Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrail seeder caught on photo

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CiAlice
 


okay but "chemtrails" would be the root cause of said evil doing by unnamed forces, so in a way they are the problem.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolarIce
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Just the iron? hmm so all the talk the past few days about fluoride being bad is just hogwash then? I loved the thread you made that was closed down and set straight by a mod, it was refreshing.


Yreah - never mind the content - let's jsut look at the site - oh - it pokes fun at things, well then it must be wrong....



Anyways, my point still stands just about every chemtrail thread ends up with members bashing and screaming their heads off at how everything up in the skies is nothing more than contrails, and that the government wouldn't dare do any testing (like many times in the past)


The OP asked for information, and was given it in a perfectly reasonable manner.


I mean after all other then pictures of proven contrails can you actually disprove the theory of chemtrails?


Why would I try to disprove something that cannot be shown to exist in the first place?

If someone wants to beleive all the baseless assertions about chemtrails then more fool them - especially when there is factual evidnce that they choose to ignore - all I can do is point out the egregious errors on the theory.

Personally I choose to think the "theory" is bunk, and the proponents either misguided or mischevious due to the total and complete evidence of absence. You may not regard this as proof of course, however for me it is good enough to dismiss the theory as rubbish.

But if one were to try to disprove the theory then presumably all one would need would be a similar level of evidence that "proves" the theory??

I think Christopher Hitchens puts it best:


What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

edit on 29-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SolarIce
 


Despite the number times you've read it, you don't seem to have comprehended.

It's not there can't be anything anything else, the government wouldn't dare or that everything in the sky is just contrails, you are making that up.

It's that nobody has shown anything that ISN'T a contrail, or any other evidence that chemtrailing is happening. Cloud seeding isn't it (and doesn't "make clouds" as stated higher up the thread), patent evidence, a written thought, isn't proof of a physical operation which, lets face it, should be available in abundance if this long term operation is so bad for us, there would be a measurable residue or effect, shouldn't there? Something that is over and above naturally occurring levels, so why isn't there?

Why do people who believe in chemtrails repeatedly demonstrate that they do not understand aviation and meteorology? These would be particularly useful subjects if you are looking for something unusual in the sky, wouldn't they?

Instead thry just make uninformed snap judgements and cling to them with all their might. You get facile responses like the one above addressed to me "I don't want to breathe this crap" like all the other crap that is genuinely in the air doesn't matter! From all my years on ATS one thing has been consistently obvious and that is that chemtrails are just a boogeyman for the terminally ignorant, at least the ones who stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la whenever verifiable facts are offered up that contradict their wierd obsession.

edit on 30-7-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by varikonniemi
 


Silver iodide, one of the substances used in cloud seeding, is toxic.

Is Cloud Seeding Harmful?


The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil.(8) It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans.(6,7,8,9) Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract.(7,8,9) Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.(8)



Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows: Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)



Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows: Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)


Mmmm...yummy...just like fluoride.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Yep - silver iodide is not good for you - so you've better not suck on any of those candles that are fitted to a/c and burned at hundreds of thousands or feet in the air, and don't sit down to dinner with any of the rockets or artillery shells that sometimes get used to fire it into clouds either.

Also don't suck on the exhaust of a car or bus.....



FFS - if yo are worried about pollution then that is admirable, but hundreds of thousands of Kg of silver are released into the environment from all sorts of process......as opposed to a few Kg at a time from any given cloud seeding project.

And millions of tons of crap are spewed into the air from burning coal and oil at ground level

Why are you apparently not at all worried about all that??
edit on 30-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Why are you apparently not at all worried about all that??


You always gotta change the subject to take the spotlight off toxic skies. Why is that? Is it a debunking thing?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

You always gotta change the subject to take the spotlight off toxic skies. Why is that? Is it a debunking thing?


No, he's not changing the subject, he's using an analogy that applies to the subject.
Anything is toxic in strong amounts.
How strong (concentrated) is the silver iodide in order to be toxic ?....according to the info you presented ?
Then knowing that, how much is is found in the environment by "seeding" ?
Then knowing that, how much is actually ingested by the typical person ?


The end result of SI seeding ingestion is VERY different than slurping-up a shot-glass of the pure substance.
I'm sure you understand that.
Drinking too much water can kill you.
You can have adverse reactions to a Vitamin C overdose.
www.livestrong.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Why are you apparently not at all worried about all that??


