Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

SHOCKING: US Government tested radioactive gas on citizens in St. Louis

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The fact that Zinc Cadmium sulphide (ZnCds) particles are hazardous to health is not disputed.

After all, the UK Ministry of Defence 1999 Internal Review of past ZnCds public area experiments revealed the precautions taken by UK military scientists when handling this toxic material -

"Porton staff engaged in 'operating the [ZnCds] dissemination devices were well protected with Home Office Mark IV Dust Respirators, white combination overalls, rubber boots, thick neoprene elbow-length gloves and surgeons caps."

The same UK MOD document, which was obtained via Open Government legislation, also commented on the lack of information concerning ZnCds safety levels.

"No toxicity experiments of inhaled ZnCds are available in literature. Because the ZnCds particles used in the Army's dispersion test were so small, the paricles could probably be inhaled and deposited in the deep lung. The lack of solubility of the particles suggests that they are not likely to be absorbed from the lung into the blood for systemic distribution. No information is available on the potential toxicity of the particles in the lung.

It is not known whether ZnCds can be broken down by pulmonary macrophages into more soluble forms of cadmium."


It seems strange that athough the UK MOD couldn't find any scientific literature concerning the dangers of inhaling ZnCds particles, a few years earlier the US Academy of Sciences felt capable of pronouncing that the levels of inhaled ZnCds particles experienced by US citizens weren't high enough to have an adverse impact on health!



And, of course, being of an experimental nature these Biological Warfare ZnCdspublic area tests could and did go wrong - as the following BBC clip shows, sometimes with potentially calamitous results.







zero lift




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It said ZCS WITH radioactive particles; I'm assuming it was combined


Assuming?

So you have no actual evidence?

Of course not - the article does not present any evidence. nor does it say there was any gas at all. It just makes sensationalist "what if..." statements.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any "radioactive gas" being present in ANY of the tests that used ZCS - even the referenced article does not actually claim it occured!!!!

Suggestions that it "might have ben used", or "assumptions" that is was "combined" based on no evidence whatsoever are nothing more than scaremongering.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I can't view the video, but is this talking about the spraying of zinc cadmium sulfate that is discussed in anothe thread in hte chemtrail forum - www.abovetopsecret.com... ?


I don't know why anyone would want to make such obviously false claims - it smacks of deliberate disinfo to scare up a mob!!

And, as always, experiments done in the past are still not actually evidence that somethign is being done now.



So if you can't watch the video, why comment?


did yuo not read my post? th reasdons are there spelled out quite clearly.


What false claims? You didn't watch the video.


ditto. Aer those claims in the video? If so, then those claims are false.


It could just as easily be evidence in need of context. Evidence of ramping up in human testing. Are you really so naive as to think we magically grew a conscience despite the ever lasting need for human testing?


What does that even mean??



Quality poster you are.


Yep - presenting facts puts me ahead of the pack in this race for sure.
edit on 3-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
They also talk about this spraying from vehicles and I remember months ago someone stated they confronted a man who was spraying from a vehicle and how odd he acted when confronted and how odd the spraying was. I thought perhaps there could have been something to it but the trolls were out in full force on that thread but now I realize it is entirely possible that the spraying from the vehicle was something other than a Bug, Rat or Weed spray as many were forcing there opinion for...


I think weed control programes are a secret way of geting rid of irreducably stupid conspiracy believers, as well as useful weeds that could actually be edible when the crash comes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



These morons follow the trucks around & get a REAL good dose of roundup, without any protection whatsoever - self selctive evolution in action.


according to Scripture there is nothing Hidden that will not be revealed! All government workers will face an accounting in this life or the next....


yippee - religious fundamentalism combined with conspiracy theories - never minding that religion is the greatest conspiracy and fraud of them all..... lack of critical thinking is at least consistent
edit on 3-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

But I disagree with tsurfer2000h about the rest of his post and would encourage him to delve further before being so dismissive of people's concerns - maybe read the NAS report and actual field trial docs, instead of relying on a newspaper re-hash of a NAS Press Release.


Perhaps you should follow your own advice - you can read it for free HERE


The NAS report, just like the later UK Ministry of Defence commissioned report, contains major flaws.

The NAS knew full well that they were'not given access to all scientific results of each trial, which obviously prevented them from be able to make an accurate estimate of dosages for each trial.


Estimates of exposure for each trial are assessed here, and tabulated here

Sampling and analytic methods for determining the concentration of ZCS in target areas is given here, although the text is not properly formatted.


They also knew that very little research, if any, had been conducted which investigated adverse health effects to any person (or animal) who had been exposed to Zinc Cadmium sulphide.


Toxicity data is sumamrised starting here, including skin and eye exposure and direct injection into animals, and using it as a skin paint to identify cancers on humans.


Even more importantly, the NAS knew that absolutely no research has been conducted to investigate any adverse health effects experienced by those exposed to Zinc Cadmium sulphide in its BW simulant form - i.e. of a particle size (between 1-5 microns) which was designed to evade the body's natural defences and penetrate the deepest part of the lungs - the alvioli.


