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.

 

Danger in the Sky-the Chemtrail Phenomenon VID-Evergreen Aviation Admits to USAF Chemtrail Contracts

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


So many bold claims with zero sources. An article means nothing, where do all those big scary numbers come from?




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Apparently you are unable to do your own research to debunk it. Try Google, Bing, Yahoo. They all have search engines. Sounds to me like you just like to argue. Here try this link. I couldn't get it to work, but here is a quote from the study:



quote:

JP-8 contains three additives: 1) the icing inhibitor diethylene glycolmonomethyl ether (DiEGME), 0.1% v/v; 2) the anti-static compound Stadis 450, 2 mg/L; and 3) the corrosion inhibitor DCI-4A, 15 mg/L (Allen et al., 2001). The possible toxicity of these individual additives and possible additive or synergistic toxicity with hydrocarbon constituents of the parent fuel has been only minimally researched. JP-8 (100), a new formulation being introduced for use by the USAF, is identical to JP-8 except for the addition of three more performance additives. These additives are 1) the antioxidant butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), 25 ppm; 2) the metal deactivator (MDA), 3 ppm; and 3) the detergent and dispersant 8Q405, 70 ppm (Kanikkannnan et al., 2001).

From the same paper, here is a summary of known health effects of JP-8:

quote:

24. Summary

1. There is little or no evidence that acute or long-term JP-8 exposures result directly in cancer, serious organic disease, or death in humans.

2. Health effects of JP-8 exposure may be subtle, but persisting, and may occur over prolonged periods of low-dose exposure.

3. Some JP-8 induced health effects may require complex neurobehavioral, proteomic, genomic and metabolomic tests for early identification.

4. There appears to be major differences in JP-8 induced health effects as a function of the duration (acute versus long-term), route of administration (dermal versus respiratory versus oral), and exposure phase (vapor versus aerosol versus raw fuel).

5. From animal studies, it appears that brief exposure to JP-8, in at least aerosol or raw fuel phase, can result in severe and persisting immunosuppression.

6. Animal and in vitro studies indicate that exposure to JP-8 can result in modulation of dermal, pulmonary, hepatic, ocular, and renal systems involved in the metabolism, detoxification, and/or elimination of constituent chemicals of JP-8, as well as other xenobiotics.

7. Results of both human and animal studies would appear to indicate that prolonged "occupational-level" exposure to JP-8 could result in persisting changes in brainstem/cerebellar systems, as well as in neurobehavioral performance capacity.

8. Animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term exposure to JP-8, at least in aerosol phase, can result in persisting damage to the pulmonary system.

9. Human, animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term dermal exposure to JP-8 can result in damage to the skin (possible necrosis). There is limited evidence from animal studies that repeated dermal exposure to JP-8 might result in skin cancer.

10. There is limited evidence from animal studies that exposure of females to JP-8 can result in developmental deficits in offspring.

11. There is no direct evidence that JP-8 exposure can result in acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). There is minimal evidence that repeated exposure to benzene, at JP-8 occupational levels, can result in development of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). It is generally unknown if possible immunosuppressive effects of JP-8 exposure, as well as JP-8 induced changes in detoxification systems (i.e., skin, liver, etc.) are correlated with the development of leukemia or other cancers.



Sounds environmentally 'cutting edge' technology to me.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


Whoops, guess you missed this part, number one no less:

1. There is little or no evidence that acute or long-term JP-8 exposures result directly in cancer, serious organic disease, or death in humans.


But seriously, the rest of it isn't so bad. Just don't rub it on your skin.
edit on 8/14/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Have you ever been near a large plane when it is revving up to take off? Have you not seen the overwhelming exhaust velocities? Being a Navy brat and a Navy guy myself, I've been around a few planes in my lifetime. Ever been 100' from the exhaust of an F-14 or and F-4? Ever smelled the exhaust from one (pre and post afterburner)? Ever watch a P-3 start up and billow black smoke until the rings on the pistons fully seat? I've seen jumbo jets blow a car over 50' away. The exhaust is nasty, and not nearly as refined as gasoline.


Sorry to jump into the middle of the conversation but I have a question or two.

I'm sure both myself and anyone else reading with aviation experience would enjoy for you to go into some more detail about what you've posted above...

Where exactly were you while you were standing 100' from the business end of a pair of J79's or F110's?

What is pre and post afterburner? What did the difference in the exhaust smell like again?