You always gotta change the subject to take the spotlight off toxic skies. Why is that? Is it a debunking thing?


You are the one introduced fluoride


What I am doing is trying to understand your motivations. Why is it you are so concerned about a relatively miniscule amount of a pollutant that is, at worst, an irritant, but not with stuff that is actually dangerous?

Aer you a shill for the real polluters? Do you get paid by big oil and big coal to divert attention away from the REAL damage they do with this fantasy that a few hundred Kgs (or however much) of Silver Iodide spread around teh entire earth every year is somehow dangerous??


Yes I agree there is a conspiracy here - but it seems to me you are the one who is part of it through your disinformation campaign, and I think the public should be made aware of your tactics!
edit on 30-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Yes I agree there is a conspiracy here - but it seems to me you are the one who is part of it through your disinformation campaign, and I think the public should be made aware of your tactics!


You too?! And here I thought we were pals!

Silver is a heavy metal. Perhaps you've heard of heavy metals? They're toxic to human beings. Nanosized silver is on the rise. It's used in cloud seeding too. I did a thread on it. Nanosized toxicity levels are rated the same as bulk even though they are completely different. They're rated the same as bulk because there have been very few tests with nano. Here's an article I know you'll enjoy:

Nanosilver in consumer products: No silver lining for fish


Smaller than a virus and used in more than 200 consumer products, silver nanoparticles can kill and mutate fish embryos, new research shows.


“Some of the fish became extremely distorted, almost making a number nine or a comma instead of a linear fish,” he said.


The nanosilver caused malformations in their eyes, swim bladders and tails, and some developed fluid around the heart that causes congestive heart failure, according to the study, which was published in August in the nanotechnology journal Small.


Raising concerns about potential harm to human health, other recent research has shown that some metal nanoparticles can damage DNA or kill cells. One new study found that nanoscale particles can cross into the womb through the placenta.


“We have no means of detecting nanosilver in the environment once it is released, even if concentrations rise to levels that are toxic to aquatic ecosystems,” Luoma said in a statement when the report, “Nanoscale Silver: No Silver Lining?” was released last year.


So what you're saying is that as long as we're washing them down the drain, what's a little extra coming from the sky? It's just rain - right? That's the idea, to get it to rain. To get it to rain on everything, right?

My point:; but first, your point:



Why is it you are so concerned about a relatively miniscule amount of a pollutant that is, at worst, an irritant, but not with stuff that is actually dangerous?


Can you figure it out yet?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Silver is a heavy metal. Perhaps you've heard of heavy metals? They're toxic to human beings.


In small quantities, certain heavy metals are nutritionally essential for a healthy life. Some of these are referred to as the trace elements (e.g., iron, copper, manganese, and zinc). These elements, or some form of them, are commonly found naturally in foodstuffs, in fruits and vegetables, and in commercially available multivitamin products.

BOOM



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
post by Aloysius the Gaul
Here's an article I know you'll enjoy:

[url=http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/nanosilver]Nanosilver in consumer products: No silver lining for fish



Smaller than a virus and used in more than 200 consumer products, silver nanoparticles can kill and mutate fish embryos, new research shows.





“We have no means of detecting nanosilver in the environment once it is released, even if concentrations rise to levels that are toxic to aquatic ecosystems,” Luoma said in a statement when the report, “Nanoscale Silver: No Silver Lining?” was released last year.


did you notice that he "nanosilver" that was actually used in the study was "colloidal silver" - often touted as a magic cure-all that big pharma doesn't want you to know about because it will take away all their profits??

Just curious - abstract of the study

Unfortunately the full article seems only available online for purchase - so there is no indication as to what sort of concentration was used, however eth article you used notes that fatalities ceast at 0.01g/litre - which is 1 part in 100,000, or 10 parts per million, and I do not think that cloud seeding will get aywhere near that unless you eat the candles.

And of course it remains an extremely small part of the total environmental silver loading in the first place - why are you concentating on something that looks liek less than 1% of teh silver released by industry, etc??



So what you're saying is that as long as we're washing them down the drain, what's a little extra coming from the sky? It's just rain - right? That's the idea, to get it to rain. To get it to rain on everything, right?


I do not beleive I said that anywhere, however it does not surprise me that you try to put words into my mouth.

My point is that the amount of silver released for cloud seeding is miniscule - not measureable as any increase over the amount of solver already in the environment.




Why is it you are so concerned about a relatively miniscule amount of a pollutant that is, at worst, an irritant, but not with stuff that is actually dangerous?


