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

reply to post by ProudBird

The broadly-labeled science and activity called "cloud seeding" has been using the techniques learned to do those things you mentioned for decades, now. This is not "new".

You have stated the problem exactly and concisely. Telling the public that this is not new, has been done since the '40's and the techniques have been around for decades is a complete, absolute and total falsehood. There is not one shred of truth in it.

I read an article the other day describing events leading up to weather modification in the Shasta area. Citizens were concerned because the spraying was to begin immediately and they had been given little notice to voice their concerns. One person asked if they had taken out a permit for this. The reply was that no permit was needed. Why? Because they were going to be operating within a private property. The law stated that because it was a private property, the county could agree to not require a permit and that is what the county had done. Now the operation would commence, there was no permit or need of a permit, no environmental impact studies were required, concerns that citizens had were irrelevant and that was that. This is called a loophole. Loopholes in the law can and are exploited for various agendas.

www.mtshastanews.com...

The toxic materials agencies that set poison levels and soil, water and air limits have based all of their standards on bulk materials. We have seen within this thread that lab created nanometer particles rarely resemble in any way their bulk counter-parts. Still this is how they are classed and this is the only way they are regulated. This is effectively no regulation. Reading about toxicity levels for these particles is like reading nothing because there are none, not because they're not toxic, but because it's not known how and in what amounts and where and when. Classing them with bulk and measuring incidence based on toxicities for bulk is ludicrous.

I have spent a lot of time in this thread talking about the many wonders and amazements that lab created nano particles have produced. It is almost impossible to try to grasp the properties of particles that without dimensions or with one dimension have surface areas of huge proportions. It is almost impossible to try to understand why in one instance of one substance a 50nm particle would be toxic and yet a 10nm particle would not. In another instance with a different substance or perhaps just a different coating or different production method, the reverse might be true.

Trivializing the issues by talking about buzz words is not beyond the industry. They liked 'ultrafine' to describe these particles. "The nanoworld lies midway between the scale of atomic and quantum phenomena, and the scale of bulk materials." That's a quote from this link.

www.csa.com...

Does that sound like 'ultrafine' is a proper description?

Talking about flares, and the picture of the flares at Ice Jet or whatever the company name is: What's in those flares is a trade secret. The only thing we know is that silver iodide aerosol is being produced in the lab in sizes from 10 nanometers down to .1 nanometers. Are we comforted yet? The OP forum spokesperson/expert states that the stuff is coming to them in drums from a chemical company and that they are getting it into the air using generators of some kind. They tell us that toxicity rates, based on bulk materials, are all within very normal parameters.

You do the math and tell me how many silver dollars' worth of 1 nm size particles it would take to cover the sky.

www.silver-colloids.com...

These are rhetorical questions but the real issue is and remains that these lab created nm size particles are capable of crossing the blood brain barrier and entering the brain. How about a silver dollars' worth of 1 nm size particles in your brain with a surface area of over 2 acres. What does it mean? How many are too many? Is a silver dollars' worth floating in a lake reflecting back over 2 acres of surface area a problem? These are the issues.

reply to post by luxordelphi


You know they don't actually spray silver iodide nano particles, right?

They burn a solution of silver iodide dissolved in acetone. It's 96% acetone, 3% silver iodide and 1% sodium iodide (acting as a catalyst to dissolve the silver iodide).

Once the silver iodide is disolved, it's composed of individual molecules floating around in the acetone. So there's nothing complicated going on. No engineering. Tiny crystals of silver iodide form as the aceton burns off. They are not made in a lab.

See:

dpw.lacounty.gov...

Nano particles, made in the lab, for specific purposes and selected for specific properties are sometimes made of substances that don't want to stay separated. Their natural inclination is to get together. It's necessary then to introduce something which will change the charge of the particles so that they repel each other and remain isolated.

