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.

 

How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

page: 19
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


From your link.



In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.


I would like to see the original report for myself though.


edit on 6-6-2011 by ZombieJesus because: To fix quote to ext quote.




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can you provide a link that shows the toxicity of zinc cadmium sulphide in humans and at what amounts?

I'll wait.


You're an awfully selective reader, aren't you?


One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.

While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.


www.guardian.co.uk...


First of all, I consider this source a lot more reliable than you, right off the bat.

Secondly, it's talking about only a selection of those tests that occurred from 1955 and 1963, when the full extent of what was admitted to ranged from 1940 to 1979.


When you learn to read the whole article, I'll be waiting.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 



Am I lying, about chemtrailers coming on here and being alarmed about the appearance of contrails? Am i alone in asserting this?


No, you are correct.
The only believer who seems to not be concerned by the appearance is the OP.
Pretty much everyone else gets puzzled by the appearance of persistent contrails, crossing lines, and the size and scope of the coverage during a length of time.
They overwhelmingly believe it is the appearance of a contrail that marks the difference, in their minds at least, that one is a "chemtrail" and one isn't.
If people claim otherwise, they need to go back and research "chemtrails". They don't know what they are talking about.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Zinc cadmium sulphide is not a chemical warfare agent and the population was not exposed to "huge amounts". The assessment on the effects of the Porton Down tests:

Results: About 4600 kg ZnCdS were dispersed from aircraft and ships, at times when the prevailing winds would allow large areas of the country to be covered. Cadmium released from 44 long range trials for which data are available, and extrapolated to a total of 76 trials to allow for trials with incomplete information, is about 1.2% of the estimated total release of Cd into the atmosphere over the same period. “Worst case” estimates are 10 μg Cd inhaled over 8 years, equivalent to Cd inhaled in an urban environment in 12–100 days, or from smoking 100 cigarettes.

oem.bmj.com...



In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii


The strains of bacteria which were used were harmless.

The unanimous view of the Medical Microbiologists that I consulted was that B. globigii is non-pathogenic, and that inhalation of B. globigii spores does not constitute a significant risk to health. B. globigii is now considered to be a pigmented variant of B. subtilis. I therefore asked the five senior Medical Microbiologists to assume that the B. globigii spores that was released in the Dorset Defence Trials were in fact spores of B. subtilis. None of them believed that the inhalation of one million B. subtilis spores would be a significant threat to health.


The Medical Microbiologists I consulted also agreed that the inhalation of E. coli MRE162 was likely to be of no consequence for the vast majority of exposed individuals. The suggestion that the strain could cause a blood infection in a few highly susceptible individuals was considered possible, but unlikely.

zeltus.eu...

Please present evidence that

the UK government was using their own people as guinea pigs for chemical and biological warfare agents.

I see none. The tests were dispersal tests, not tests of CBW agents.

edit on 6/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Why do you not try to make a scientific case out of it?


It's funny you started off your post in a tone like you were going to debunk everything I was saying, just to turn around and ask me a question instead. Really, it amuses me.


Why don't I try to make a scientific case out of my opinions? Simple. Because that would make me no different than you, and a hypocrite on top of it.



You want facts, but you are stating opinions as facts. And not only that you are kind of being an arse about it.


Wrong.

This is what I said:


I do think chemtrails are discernible from contrails, but I don't try to make a scientific case out of it like some fools on here, because I actually know the difference between an opinion and a fact.


You actually referenced this specific quote of mine in your response, and yet you took away a completely different statement than what I actually said. Learn to read my friend, or at least not to put words in my mouth when you are reduced to being able to making no other "argument" against what I post.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I was referring to the ATS search function.

On a regular "non conspiracy" oriented search engine, the terms would probably have to be a bit more specific, including the term "chemtrail" or something of the ilk.

ETA: the term "clear skies" isn't the greatest search term either, as there is an ATS member with the same name.
edit on 6-6-2011 by ZombieJesus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You are selectively ignoring the rest of the article to focus on the zinc cadmium sulphide alone. If you read the article, it does not say that this was all that was sprayed.