Where exactly did you watch a P-3 "start up and billow black smoke until the rings on the pistons fully seat"?

Where did you watch a "Jumbo Jet" blow a car 50'?

Thank you for the clarification in advance, as a "Navy guy" yourself I'm sure you'll have no problem elaborating.


edit on 14-8-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Have you ever been near a large plane when it is revving up to take off? Have you not seen the overwhelming exhaust velocities? Being a Navy brat and a Navy guy myself, I've been around a few planes in my lifetime. Ever been 100' from the exhaust of an F-14 or and F-4? Ever smelled the exhaust from one (pre and post afterburner)? Ever watch a P-3 start up and billow black smoke until the rings on the pistons fully seat? I've seen jumbo jets blow a car over 50' away. The exhaust is nasty, and not nearly as refined as gasoline.


Sorry to jump into the middle of the conversation but I have a question or two.

I'm sure both myself and anyone else reading with aviation experience would enjoy for you to go into some more detail about what you've posted above...

Where exactly were you while you were standing 100' from the business end of a pair of J79's or F110's?

What is pre and post afterburner? What did the difference in the exhaust smell like again?

Where exactly did you watch a P-3 "start up and billow black smoke until the rings on the pistons fully seat"?

Where did you watch a "Jumbo Jet" blow a car 50'?

Thank you for the clarification in advance, as a "Navy guy" yourself I'm sure you'll have no problem elaborating.


edit on 14-8-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax


After I pulled the armament safety pins and proceeded away from it while it was on the TARMAC and doing final pre flights. Afterburners are basically like a turbo boost (you can usually tell by either blue fire coming from the back, or by the tail exhaust contracting, or both). The smell was the same, just much hotter. My revetted safety area was at the end of the runway and we helped load on sonobouys for the P3 in our area. I was a safety observer and did pre-flight and landing ops to remove or install weapons rack safety pins.
The jumbo jet/car experiment - there were a couple episodes on Mythbusters about jet exhausts near civilian populations. And the Mythbuster guys always get carried away with their tests. They also used a jumbo jet for testing the Stormchaser vehicles and so on. That's the episode where they used other vehicles too.

Add: The exhaust wasn't the thing I was worried about crawling around under a running jet. It was the intakes I was worried around

edit on 14-8-2011 by OuttaTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


Whoops, guess you missed this part, number one no less:

1. There is little or no evidence that acute or long-term JP-8 exposures result directly in cancer, serious organic disease, or death in humans.


But seriously, the rest of it isn't so bad. Just don't rub it on your skin.
edit on 8/14/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


The rest isn't so bad? Whoops, guess you missed this part:


8. Animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term exposure to JP-8, at least in aerosol phase, can result in persisting damage to the pulmonary system.

9. Human, animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term dermal exposure to JP-8 can result in damage to the skin (possible necrosis). There is limited evidence from animal studies that repeated dermal exposure to JP-8 might result in skin cancer.

10. There is limited evidence from animal studies that exposure of females to JP-8 can result in developmental deficits in offspring.


And yes, I don't want any on my skin



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
The rest isn't so bad? Whoops, guess you missed this part:


8. Animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term exposure to JP-8, at least in aerosol phase, can result in persisting damage to the pulmonary system.

That's right, so don't run JP-8 through an atomizer and it won't be an aerosol.


Originally posted by OuttaTime
9. Human, animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term dermal exposure to JP-8 can result in damage to the skin (possible necrosis). There is limited evidence from animal studies that repeated dermal exposure to JP-8 might result in skin cancer.

So can ice, but it's still recognized as safe.

Originally posted by OuttaTime
10. There is limited evidence from animal studies that exposure of females to JP-8 can result in developmental deficits in offspring.

Limited evidence, let's not jump to conclusions (or generalize an animal study to be 100% true for humans, either).

None of this changes the fact that once it's burned, none of the above points are relevant.


Originally posted by OuttaTime

And yes, I don't want any on my skin

Well, at least there's something we can agree on.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
So JP-8 is harmful sort of on the same level as Petrol really -


• Serious lung injury may occur if droplets of petrol are inhaled (e.g. if vomiting occurs
after ingestion)
• Harmful
• Inhalation may cause headache, dizziness and drowsiness.
• Often no symptoms occur following ingestion. In some cases, sickness and diarrhoea
may occur
• Petrol vapour may be irritating to the eyes and lungs
• Prolonged skin exposure to petrol may cause a variety of skin conditions
• Long-term exposure to high levels of petrol is associated with a range of disorders
affecting the nervous system
- www.hpa.org.uk...