Cloud seeding, weather modification, whatever, is accomplished, today, using a number of different materials manufactured in a variety of ways and delivered via a series of systems, some very sophisticated. It incorporates the use of satellites, GPS, cloud wind weather movement modeling and even takes into consideration upper atmosphere cycles and eons long solar system cycles. The product and some of the delivery systems are all pre-fab including robotic remote control ground systems. You can do it yourself - just need a pilot's license and a flight plan and some safety precautions if you're going to be shooting rockets. That's why the people at the weather modification places don't know anything but what's in the brochure because it all comes drummed, flared, aerosoled, smoked etc.

Silver iodide, sodium chloride, dry ice, potassium chlorate, potassium perchlorate are just some of the substances used in processes that inject trillions of whatever is in the closed product into the atmosphere. The whole idea is to have a particle that doesn't react with the environment but stays as is. Rockets, cannons, generators, planes through combustion in place or dropping flares are some of the delivery systems releasing particles in a variety of ways from a variety of mediums including smoke.

radio-weblogs.com...

www.ehow.com...

www.patentstorm.us...

coyotegulch.wordpress.com...

www.britannica.com...

www.energy.ca.gov...

www.patents.com...

www.kipaddotta.com...

www.absoluteastronomy.com...

reply to post by luxordelphi


I'm sure there is genuine need for caution in the use of novel nano-particles of some substances.

But there's zero evidence that clouds seeding use any nano-technology other than "burning stuff" , which has been producing nano-particles for millions of years. Indeed, it's a particularly bad application of nano-technology, as cloud nuclei tend to be 0.1um (100nm) or bigger. This is not in the usual "nanoparticle" range (

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

I'm sure there is genuine need for caution in the use of novel nano-particles of some substances.

But there's zero evidence that clouds seeding use any nano-technology other than "burning stuff" , which has been producing nano-particles for millions of years. Indeed, it's a particularly bad application of nano-technology, as cloud nuclei tend to be 0.1um (100nm) or bigger. This is not in the usual "nanoparticle" range (

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Please see the opening OP. Not sure where you're going with this - some kind of a cauldron then in the back of the plane where they're mixing up batches of acetone and silver iodide? Then putting it into drums? Sounds like a pretty volatile situation.

The opening OP where the guy clearly says the "small particles" grow from a "gaseous state"? Nothing about nano particles grown in a lab.

Cauldron? What? Sure it's acetone with a bit of silver iodide mixed in, but I suspect they prepare it on the ground. It's not complicated. You just mix the ingredients.

reply to post by luxordelphi


"Cauldron"? (Too much Hallowe'en on your mind?)

This is the reality of airborne 'cloud seeding':



(Can you tell what altitudes are used, approximately, by noting the types of clouds?)








Can you estimate the altitudes here? Based on the type of airplanes? (Pilots can):




NONE of those examples, or the reality of "cloud seeding", occur at the altitudes were large commercial jets cruise.

Contrails are one thing.

"Cloud Seeding" is another.

Uncinus & ProudBird:

So where's the drum? Where's the cauldron? What's altitude got to do with the drum? Is that to show me that it's mixed on the ground? Cause they're close to the ground? Where are those little canisters?

reply to post by luxordelphi


The little canisters on the wing are flares, like these:

www.iceflares.com...

But this talk about which cauldron things are mixed in is pointless. These things, like the aluminum rocket motors are burned. When something is burned it is chemically altered, and reduced to nano sized particles. It does not matter how it starts out. It's the burning process that creates the nano particles (or in this case, near micro particles).

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Nano particles as the product of combustion are basically natural.

