The movie
What in the World are the Spraying has created quite a stir with the “chemtrail” crowd. Besides the usual talk about how
“normal” contrails cannot persist and spread, much is made of some testing done in the Lake Shasta area of Northern California. Some scary numbers
are discussed. Surely these high levels of aluminum (and barium and strontium) must be falling 6 or 7 miles from those “chemtrails” crossing the
sky overhead.
Let’s look at the test results used in the movie.
ihost.nu...
Let’s start with the soil samples so frighteningly high in aluminum. The soil under Frances Mangel's house tested at 13,600 mg/k!. Brookings,
Oregon; 38,000 mg/kg! Big numbers! 38,000 somethings must be a lot! But is it?
38,000 mg/kg is 38 grams per kilogram. That's 38 grams per thousand grams. That's 3.8%. Is 3.8% a lot? Let’s check. According the chart in the book
linked below, the percentage of aluminum oxide in California soils ranged from 1.63 to 32.42. That translates to between 16,300 and 324,200 mg/kg.
Samples from various locations in North America ranged from 3.26% to 14.16% (32,600 to 141,600 mg/kg). Oh, I should point out that these tests were
done prior to 1920. Before jets. Before “chemtrails”. 3.8% doesn't seem to be a big deal.
Soil Science
What about that sample from the snows of Mt. Shasta? Mt. Shasta is a pretty big mountain. They don’t say where they collected the snow (in this
test) and I doubt they climbed to the top of the mountain for their sample but let's continue. The test shows 368 μg/L for aluminum. That’s
micrograms per liter of water. That is the equivalent of 0.368 mg/L (milligrams per liter). Aluminum is not considered toxic by the EPA so they have
no enforceable standards for maximum allowable levels in drinking water. They do have Secondary levels though. These levels do not represent health
concerns but possible “cosmetic” or “aesthetic” effects. Those levels are set at from 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L, so if you drank the melted snow
sample it might have tasted funny. California sets the Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum in drinking water at 1.0 mg/L. California says you could
use snow melt from Mt. Shasta as your water supply (as far as the aluminum level is concerned).
But where did the aluminum in the (supposedly) pristine snow sample come from? What about the aluminum in the other water samples? Remember that book
from 1920? A chart in that book shows that the smaller the soil particles are, the higher the percentage of aluminum they contain. What does that have
to do with anything? Dust. Dust blowing in the wind. The finer the dust, the more aluminum. Still, some of those numbers seem awfully high don’t
they? Well, yes. Because the samples were taken from the bottom of ponds where dust carried by the wind and dirt carried by surface runoff collect.
Where water evaporates and concentrations increase. And that’s the other misleading aspect of the presentation of the test results in the movie.
There is nothing to compare the levels to. All that is given is the amount of aluminum compared to the amount of water. It has been shown that
aluminum can make up a significant percentage of “pristine” soils. In others words, compared to the amount of iron found in soil, aluminum is
generally quite plentiful. But compared to silicon, it runs a close to distant second. So where in those water samples are the silicon levels? Where
are the iron levels. We can’t compare the water tests to the soil tests because they measure the amount of aluminum compared to a bunch of other
stuff in the dirt. All the water samples show is the amount of aluminum compared to…water. Where’s the other stuff? Without those numbers there is
nothing to compare to. There is no way of knowing if the aluminum levels are higher than they should be, much less a way to connect the aluminum to
“chemtrails”. The same thing applies to the strontium and barium found. Both are naturally occurring components of dirt.
So. Are the makers of the video ignorant in disregarding these issues? Are they stupid? Or are they being deliberately deceptive?
edit on 3/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)