And of course you have a lot more chance of being exposed to petrol than JP-8!

Fact is that hydrocarbons are not good things to expose yourself to a lot - check the sort of procedures that fuel farm workers take to avoid prolonged contact - there's good reason for them doing so!

As a mechanic I used to use all sorts of chemicals for cleaning - tolulene, kerosene, petrol, trichloroethane - and I used greases and oils as assembly aids to lubricate parts fiting together. I used chemicals to cool things down - "freeze in a can" - I have no idea what that was. I used chemicals to heat things up - especially acetylene! We used vegetable-based cutting lubricants, synthetic phosphate-ester lubricants, mineral oil lubricants, hydraulic oils, adhesives, solvents, reactants, chemical bath contents - I used to do QA audits on a plating ship where they had cyanide baths & amyl nitrate capsules on the wall - and I found the later were past their "use by date" the first time I went there!!

the average "man in the street" has no idea about the volume & variety of strange chemicals that get used in any significant industry - and many insignificant ones.

Pretty much everything you use and do - from the paper you write on to the computer you type in is created using a vast array of chemical soup that you wouldn't want anywhere near you!

And the petrol and oil in your car are just 2 more!

Making a cause celebre of the potential hazards of jp-8 based on it's benzene content is pretty narrow minded - since it actually has LESS benzene than the JP-4 it is replacing!!


edit on 15-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
The rest isn't so bad? Whoops, guess you missed this part:


8. Animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term exposure to JP-8, at least in aerosol phase, can result in persisting damage to the pulmonary system.

9. Human, animal and in vitro studies indicate that acute or long-term dermal exposure to JP-8 can result in damage to the skin (possible necrosis). There is limited evidence from animal studies that repeated dermal exposure to JP-8 might result in skin cancer.

10. There is limited evidence from animal studies that exposure of females to JP-8 can result in developmental deficits in offspring.


And yes, I don't want any on my skin


Quite right - don't bathe in it!

Those 3 cases require exposure to JP-8 - when was hte last time you were "exposed" to JP-8 in any significant quantity??
do you work with it? Do you live in an aircraft fuel tank, or an Aeroshell tank farm???

Of course you do not - so exactly how is it that you are going to get "exposed" to JP-8??

From the exhaust of a jet engine?? But JP-8 gets BURNED and then it is not JP-8 any more - ther may be a small amont of unburned fuel in the exhaust - but jet engine manufacturers HATE pumpoiing unburned fuel out their exhausts because fuel efficiency is all the rage these days - you can get a lot more orders for your multi-million dollar engines if you have a competitive advantage in fuel efficiency.

You probably get a lot more exposed to unburned petrol and diesel at ground level - after all there's 6-8 times as much fuel being used in land transport as air transport, and petrol & diesel have a long list of additives & included compounds including benzene too - plus they are right there where you are - not 30,000 feet overhead!

Why this fixation on JP-8??



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Have you ever been near a large plane when it is revving up to take off? Have you not seen the overwhelming exhaust velocities? Being a Navy brat and a Navy guy myself, I've been around a few planes in my lifetime. Ever been 100' from the exhaust of an F-14 or and F-4? Ever smelled the exhaust from one (pre and post afterburner)?


Never been near an afterburner - but will pushing back a 747 from a gate count??



Ever watch a P-3 start up and billow black smoke until the rings on the pistons fully seat?


P-3 as in Lockheed P-3 Orion? What piston tings do those have??
their engines are Allison T56 turboprops - essentially the same as on C-130's and Convair 580's - ie they are a turbine engine powering a propellor.

That engine is well known for leaving a smokey trail - which is all to do with combustion efficiency and nothing at all to do with piston rings!!



I've seen jumbo jets blow a car over 50' away.


Yes I think we've all seen that Mythbusters episode


The exhaust is nasty, and not nearly as refined as gasoline.


the main difference in jets is the sheer volume and velocity of exhaust - they generall burn cleaner than piston engines AFAIK, because the combustion process is better tailored - the combustion section is optimised for combustion, whereas a piston cylinder head also has to allow for intake and exhaust and ignition and all teh systems that they require lower the efficiency.

AFAIK the chemical makeup of turbine exhaust is no worse than piston exhaust - but you just don't get piston engines so big that they can pump that much air!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join