[ETA] Just to clarify, the silver iodide itself does not burn, it's vaporized by the burning flare (turned to gas, boiling point 1506 C), and then it rapidly condenses into nano-crystals, and accretes up to about the size needed for nuclei. Nothing is "engineered". So if you are looking for a cauldron, then it's the air.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by cantsee4looking
i dont get it?
whats new?
cloud seeding isnt new

What's new (but not really) is nano particles being used to seed clouds. Nano particles are super super tiny and can go places that no other particles have ever gone. Our bodies have a lot of mechanisms to fight invaders but these are just too small and can get into the brain and organs. Nano particles are so strange that they don't behave like the normal size or even micro size particles made of the same stuff. They are completely different and unpredictable and unknown. It's just all one big giant experiment to see what happens.

Silver Iodide particles have always been super tiny. Its just some of you like to use buzzwords like "nano" that somehow have a sinister definition with chemmies.

One gram of AgI has a massive number of particles. Thats nothing new, whatsoever. Maybe one day, you chemmies will actally try to learn about how cloud seeding works.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

This has already been hashed out on ATS. You're just late to the ballgame.....

.....and some quotes from that article:

THIS THREAD< read it thoroughly>>> Science Textbook teaches about Chemtrails!

edit on Thu Oct 27 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: restored

It seems odd to me that you're fine with the idea that in a children's textbook they talk about a gigantic scam (Carbon credits; which give the rich people of poorer countries the wealth of the middle class's taxes of richer countries...), and that making "sunscreen" for our Earth through airline fuel additives or coal dust seems like a normal thing.

How is this other than indoctrination?

reply to post by Cloudology


If you had read that thread, you would have learned that the so-called "textbook" was a ringer, a plant.

...and that making "sunscreen" for our Earth through airline fuel additives or coal dust...

There are no fuel additives in reality. The book tired to light a firestorm of controversy, in order to (poorly) give 'support' to the myth and hoax claims of "chem"trails.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Uncinus & ProudBird:

So where's the drum? Where's the cauldron? What's altitude got to do with the drum? Is that to show me that it's mixed on the ground? Cause they're close to the ground? Where are those little canisters?

Whats in those? Those wingtip generators are burning a mixture that is mostly acetone, with some AgI.

reply to post by ProudBird


I was just curious. Can you prove there are "No Fuel Additives" as you claim there aren't? I would love to see proof of that claim. I really would.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Here is the standard for Jet A1 - DEF Std 91-91 Rev 6.

The list of qualified additives is at Appendix A, page 8. Do you think that one or more of these additives is what you think is causing the chemtrails?

Civil aircraft are only allowed to use materials as specified by the manufacturer - including fuel. Using anything else is actually illegal if done deliberately - it constitutes unlawful interference with the safe operation of an aircraft. I think the common term would be "doctoring the fuel".

If some other additive is used it could well be a crime - if you have any evidence to support the allegation I suggest you send it to your National Aviation Safety Authority - whoever it may be - the FAA in the USA, the CAA in the UK, CASA in Australia, etc., and/or the Police.

Edit: And you could get that evidence by purchasing some jet fuel from your local supplier and having it tested.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I Made an allegation? Hmmm and where do you get that from in what I said below?

I was just curious. Can you prove there are "No Fuel Additives" as you claim there aren't? I would love to see proof of that claim. I really would.

I asked for proof of the allegation and or implied fact that ProudBird made. He said below,,

There are no fuel additives in reality. The book tired to light a firestorm of controversy, in order to (poorly) give 'support' to the myth and hoax claims of "chem"trails

I just asked HIM The QUESTION. Are you his press agent? Why are you answering for him? I would think you have enough to answer on your own. So your questions and answers on Proudbirds behalf are moot.

reply to post by CherubBaby


you are quite happy to answer questions asked of others yourself so what's the problem?

I didn't actually say you made an allegation anywhere - I said that if there was evidence of tampering with fuel then the allegation should be taken to the authorities - ....and I thought I was the one who was supposed to have comprehension difficulties!!

In any case I do not care who answers my questions much - facts and information are accurate or not regardless of source - me saying something doesn't make it any more right or wrong.

Obviously you have a different world view - but this is a public message board and you don't get to pick and choose who answers.