons of gases and far more pollutants there.



[edit on 22-7-2010 by firepilot]

Something to keep in mind-

Weather Mod Inc.'s planes are used for other things as well- like atmospheric testing, cloud research etc...so, they are not always being used for cloud seeding.

www.weathermodification.com...


this comment is off topic as cloud seeding as nothing to do with "chemtrails"...but you could hire one of their planes to go up and sample a contrail or 10 of your choice for a definitive look at the content of any supposed "chemtrail".


Another company that does cloud seeding is North American Weather Consultants. They have several studies on the environmental impacts of cloud seeding sourced on their FAQ:

www.nawcinc.com...


Since it has been done for decades, don't you think long-term effects- if any- would have shown up. Can anyone point out a single case of silver iodide poisoning or contamination linked to cloud seeding?

..and not to nit pick- but technically the silver iodide is not "sprayed" but injected via bursting ice flares...so, no "spraying" is taking place.

You are right, they keep insisting it is sprayed out, or dumped out. They made up that terminology and they will keep insisting on that infinitum.

And you are right again, there is no evidence of any cases of anyone harmed from AgI, because the amount used is so small, its impossible to ever get exposed to enough.

But, there are cases of people having been turned blue from colloidal silver. I am going to guess there is far more collidal silver ingested by the conspiracy crowd, than silver as AgI released by cloud seeding.

Isnt it ironic, that some of these people in the conspiracy crowd, have intentionally ingested silver, to ward off the affects of their percieved fear of chemtrails and airplanes doing cloud seeding?

And some of these people have turned themselves blue in the face, LITERALLY. Its sad in a way, but in a way kinda funny too, that some people are so gullible to believe anything on a conspiracy site, that they fell for those colloidal silver junk science and turned themselves blue


[edit on 22-7-2010 by firepilot]

reply to post by Sri Oracle


I am GOING to EMPHASIZE my point using PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE CAPITALIZATION so as to prove I AM INDEED CORRECT.

Cool your jets, bro, before you start dropping chemicals too.