More misrepresentation - because of the limited data available they examnied 3 scenarios for the possible effects of ZCS:


In the worst-case scenario, ZnCdS would have the toxic properties of soluble cadmium compounds. However, the physical and chemical properties of ZnCdS are known. It is insoluble in water and lipids and only poorly soluble in strong acids. If it is assumed that in vivo ZnCdS becomes as soluble as any cadmium compound and might release its cadmium ions to react freely with biologic targets, it would be appropriate to estimate the toxicity of ZnCdS from the toxicity of soluble cadmium compounds in general. It is extremely doubtful whether such an assumption is warranted. Our general understanding of metal toxicology gives this worst-case scenario little, if any, plausibility.


ZCS simply is not biologically available as many cadmium compunds, because it is insoluble in water!

So her's the 2nd scanrio - it is actually a "best case" scenareo where ZCS is "known" to be completely harmless - and they reject it:


In a second scenario, ZnCdS might actually be a biologically inert particle, not more toxic than all the other respirable particles present in our daily environment. This scenario is based on physicochemical properties of ZnCdS (only poorly soluble in strong acids), which results in a lack of acute oral or dermal toxicity. However, the lack of a comprehensive evaluation of the toxicity of ZnCdS, particularly long-term low-level effects, and the fact that ZnCdS might be degraded to some extent, albeit only very slowly, preclude endorsement of such an assumption.


The 3rd scenario postulates that ZCS is as soluble as a substance for which there is well known data, but which is also certainly more dangerous than ZCS:


In the third scenario, ZnCdS would have toxic properties similar to those of cadmium sulfide, CdS, an insoluble cadmium compound. ZnCdS has a crystalline structure similar to that of CdS; the only difference is that in ZnCdS, zinc replaces 80% of the cadmium in the lattice. CdS is insoluble in water and lipids and slightly soluble in strong acids. Experimental data on toxicokinetics and toxicity of CdS are available. They clearly show that the cadmium in CdS is much less bioavailable than the cadmium in soluble compounds. ..... Therefore, the subcommittee chose to base its assessment of the potential toxicity of ZnCdS for noncancer health effects on the toxicity of CdS.


I ran out of room for the whole paragraph - you can read it at the link provided.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   


Originally posted by zero lift
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

But I disagree with tsurfer2000h about the rest of his post and would encourage him to delve further before being so dismissive of people's concerns - maybe read the NAS report and actual field trial docs, instead of relying on a newspaper re-hash of a NAS Press Release.


Perhaps you should follow your own advice - you can read it for free HERE



Thanks for posting the link Aloysius, but I would have thought it pretty obvious that I've read the NAS report many times - otherwise how would I conclude that its flawed? As I said before, and you for some reason ignored, its always best to examine the actual field trial docs before pronouncing judgement? Bearing in mind of course that a field trial report is a document produced by consensus and therefore has to be 'signed off' by many parties with different interests




The NAS report, just like the later UK Ministry of Defence commissioned report, contains major flaws.

The NAS knew full well that they were'not given access to all scientific results of each trial, which obviously prevented them from be able to make an accurate estimate of dosages for each trial.


Estimates of exposure for each trial are assessed here, and tabulated here


Er....in your haste to dismiss my post you seem to have missed the point. I said that the NAS, just like the later Ministry of Defence commissioned report, were NOT given access to all trials data. How can you give an accurate estimate for trials of which you hold no data?


Sampling and analytic methods for determining the concentration of ZCS in target areas is given here, although the text is not properly formatted.


Lets see what the NAS actually says shall we?

"THE CONCENTRATIONS OF airborne fluorescent particles of ZnCdS in the Army atmospheric-dispersion studies were measured with impingement and filtration methods. Two of those methods are thoroughly described by Leighton and others (1965), but the methods used at specific locations are not described in detail in Army risk-assessment documents."

This admission concerning lack of vital trials data is very significant. Unfortunately it somehow passed you by.


Let me explain its significance.


In 1962, the UK's Chemical and Biological Warfare research facility at Porton Down, Wiltshire, produced a scientific paper entitled Porton Technical Paper No 811 - Loss of Fluorescence by Airborne Tracer Particles (FP).

One of its conclusions was that ZnCds particles collected by Impactor sampling devices run a great risk of being obscured by local pollution and are not suitable for use in making estimates of particle concentration (and therefore dosage estimates). The US Army used Impactor sampling devices for particle collection in its ZnCds field trials - the Roto-Rod.

Couple that with the fact that the NAS admit that "the methods used at specific locations are not described in detail in Army risk-assessment documents" and one can only conclude that the NAS estimates are somewhat flawed.

In other words, if the Army weren't sure which sampling device was used in which trial, and Porton Down scientists concluded that one of the Armys sampling devices was not capable of providing concentration results, then how is it possible to give an accurate estimate of ZnCds dosage for each trial?

You can't.


Then we have the fact that the NAS based their dosage estimates on particle counts without questioning the purpose of each field trial. This is very important as many of these tests were not done with concentration in mind. Most were purely particle trajectory trials, so the data collection was directed towards that purpose.

Therefore information (particle counts etc) collected during trajectory orientated field trials was useless for use in dosage estimation.

