Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If this is commercial air traffic then we should start walking!

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
[
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That's 7.5% of land traffic, so my 10% rough estimate wasn't so far off. It was certainly ball park!




sorry - I completely misread your post to say that land used 10% of air!! Mea culpa - i have changed it now




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
dp sorry
edit on 15-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


JP5 and JP8 are only used by the military. JP8 and JetA1 are very similar, but JetA1 used to drive us nuts when we had to use it. It's much thinner than JP8, so where the seals would hold nicely with JP8, the jet would leak like a sieve if they went to a civilian field that used JetA1. We'd always get a write up for a fuel leak after, and that's all it was.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Heavy metals often refers to those which have a specific gravity of 4.0 or 5.0, and it's documented that they will sink to the feet, bottom of lungs, etc just as any heavier-than-air element will. How is that a stretch? Organ, brain, and respiratory damage is the greater danger.

emedicine.medscape.com...


Where is it documented? A search for "heavy metals feet" ONLY returns pages about the footbath scam.

Your blood contains iron. Does all the iron in your blood fall to your feet. No, it just circulates. As do the other metals in your body: sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, cobalt, copper, zinc, and molybdenum being beneficial metals (all of which are heavier than water). None of these accumulate in your feet. Toxic metals do just the same.

The only way you are getting metal sinking to your feet is if someone injects you with liquid elemental mercury.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


But what about all the additives?
What about them. Any additives are in trace amounts and aren't really any different than those found in any other fuels.


New Rocket Fuel Mixes Ice and Metal

As far as I know there aren't many aircraft using rocket engines. But you know that aluminum is the most common element in nature, right? It's pretty much inescapable and it requires pretty high concentrations to be harmful.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'm dealing with commercial flights in my example, so, thanks for making that distinction.

(Now how many US military flights take place in a year I wonder? Classified I suppose! Especially those unmarked white airbuses. Operation Deep Shield anyone?)



No worries, Aloysius!



reply to post by Uncinus
 


I'm not locating the sources I want at the moment. What I want to add for the moment, is that whether or not they sink to the feet, they have majour negative effects regardless. There's a certain amount of deflection going on, or throwing out the worth of the concern, by concentrating only on the "sinking to the feet" element.


Below is a list of symptoms that are commonly associated with, or compounded by heavy metal toxicity:

* Cancer – Mercury, Arsenic, Aluminum, Uranium, Nickel

One of the most documented properties of certain heavy metals is their carcinogenic [cancer causing] effect. Some doctors estimate that up to 80% of cancers are caused by environmental factors such as toxins and heavy metals

* Autism – Mercury

Autism has been described as a “novel form of mercury poisoning” as mercury toxicity in children causes autism like effects. Children with autism usually exhibit high levels of mercury, which is thought to be a major contributing factor to the disease. Recent years have seen a dramatic increase [over 400%] in autism cases, which has been linked to the use of Thimerosol in vaccines. Thimerosol contains 50% mercury and its use is highly controversial

* Alzheimer’s – Aluminum, Mercury
* Parkinson’s – Mercury
* Heart diseases – Arsenic, Uranium, Antimony, Nickel
* Kidney diseases – Mercury, Lead, Thallium, Uranium, Cadmium
* Liver failure – Thallium, Uranium, Cadmium, Antimony
* Lung & Respiratory diseases – Arsenic, Antimony, Nickel

Naturally, the list is near endless. Some metals and toxins can also cause bone diseases, blood diseases, or strokes. Aside from those serious illnesses, minor ailments are also often caused by all those toxic heavy metals that have accumulated in our body over time


* IBS/Bloating
* Migraines/Headaches
*Chronic Fatigue
* Allergies
* Depression/Mood swings
* Insomnia
* Painful joints
* Twitching of muscles
* Poor circulation


www.heavymetalsymptoms.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


The US military doesn't fly Airbus. They do have a few discretely marked aircraft, for when VIPs have to go to places that are less than friendly to the US for whatever reason. But they are marked. They sometimes carry an N number instead of a military style tail number, but they do have markings on them.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


It's simple.

Most all of them are Contrails, nothing more.
Although a small portion of them are for weather modification, nothing more.
They do not cover us with poison from the sky, they got control of our food/water supply for that.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Northwarden
 


But what about all the additives?
What about them. Any additives are in trace amounts and aren't really any different than those found in any other fuels.


Well, the crux of the matter still revolves around "What type of pollution is being created from airplane flights"?
If it's "only a little", then it's a little more than was in the air before. No, I ave no frequent-flier miles collected.



New Rocket Fuel Mixes Ice and Metal

As far as I know there aren't many aircraft using rocket engines. But you know that aluminum is the most common element in nature, right? It's pretty much inescapable and it requires pretty high concentrations to be harmful.


It's the wrong direction ... part of the problem, not part of the solution. Thing is, I know the curly mercury-filled lightbulbs in homes and businesses, the phasing out of incandescents, is of far greater concern. It's not a good thing agendas closer to our biology have taken precedent, and left hazy chemtrail/contrail discussions in the clouds.

The bottom-line is that any company putting out a product containing ingredients harmful to health, multiplied by production, dispersed over vast, populated land tracts via airplanes, is being irresponsible.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


The bottom-line is that any company putting out a product containing ingredients harmful to health, multiplied by production, dispersed over vast, populated land tracts via airplanes, is being irresponsible.

So it's ok to disperse harmful materials from ground based vehicles and factories.
I understand the sentiment but we managed to paint ourselves into quite a few corners and it isn't the fault of the companies, it's the fault of our lifestyles.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."

edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
The bottom-line is that any company putting out a product containing ingredients harmful to health, multiplied by production, dispersed over vast, populated land tracts via airplanes, is being irresponsible.


