Cloud seeding with nano particles? - just ask your kids.

Cloud seeding has almost always had "nano-particles" - the definition being particles less than 100nan-m in size - this paper identifies various generators that make them, and an optimum size of 50 nano-metres (500 Angstrom) - it is from 1967!

How is this news?

How is it connected to airliners leaving contrails?

How may people have detectable levels of silver iodide in hteir bodies??

reply to post by ProudBird

The normal results of petroleum fuel combustion will make soot, and some particles can be very small.

This is not soot. Please read the link:

plumasnews.com...

and from that link:

—Weather modification programs operate throughout the Western United States in Utah, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

—Canada and approximately 40 – 50 other countries around the world are currently operating weather modification programs.

He said different states used weather modification for different reasons; some participate for precipitation or rainfall augmentation, others snowpack augmentation. In some Midwest states, the process is used for both rainfall augmentation and hail suppression.

The spokesperson from the Water Authority goes on to say that there are programs to reduce hailstorm damage and programs to increase visibility at airports.

He then proceeds to calm the citizens by telling them that many studies have been done between 1975 and 1980 and that these showed that they didn't expect anything adverse. Nowhere are any studies on nano particles being used to cause rain, suppress hail, get rid of fog etc. mentioned. We are the experiment.

He goes on to say that the particles they are releasing remain as a solid in the air. I don't know who you're getting your information from but it doesn't seem to match with what these guys are saying.

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Here's for your name calling (just to keep things even) - takes a charlatan to know a charlatan. Think about it.

There's no twisting here - look up at the sky and KNOW that nano particles are keeping you from sunburn.

I'm thinking about it, that looks remarkably close to being an admission on your part.

Given all the worry about nano-partiles from a few cloud seeding operations - why not proportionally as much worry about nano-particles from vehicle exhaust??

particle size from engine exhaust - from 2000 - see particle size distribution on page 3

One startling conclusion - modern engines running on low sulphur fuel to reduce pollution actually produce MORE nano-particles and older engine/fuel combinations!

And this is with billions of gallons of fuel every year, right here at ground level, in every city, every day.

What elephant in the room??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Cloud seeding has almost always had "nano-particles" - the definition being particles less than 100nan-m in size - this paper identifies various generators that make them, and an optimum size of 50 nano-metres (500 Angstrom) - it is from 1967!

How is this news?

How is it connected to airliners leaving contrails?

How may people have detectable levels of silver iodide in hteir bodies??

edit on 26-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Didn't see anything in your link about nano particles.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Section 4 - The relevance to cloud seeding, 2nd to last page, bottom of 1st column, top of 2nd.

1 Angstrom = 0.1 nano-metre, so 500 A = 50 nm.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Given all the worry about nano-partiles from a few cloud seeding operations - why not proportionally as much worry about nano-particles from vehicle exhaust??

particle size from engine exhaust - from 2000 - see particle size distribution on page 3

One startling conclusion - modern engines running on low sulphur fuel to reduce pollution actually produce MORE nano-particles and older engine/fuel combinations!

And this is with billions of gallons of fuel every year, right here at ground level, in every city, every day.

What elephant in the room??

See previous quotes from the article. It's not a few cloud seeding operations. We're talking western states east through Oklahoma and Texas with 13 operations in CA alone plus Canada plus 40-50 other countries around the world. And BTB they're not called cloud seeding anymore because they're not just for rainmaking - read link - they're called weather modification programs.

Even the Watershed Authority spokesperson told concerned citizens that the manufacture of nano particles is new. People were concerned about tornadoes and his answer was that there had been tornadoes in CA before. What??!!

The expert told the citizens that they were buying the chemicals premixed from a chemical company. I'm calling plausible deniability.

Compared the the number of cars and trucks in the world the number of cloud seeding or weather modification flights are positively miniscule - even thousands of flights in Thailand in 2010 are barely a drop in the bucket.

Here's another one for you - chemical analysis of contrails - as with cars and trucks, normal combustion by jet engines also produces nano-particles - ice crystals from contrail were captured and evaporated to find particles down to 20nm.

reply to post by luxordelphi

People were concerned about tornadoes and his answer was that there had been tornadoes in CA before. What??!!