The report also reveals details of the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975. These involved US and UK military scientists spraying into the air massive quantities of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.


www.guardian.co.uk...



Now that I see I've stirred up the usual pack of dogs that hounds these threads in vain efforts to "debunk" this kind of information, I'm taking a break. It's clear that the best of you can only mount arguments that blatantly neglect facts in the article I posted, resort to the usual rhetoric and all the rest. Knock yourself out kissing up to murdering government asses. I'll be back later.

edit on 6-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





It's funny you started off your post in a tone like you were going to debunk everything I was saying, just to turn around and ask me a question instead. Really, it amuses me.


I am glad that I amused you. Your logic also amuses me.




Why don't I try to make a scientific case out of my opinions? Simple. Because that would make me no different than you, and a hypocrite on top of it.


????????? Oh well.

ETA: I was going to add more.But...That is why I said oh well. Sorry I will bug out.
edit on 6-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: ETA



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Live S. marcescens can be dangerous for people who are already ill. The public was not exposed to live S. marcescens

Killed S. marcescens were released in the experiments described in MRE Field Report Nos. 12 and 18. In MRE Field Report 12 it is stated that killing of the bacteria was obtained with phenol. The effectiveness of this sterilisation procedure is clearly documented by showing that less than one S. marcescens bacterium per millilitre survived the phenol treatment (this means that no S. marcescens bacteria were detected when 1 millilitre of the sterilised bacterial suspension was spread over bacterial growth medium (agar plates).

Two sets of experiments used living S. marcescens. None of these experiments would have resulted in exposure of the public. MRE Field Trial No. 26 involved the release of live S. marcescens inside buildings at MRE Porton Down with protection provided by the use of respirators.

zeltus.eu...

Please present evidence that

the UK government was using their own people as guinea pigs for chemical and biological warfare agents.

I see none. The tests were dispersal tests, not tests of CBW agents.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Live S. marcescens can be dangerous for people who are already ill. The public was not exposed to live S. marcescens


And the anthrax simulant?

I know, I know, I said I was taking a break. I really am now.

Stop selectively reading the damned article Phage.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

*sigh*
It would save a lot of trouble if you would look at the sources provided.
B. globigii (harmless, see above) was the anthrax simulant

From the military perspective, spores of B. globigii were used to simulate the behaviour of another bacterium which forms spores - the potential biological warfare agent, Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax.

zeltus.eu...

No CBW agents.
edit on 6/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





And the anthrax simulant?


Not from the UK in the 60's, but from the U.S. in the 90's.


We performed extensive testing at the U.S. Army Proving Grounds at Dugway, Utah using an Anthrax simulant, Bacillus subtilus var. niger (B. globigii), which is a commonly used biological agent simulant.


link

Bacillus subtilis


B. subtilis is not a human pathogen. It may contaminate food but rarely causes food poisoning.[



It was popular worldwide before the introduction of consumer antibiotics as an immunostimulatory agent to aid treatment of gastrointestinal and urinary tract diseases. It is still widely used in Western Europe and the Middle East as an alternative medicine



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And from the US, I have lived my entire life in Fort Wayne, IN, where similar testing was done back in 1957. This is four years before I was born, and 6 years before lived there. We had three homes on the same street, and went from K-6 grade at the same school. All of which were within the area being tested. When the news was first released, I looked into all the particulars.
There was nothing used at that time that was toxic in any level (as delivered in the test).
Being suspicious about the same thing happening after over 50 years? Not a reason to be. Do they still test the general population? There is no sign that anybody has. Is there a reason to do these kinds of tests? Yes, as the world has seen with the release of Sarin in Japan.
Should we continue to whine about it, since there is no proof that the released agents/chemicals have hurt anyone at any time. And we have the internet now, so if there is very little that happens around the world that doesn't get noticed.
Stop whining about history, especially when nothing of any harm is known to have happened.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So judging by that article that I read AGAIN, there should be a report explaining the toxicity of zinc cadmium sulphide (not cadmium), can you link me to it?