Why only via a/c?

Cars trucks, trains and ships burn much more fuel, and also spread pollution around.

what's more you are breathing a lot more pollution from those sources than from a/c becdause they are "putting [it] out" right at the same altitude as you are living - not up to 7 miles or more overhead.

edit on 15-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: incorect italicing



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Lol, both of you ... What goes up, must come down! The pollutants, especially heavier particulates, will still remain (largely) trapped in our atmosphere, and must eventually land, effectively poisoning both land and air. That aerial 7.5% of automotive pollution will inevitably be an additional factor even if we experience te ground-based pollution first (which I'm not denying is the greater problem portion, but was not the aspect being focased on in the scope of this thread as it progressed).

What difference if we breath last weeks' ground pollution, and plane exhaust from two months ago, concurrently, today?

Point is, only so much is going to rise into the atmosphere before it becomes a noticeable part of the composition of the atmosphere. Some gases will rise, and circulate, polluting the atmosphere, the rest will fall, and pollute the ground. A giraffe is still a giraffe!
edit on 15-10-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


What difference if we breath last weeks' ground pollution, and plane exhaust from two months ago, concurrently, today?

One major difference? The level of concentration. Just how much of that pollution from the jets flying 6 miles overhead reaches the surface? The pollution from the surface is measurable at the surface. Is the pollution from aircraft?

But ok, let's do it your way and cease travel by air. Problem solved right? Oh, wait, that transport (cargo and passengers) would now be picked up by surface modes.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


Not sure why you think this is amusing.

Stratospheric pollutants do not have to come down at all - there is very little mixing of the stratosphere with the troposhere (which is the bit of the atmoshere below it), so stratospheric pollutants may stay up there almost indefinitely.

And of course in the troposphere the air is turbulent - any given molecule may take a very long time to "fall" from 30,000 feet to the surface.

Whereas I guarantee you that pollution generated by cars WILL be at the surface of the Earth - and of course there is so much more of it.

the fact that aviation pollution stays aloft for so long, and is geenrated aloft, is why it is of specific concern to science of global warming and cimate change - its effects at high alltitide can last longer than pollution at sea level. Which is also why it is of less concern to direct health issues from inhalation!

edit on 15-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry, added a line to my last after you posted, before I read yours.

Quantum energy (which Harper turned down over economy "concerns"
) , much more solar power implementation, increased battery useage and storage, wave turbines, hydrolic/tensioned gravity panels on highways would all help ... you know the list. Anti-gravity could be released to commercial craft, and cold fusion is selling for a million per generator to universities, etc ; a clear indication that it works.

Perhaps we're just complaining over the wait while infrastructure catches up to the science.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Good post Aloysius. I realize that a lot of the pollutants will stay aloft, but this too will eventually reach a saturation point from day after day flights taking place, and the heavier particles, trace or not, will eventually fall and will fall just about anywhere.

I'm not laughing about the topic, just the direction comments were going.

A volcano eruption will cause X times the pollution a plane will, but the plane fuel is optional.

What about hydrogen produced from electrolysis of water, and desalination of the rising oceans as an alternative fuel? Besides being that explosive, if properly controlled, would it not be a viable mass energy solution for airflight, or for ground transport?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


I think you wil find that cold fusion might be being offered at $1million for some unit or other.....but somehow it still hasn't quite managed to be delivered.....for example I'm pretty sure we are still waiting for Rossi on that one - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quantum energy?? WTF does that even mean? It looks like someone has decided "I'm broke ..quantum - hey that's a cool scientific word - i'll invent quantum energy and make a fortune sucking in the gullible..."



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yeah ... not yet anyway. Yet like all products, the prototype is offered at a premium price, then depreciates 2000% after a few years of production, especially 25 years later when the patent becomes open to competition.

This is the Quantum energy I spoke of. Sadly the original link is no longer, but the thread covers the topic well anyway.

Canada denies Quantum free energy company the right to become a public company due to being 'danger
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

A volcano eruption will cause X times the pollution a plane will, but the plane fuel is optional.


Along with car fuel......


What about hydrogen produced from electrolysis of water, and desalination of the rising oceans as an alternative fuel? Besides being that explosive, if properly controlled, would it not be a viable mass energy solution for airflight, or for ground transport?


It is important to remember thre is a distinction between a wource of energy and a meansd of transmitting it.

Hydrogen is a means of transmiting energy - the wsource of the energy is still the electricity that is used to seperate it from the water.

Hydrogen may well be a very good way to transmit energy, but if we are burning coal to make the electricity then we are still burning that coal.

hydrogen has been used for flight - see wiki article - but it occupies 4 times the volume required for a similar energy content of kerosene. Fuel cells may be more useful than burnign hydrogen.

But IMO a/c will rely upon hydrocarbons for a very long time yet - their energy density is just so superior to anything else. Energy density - the amount of energy for a given weight and volume - is a vital consideration for economic flight whereas it is essentially unimportant for land and sea transport.

IMO a/c will move to using biofuels rather than hydrogen. Biofuels have already been used on regular scheduled services - see wiki article.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


Quantum energy (which Harper turned down over economy "concerns" )

No idea what you're talking about there.



much more solar power implementation, increased battery useage and storage, wave turbines, hydrolic/tensioned gravity panels on highways would all help ... you know the list.
Good stuff but hard to apply to air travel. What are gravity panels?


Anti-gravity could be released to commercial craft, and cold fusion is selling for a million per generator to universities, etc
Anti-gravity? There are no cold fusion generators being sold to anyone.



Perhaps we're just complaining over the wait while infrastructure catches up to the science.
I think we're still waiting on the science.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join