Yes, tornadoes in California do happen, not frequently, but they do. I know this because they have happened in my county fairly recently.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Given all the worry about nano-partiles from a few cloud seeding operations - why not proportionally as much worry about nano-particles from vehicle exhaust??

particle size from engine exhaust - from 2000 - see particle size distribution on page 3

One startling conclusion - modern engines running on low sulphur fuel to reduce pollution actually produce MORE nano-particles and older engine/fuel combinations!

And this is with billions of gallons of fuel every year, right here at ground level, in every city, every day.

What elephant in the room??

See previous quotes from the article. It's not a few cloud seeding operations. We're talking western states east through Oklahoma and Texas with 13 operations in CA alone plus Canada plus 40-50 other countries around the world. And BTB they're not called cloud seeding anymore because they're not just for rainmaking - read link - they're called weather modification programs.

Even the Watershed Authority spokesperson told concerned citizens that the manufacture of nano particles is new. People were concerned about tornadoes and his answer was that there had been tornadoes in CA before. What??!!

The expert told the citizens that they were buying the chemicals premixed from a chemical company. I'm calling plausible deniability.

Wow, are you into country line dancing because I have never seen so much side-stepping by one poster in one thread?


Why is it that the faithful will go on and on about something that has not one shred of proof and how its hurting everyone and everything, yet when presented with facts about a phenomenon that is verifiable, and has a major impact on the environment and health, it is ignored completely?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Section 4 - The relevance to cloud seeding, 2nd to last page, bottom of 1st column, top of 2nd.

1 Angstrom = 0.1 nano-metre, so 500 A = 50 nm.

Don't hold me to this but I believe that is in solution. They're talking about getting the stuff to stay within the drop of whatever. In any event, the patent applications and the manufacturers for nano silver iodide arrive much later. Also there was a hiatus on cloud seeding the old way because it didn't really work. Also it's being made to at least 1 nanometer.

www.faqs.org...

www.faqs.org...

There are also some tests that were done based on this recent technology so I'm going to have to say no it's not the same.

reply to post by luxordelphi


So some nano technology is OK and others ain't??

I'm not sure what yuo eman by that being the answer - the whole point of cloud seeding is to get the particles surrounded by water - in order to make it rain or hail or snow or whatever......whether 1nm or 100 in size

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

People were concerned about tornadoes and his answer was that there had been tornadoes in CA before. What??!!

Yes, tornadoes in California do happen, not frequently, but they do. I know this because they have happened in my county fairly recently.

I lived mostly in SO CA for many years and in the late '90's waterspouts (tornado like things with water) started to appear off the Santa Monica coast. They were so ordinary that it was all over the news and people came out to watch them.

Re your comments on the 7th grade text book here's the quote:

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

When you're going to spray up the sky beyond recognition it's good to condition minds beforehand so that there won't be any surprises when they see it and everyone will be comforted in knowing that it's all actually helping us in case we forgot to put the white stuff on our noses.

It's similar to deliberately starting a thread to pretend to discredit something that's going to become a problem unless there is pre-conditioning. So next time people see it, it's like, oh yeah, that's not true. There's nothing not true about it. It's in the text book.

Also about the link to the forum where concerned citizens were given an opportunity to ask the local watershed authority about whether or not nano particles were being used. They are. Are they also 'enriching' the fuel in jet aircraft? This is for us to discover.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

So some nano technology is OK and others ain't??

I'm not sure what yuo eman by that being the answer - the whole point of cloud seeding is to get the particles surrounded by water - in order to make it rain or hail or snow or whatever......whether 1nm or 100 in size

edit on 26-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

To answer your question: I don't know if any of it is ok or not and neither does anyone else.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Re your comments on the 7th grade text book here's the quote:

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

which is actually just wrong - jet engines do not run "rich" or "lean" - if you pour fuel into them they try to burn it, they run faster, they suck in more air. And they start getting hotter - so sooner or later they overheat and start melting components.

One way to inject more fuel and create particles is to add something to keep the engine cool - such as water. Water used to be used to increase the mass flow through a jet, but one of its secondary effects is to provide cooling. By doing so it prevents a lot of fuel burning in the combustion chamber - but that fuel does still partially burn and get reduced to carbon in the hot airflow beyond the combustion chamber.