Kind of like the difference between fluorine and fluoride, fluorine is highly toxic, fluoride is not as toxic (safe in small amounts).

To reiterate, can you link me to some scientific literature explaining the toxicity of zinc cadmium sulphide?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Again, what is the chemtrail conspiracy theory about? It's about governments dumping crap that they have no business dumping, into the air. It's not about being offended by the color of a trail or how high it is in the sky. It's about what is actually being dumped. Do you understand the significance of this or not? No one is complaining because they hate seeing white streaks in the sky


now this is quite interesting. You assert that no one is complaining about white streaks in the sky.

Yet, you posted in this thread, called "Excerpts From One Mans Video Diary".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What doe the OP put up there? 4 videos of CONTRAILS, you know those white streaks in the sky that apparently no chemtrailers are actually complaining about.

And for someone who says that chemtrailers do not complain about white streaks in the sky, yet when someone did that, and you replied with


Nice videos, OP. I S&F'd you.


You knew full well the entire time about chemtrailers posting about trails, since you complimented them and starred them when they did.

Others by you


If you are just offended by the appearance of contrails then you are in the wrong forum.




If you are concerned because you don't like the way white trails look in the sky then I can only imagine the immense amount of tears you must have shed when you learned that the UK government was using their own people as guinea pigs for chemical and biological warfare agents.


Funny when someone posts contrail videos as chemtrail evidence, you tell them them" Nice videos, OP. I S&F'd you.". So why did you not tell him these statements instead? Oh yeah, chemtrailers never post about white streaks and contrails.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So your argument is, yes, they were dumping experimental biological and chemical agents on people to test what it would do, but that's okay, because no one actually got sick.

The only fanaticism here is your own, but following with the rest of the herd as you are, it's alright, because you will ultimately be of no consequence to the changes that will inevitably come anyway. Just keep defending criminal governments who perpetrate one abuse after another only to have their asses kissed for it.


No, my "argument" is that your story has no connection whatsoever to "chemtrails;" and that you and the "chemtrail" faithful will distort and misrepresent any anecdotes they can dredge up to divert attention away from their false gods.

I am no defender of government or secrecy. I've been openly critical of government lies and overreaching for far longer than you'vee been a member of ATS.

The fact that governments dissemble and hide info does not translate into support for otherwise imaginary claims about "chemtrails."

Your reliance on this 10-year old meaningless (to "chemtrails") report only makes explicit your desperation and lack of factual analysis to bolster your faith.

That's my argument: the misrepresented article adds nothing to the "chemtrail" debate other than evidence of paranoia.

jw
edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Again, what is the chemtrail conspiracy theory about? It's about governments dumping crap that they have no business dumping, into the air.


Well, at least you've isolated your version from the rest. Now, do you want to identify "the government" for us, or is it just governments generally?

You could also specify what "they" are "dumping" into contrails that shouldn't be, and for what purpose.
The UK story was about mimicking assault in wartime, what are "they" doing it for now?


It's not about being offended by the color of a trail or how high it is in the sky. It's about what is actually being dumped. ... No one is complaining because they hate seeing white streaks in the sky.


Yes, it is and yes they are. That's all you have to go on as of this date. Despite dozens of tests (see my previous posts and the results of the independent "FIRE" and "FIRE II" and "SUCCESS" studies) of contrail composition that reveal nothing more than the products of combustion, "chemtrail" faithful still complain about the persistence of contrails. They have no idea, as with you, of WHAT is in the contrails they are deluding themselves about.


People are complaining because they have developed reason to believe that other substances are being intentionally sprayed, just as the article shows the UK government doing.


People are "intentionally sprayed" every day with insect-control, and other applications for public health and safety. That does not make "chemtrails" anything more than a hysterical reaction based upon ignorance.


Why are you not upset or appear in any way offended that the UK government used its civilians as guinea pigs for biological and chemical warfare agents?


No one here is defending secret tests on the populace. However, distorting the disclosure of such tests as employing "biological and chemical warfare agents" is a complete falsehood.

