reply to post by lemmehowdt
I was very interested to read your concerns regarding aluminium; I was researching the effects of mercury on humans, and came across some info
regarding mercury contamination which referenced the EPA's stance on Aluminium. They state they do not consider it a toxic element, so do not have
any restrictions, limitations or suggestions regarding its effects on the environment?
Basically, the EPA will impose restrictions on how much mercury can be dumped in our environment, but they won't even consider thinking
about restrictions on how much aluminium can be dumped in our environment.
Prion diseases are
serious!
If this is the case (that alum contamination leads to prion disease), why would you suppose the EPA won't implement restrictions on outputting the
element into the environment? Could this lend credence to the suggestion that the dispersion (whether accidental or deliberate) of this element is
not restricted,
as it is vital in geo-engineering projects?
Here's the official EPA spiel regarding aluminium:
Aluminum
Toxicity information about aluminum is generally lacking. It has been determined that fish tend to be more sensitive to aluminum
toxicity than aquatic invertebrates (Sparling et al. 1997). Aluminum can cause pulmonary and developmental problems. Aluminum toxicity has been linked
to soil pH--the amount of soluble aluminum, rather than the total aluminum concentration in the soil. Soils at a site with a pH greater than 5.5 can
generally be considered non-toxic in terms of aluminum.
(my emphasis)
Source:
EPA toxicological profiles
It seems the EPA doesn't take aluminium too seriously... In comparison, here's their statement (from the same source) regarding
arsenic:
In plants, arsenic has been shown to cause wilting, chlorosis, browning, dehydration, mortality, and inhibition of light activation (Eisler
1988a). Arsenic is a carcinogen (cancer-causing), teratogen, and possible mutagen (causing mutations in genes/DNA) in mammals (ATSDR 1993). Chronic
exposure can result in fatigue, gastrointestinal distress, anemia, neuropathy, and skin lesions that can develop into skin cancer in mammals. It can
cause death in soil microbiota and earthworms. Cancer-causing and genetic mutation-causing effects occur in aquatic organisms, with those effects
including behavioral impairments, growth reduction, appetite loss, and metabolic failure. Aquatic bottom feeders are more susceptible to arsenic. In
birds tolerance to arsenic varies among species, but effects include destruction of gut blood vessels, blood-cell damage, muscular incoordination,
debility, slowness, jerkiness, falling, hyperactivity, fluffed feathers, drooped eyelids, immobility, seizures, and systemic, growth, behavioral, and
reproductive problems (Stanley et al. 1994; Whitworth et al. 1991; Camardese et al. 1990).
Note the correlation between a public perception of toxicity and the amount of info they put into their statements?
EPA staff writer: "EVERYONE knows that arsenic is toxic, so we'd better list a load of studies and details of illness caused by the
substance. Conversely - aluminium is used in soda cans, so people don't believe it's toxic. Therefore, we can get away with a blase statement
pandering to the public's preconceived notions, conveniently ignoring the horrific diseases that alum dispersion can apparently cause..."
My questions:
Are there any significant journal studies supporting the links between aluminium and prion disease? Why are the EPA able to get away with BS science
in this way? Why are more scientists not questioning their failure to identify and highlight the dangers of aluminium toxicity?
My preliminary conclusion regarding the above questions - within the context of everything else I'm learning about the chemtrailing subject - is as
follows:
Aluminium is useful for geo-engineering, and as a result, 'someone' has leaned on the EPA to ensure that a 'fluoride-like-scam' is
repeated over the next 50 years or so while they chuck a load of aluminium into the atmosphere...
Oh and by the way, and here's their little snippet about Barium:
Barium
Elevated levels of barium can induce a wide range of effects in mammals including gastrointestinal distress, muscular paralysis, and cardiovascular
effects. Barium is does not bioaccumulate, and concentrations in higher species rarely exceed 10 mg/kg (Moore 1991).
Note the poor grammar! Maybe someone was in a rush to edit something...
************************** *****************************
Also, while checking sources for this post, I came across a neat little article about the EPA and HHS reversals on their 'fluoride is good for you'
stance (a little off-topic, but useful to show the type of collusion that can exist as the result of a little industrial lobbying):
EPA and HHS Reverses Stance on Fluoride – i.e. They Finally Admit that Your Tap Water is
Poisoned
60 years later and we finally realised that adding fluoride to the water was a scam - to allow for widespread dumping of a toxic industrial byproduct
into the water-table??? The guy who represented the industry at the time became the head of the HHS after the arguments?
We are dumb with a
capital 'D'.
Some little gems in that article, worth checking out.
Thanks to PianoPraze for the thread, and to Dr Lenny Thyme for taking the time to join us here in the midst of these most controversial of
discussions. Star and Flag.!!!
Fly.
That is all, peace out. 