This is what engines look like when they are running water injection:



And a 707 -

reply to post by luxordelphi

Here's the first link (easy reading) to a forum held by a Water Authority in Chester, Ca. on May 25, 2011, this year, to answer questions concerned citizens had about ongoing cloud seeding in their area:

plumasnews.com...

Well I must ask you this, because you only posted little pieces of what was really said why? Here let me help you out with that...Now remember this is from your link...

“There have been a number of studies that examine the potential for the creation of negative environmental impacts associated with the conduct of winter cloud seeding programs. Several of these studies, which involved both office and field work, were supported by the Bureau of Reclamation office in Denver under their ‘Project Skywater’ program,” Griffith said. After listing a number of lengthy studies completed by different groups between 1975 and 1980, in Utah, Colorado, southern Wyoming and at the American River drainage in California, he said, “These studies concluded that significant environmental effects due to the possible conduct of cloud-seeding programs in these areas were not expected to occur.”

and this...

He next read the July 2009 position statement of the Water Modification Association (WMA) on the environmental impact of using silver iodide as a cloud seeding agent. “The potential environmental impacts of cloud seeding programs using silver iodide have been studied since the 1960s. These studies have all concluded that ice-nucleating agents, specifically silver iodide as used in cloud seeding, represent a negligible environmental hazard. “In summary, the published scientific literature clearly shows no environmentally harmful effects arising from cloud seeding with silver iodide aerosols have been observed, nor would be expected to occur. Based on this work, the WMA finds that silver iodide is environmental safe as it is currently being used in the conduct of cloud seeding programs.” Among the references offered by Griffith was the WMA website weathermodification.org.

plumasnews.com...

So from what they are saying, or it seems they are saying is that you didn't pay close attention to what was being said.

One last thing I need to know and that is what does it matter what their offices look like inside.

1. The expensive front office decor.
2. The brand new equipment sitting outside.
3. The lack of seating in the front office.

Heck if you came to my employer you can see porsches,new corvettes,BMW's, and only two cheap chairs in the front office,and also about 100 grand worth of parts we manufacture. You do understand this place is not a doctors office it is a place were you probably don't wait around long before you are talking to whoever you go to see.

reply to post by luxordelphi

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

Any link to this science book would love to read more of what it has to say. I don't recall anything like that when I was strumming thru my nephews science book awhile back.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Regarding the jet fuel and the text book being wrong:

The text book is beyond my scope in this thread to correct or question. It is what it is and says what it says.

I appreciate your efforts to explain the jet fuel utilization system but, again, here is more of where the nanos and this line from the text book took me:

In this story from Wired Science:

www.wired.com...

sunlight is suggested as the culprit for toxic jet exhaust:

researchers have shown that oil droplets spewed by idling jet engines can turn into particles tiny enough to readily penetrate the lungs and brain

Sunlight’s oxidation of the exhaust emitted at idling can generate 35 times more particles than the engine originally emitted and 10 times what computer models have typically predicted, the researchers report online May 5 in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Robinson says he found these new data “unbelievable. It sort of blew our minds.”

This generation of particles by aging gases and hydrocarbons can be hard to figure out, he says, “but it’s where a lot of the action is in atmospheric chemistry.”

Here, again, as in climate change models, current results are much different, in fact 10 times different then predicted. They go on to talk about 'this generation of particles' being hard to figure out.

Sounds like the way people talk about nanos. They are mind-blowing and hard to figure out.

Here's another link to an abstract from the end of last year:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

They talk about how little is known about jet kerosene and go on to say:

Particles yielded by experimental kerosene combustion in a jet engine were characterized with electron microscopy and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy

So now they're talking about experimental kerosene combustion and they go on to say that the particles produced could be detrimental to human health in a number of ways.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Regarding the jet fuel and the text book being wrong:

The text book is beyond my scope in this thread to correct or question. It is what it is and says what it says.

that's pretty evasive of you - you were the one quoting the text as "evidence"!!

We already know that nano particles are produced by jet engines, and the problems of burning oil entering airconditioning systems on aircraft get publicity every now & then too.

It's pollution - it's bad for you whether it is from jets or cars or smokestacks.

It's not "chemtrails".

If you want to discuss pollution that's fine - but it would probably make it easier to talk about if you didn't associate it with chemtrail junk!