Can you figure it out yet?


Even less now - the moer you write the less sense your concern over cloud seeding as opposed the the vast amount of silver released by other sources seems to me
edit on 1-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cheebah
 


Thankyou for your clarification. Remedies using a diluted substance that is diluted yet again and again in order to get the tiniest amount possible is an American Indian practice which I have read about. My post was not to take away from remedies like these, offerred by the skilled practitioner, which I hold in high regard.

Nano particles, created in the lab, don't exist in nature. They can be charged or coated or selected for shape to enhance one property or another. There have been few tests and those tests are not good. Some of these particles have been likened to asbestos. They are small enough to cross the blood brain barrier and the placenta. The atoms in them are not distributed but hug a surface, giving them a surface area out of proportion to their size. This is part of their value as reflectors in geoengineering. The EPA classes them with bulk substances of the same kind but they are not the same. Different sizes and shapes can all have different properties and one can be highly toxic while another seems not to be. They are not naturally occurring.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




And of course it remains an extremely small part of the total environmental silver loading in the first place - why are you concentating on something that looks liek less than 1% of teh silver released by industry, etc??


There were a number of tests done. The nanotech industry has suppressed some of them while they attempt to discredit them with the help of government which seems to be shielding this industry much like it once shielded GMO.

In the case of nano, toxic has nothing to do with size or amount. Like asbestos, which travelled a long destructive road before being declared 'no safe level of exposure', nano appears to be the same.

Nanosilver in consumer products: No silver lining for fish

“The same special properties that make nanoscale materials useful are also properties that may cause some nanoscale materials to pose potential risks to humans and the environment, under specific conditions. At this point not enough information exists to fully assess these risks,” said an EPA report released in January.


Different materials have different effects, according to the fish study. Both gold and silver nanoparticles were tested, but only the silver ones were toxic to the fish embryos in all sizes, according to the study. Gold particles did not have an effect. Other studies suggest that copper nanomaterials are toxic to rats.


“Chemical composition of the nanoparticle is as, if not more, important at inducing toxicity,” the authors said in their report.


But Todd Kuiken, a research associate at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said that unlike ionic silver, the particles used in consumer products are “intentionally engineered at the nanoscale for its properties” and that they may react differently with whatever they come in contact with. “There are a few studies out there that show that nanosilver reacts differently than conventional ionic or colloidal silver,” he said.


There was even a request made by some concerned researchers to eliminate a certain shape of nano, which resembled asbestos, and use another form while tests were being done.

We don't know what toxicity levels are for these products - they are not the same as bulk and a comparison to bulk is ludicrous in light of the asbestos debacle. Further, we don't know what amounts are being release in cloud seeding. We do know that, in the U.S., there's a whole lot of cloud seeding going on but no rain falling. We know that geoengineering requires reflectant particles (some kind of metal) that do not agglomerate (get together) giving them a longer atmospheric life (because they're lighter.) But we don't know the toxicity levels of made in the lab nano particles.



My point is that the amount of silver released for cloud seeding is miniscule - not measureable as any increase over the amount of solver already in the environment.


I appreciate your point but it's not valid. None of the tiny amount stuff is true in this case and makes no dang difference with something that can enter the brain and enter the womb and has no established toxicity level.
edit on 2-8-2012 by luxordelphi because: add quote and last paragraph



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Cheebah
 


Thankyou for your clarification.



Here to help.

Any way that I can.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Chemtrails are made to create/ form clouds using chemicals. They arent a threat to the world. They just create clouds that create rain in the end. The reason why the country denied them was because most people in the country would fear the use of chemicals in the sky and would say no to the idea. But the country needs to use the chemicals for rain or who knows what! So they keep it a secret. Chemtrails were used in Vietnam back in the Vietnamese war. They were use to increase the raindrop in a yearly rain season. That would slow the Vietnamese down due to floods.

Here have a video of another plane: (youtube) /watch?v=bSSWnXQsgOU

and here is a documentary: (youtube) /watch?v=yZFNJplylns



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kuroodo
 





Chemtrails are made to create/ form clouds using chemicals.


And those chemicals would be?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Water - H2O...

Duh!



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kuroodo
 




Sorry but....



As for the second video....



Here is what one of those witnesses from your video has to say about chemtrails....



Sorry.....



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Water - H2O...


Are you sure because that new documentary Why in the World are They Spraying Us is bound to say something different?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join