Your report and your distortions of it only serve to prove-up the desperation and lack of substance in the "chemtrail" doctrine.

jw

edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
This is kind of cool. A real "chemtrail"! Yep, a visible trail from a plane, dispersing a chemical, in this case zinc cadmium sulphide. BUT it is a very low-flying plane, and the "trail" it leaves disappears in just a few seconds. Which is really confusing if you happen to believe that "chemtrails" persist, and contrails do not. So by visual identification, this is not a "chemtrail", right? Nothing is condensing, so it is not a contrail.


As to the toxicity:

No studies on the toxicokinetics of ZnCdS were found. ZnCdS is insoluble in water and lipids and poorly soluble in strong acids. A small number of toxicity studies (which do not meet the current standards of toxicity testing) have suggested that it is not absorbed through the skin or gastrointestinal tract (Lawson and Alt 1965; Leighton and others 1965). The subcommittee believes that the lack of solubility of ZnCdS particles together with the limited toxicity studies implies that it will not be absorbed through the skin or gastrointestinal tract and that inhaled particles are not likely to be absorbed from the lung into blood for systemic distribution. Its lack of solubility also suggests that it is highly unlikely that free cadmium ions would become bioavailable to target organs as a result of inhalation of ZnCdS, However, information is not available on whether ZnCdS might break down in the respiratory tract into more-soluble components, which could be easily absorbed into the body.
source This source allows you to skim through the book, which is available for $49.00. There are several different things about the testing and analysis of the stuff; this one is the most straight forward.

The best I've found about the toxicity of the ZnCdS is that there is not much about it being toxic. I even found a worldwide list of suppliers, and there was no MSDS available. If it doesn't need an MSDS, something that must be available from the supplier, it is not generally considered to be toxic. With chemicals, the less information you find, the better.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I think there's no MSDS because Zinc cadmium sulfide is a mixture of two chemical compounds, and not a chemical compound itself. It's zinc sulfide (ZnS) and cadmium sulfide (CdS).

www.sciencelab.com...
www.sciencelab.com...

Of course, the real question regarding toxicity is IN WHAT QUANTITY. Gasoline is highly toxic. But if you spray tiny amounts of it into the air, then it's not going to hurt anyone.

And the real point is that none of this stuff was thought to be harmful when it was sprayed. Which makes it rather unlike the chemtrail theory.

Like:

oem.bmj.com...



Abstract
Objectives: To estimate exposures to cadmium (Cd) received by the United Kingdom population as a result of the dispersion of zinc Cd sulfide (ZnCdS) by the Ministry of Defence between 1953 and 1964, as a simulator of biological warfare agents.

Methods: A retrospective risk assessment study was carried out on the United Kingdom population during the period 1953–64. This determined land and air dispersion of ZnCdS over most of the United Kingdom, inhalation exposure of the United Kingdom population, soil contamination, and risks to personnel operating equipment that dispersed ZnCdS.

Results: About 4600 kg ZnCdS were dispersed from aircraft and ships, at times when the prevailing winds would allow large areas of the country to be covered. Cadmium released from 44 long range trials for which data are available, and extrapolated to a total of 76 trials to allow for trials with incomplete information, is about 1.2% of the estimated total release of Cd into the atmosphere over the same period. “Worst case” estimates are 10 μg Cd inhaled over 8 years, equivalent to Cd inhaled in an urban environment in 12–100 days, or from smoking 100 cigarettes. A further 250 kg ZnCdS was dispersed from the land based sites, but significant soil contamination occurred only in limited areas, which were and have remained uninhabited. Of the four personnel involved in the dispersion procedures (who were probably exposed to much higher concentrations of Cd than people on the ground), none are suspected of having related illnesses.

Conclusion: Exposure to Cd from dissemination of ZnCdS during the “cold war” should not have resulted in adverse health effects in the United Kingdom population.


edit on 6-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
So judging by that article that I read AGAIN, there should be a report explaining the toxicity of zinc cadmium sulphide (not cadmium), can you link me to it?


Why do you focus on that particular chemical when there is a whole slew of chemicals and biological agents listed?

How about phenol? What do you know about the toxicity of that? Want to breathe some for me?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join