This is a significant problem which Porton Down recognised when similarly tasked with providing historical field trials data for dosage concentration estimates. Like the US, the major part of the UK's ZnCds public area programme concerned the investigation of particulate trajectories, and NOT dosage!

And then of course we have the fact that little or no mention was made by the NAS about the deleterious effects of sunlight on ZnCds particles.


Save that for later maybe


Like I said before, its best to read the NAS report and actual field trial docs before making judgement





zero lift



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift

The NAS knew full well that they were'not given access to all scientific results of each trial, which obviously prevented them from be able to make an accurate estimate of dosages for each trial.


You seem to be completley unaware of methods for dealing with data that is known to be less than perfect - I can see why this makes your judgement so poor......


Er....in your haste to dismiss my post you seem to have missed the point. I said that the NAS, just like the later Ministry of Defence commissioned report, were NOT given access to all trials data. How can you give an accurate estimate for trials of which you hold no data?


they did have data - you even say so in this section I quoted - a very bad leap of illogic on yuor part there.


Lets see what the NAS actually says shall we?

"THE CONCENTRATIONS OF airborne fluorescent particles of ZnCdS in the Army atmospheric-dispersion studies were measured with impingement and filtration methods. Two of those methods are thoroughly described by Leighton and others (1965), but the methods used at specific locations are not described in detail in Army risk-assessment documents."

This admission concerning lack of vital trials data is very significant. Unfortunately it somehow passed you by.


Let me explain its significance.


In 1962, the UK's Chemical and Biological Warfare research facility at Porton Down, Wiltshire, produced a scientific paper entitled Porton Technical Paper No 811 - Loss of Fluorescence by Airborne Tracer Particles (FP).

One of its conclusions was that ZnCds particles collected by Impactor sampling devices run a great risk of being obscured by local pollution and are not suitable for use in making estimates of particle concentration (and therefore dosage estimates). The US Army used Impactor sampling devices for particle collection in its ZnCds field trials - the Roto-Rod.


Along with filtration - and apparently the rotorod is well suited to measuer concentrations....oops!!


Couple that with the fact that the NAS admit that "the methods used at specific locations are not described in detail in Army risk-assessment documents" and one can only conclude that the NAS estimates are somewhat flawed.

In other words, if the Army weren't sure which sampling device was used in which trial, and Porton Down scientists concluded that one of the Armys sampling devices was not capable of providing concentration results, then how is it possible to give an accurate estimate of ZnCds dosage for each trial?

You can't.


why not? Again you assume that because you think there is a problem with the data therefore it is completely useless.

However there are multiple well known techniques for dealing with deficient data - you can examine what is collected, how it is collected, and what the characteristics of the collection system are, then make allowances, test presumptions and incorporate certainty measurements. Such measures are taught starting in Stats 101

apparently you do not know of any of them......and it is reflected in your unjustified conclusions.


Then we have the fact that the NAS based their dosage estimates on particle counts without questioning the purpose of each field trial. This is very important as many of these tests were not done with concentration in mind. Most were purely particle trajectory trials, so the data collection was directed towards that purpose.

Therefore information (particle counts etc) collected during trajectory orientated field trials was useless for use in dosage estimation.


Says who?

It might help eliminate some uncertainties in a study....possibly......if the study had to have multiple sets of uncertainties to cope with multiple possible collection types.

but since apparently at last 1 of the collection methods is able "to record the same relative changes in airborne particle concentrations" it seems to me that a lot of your basis for complaint is jsut wishful thinking on your part due to ignorance.

[Quote]And then of course we have the fact that little or no mention was made by the NAS about the deleterious effects of sunlight on ZnCds particles.

And so what?

Here is one such mention:


One study reported a loss of as much as 50% of Zn0.8Cd0.2S particles within 2 h of airborne travel in sunlight (Eggleton and Thompson 1961).


Your leaps from "the data is not ideal" to "therefore the data is completely useless" are not backed up by any real reasoning.

although I will admit that you do at least have access to and have clearly read the report



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by zero lift

The NAS knew full well that they were'not given access to all scientific results of each trial, which obviously prevented them from be able to make an accurate estimate of dosages for each trial.


You seem to be completley unaware of methods for dealing with data that is known to be less than perfect - I can see why this makes your judgement so poor......


Nice try Aloysius, but no cigar.

Twist my words if you want, the fact remains that the NAS were NOT given access to all scientific results for each trial.

This lack of individual trials results is not merely, as in your rather misleading description 'data that is known to be less than perfect', it is a significant flaw which prevents an accurate dosage estimate being made for each trial.

No matter which method is used to 'compensate' for lack of trials results, the fact remains that it is a very poor substitute for original scientific trials results, and therefore is a major flaw.

No scientific results = 'data that is known to be less than perfect'


Ever thought of becoming a Government spin-doctor, Aloysius? You're a natural




Er....in your haste to dismiss my post you seem to have missed the point. I said that the NAS, just like the later Ministry of Defence commissioned report, were NOT given access to all trials data. How can you give an accurate estimate for trials of which you hold no data?


they did have data - you even say so in this section I quoted - a very bad leap of illogic on yuor part there.


Hasty Aloysius strikes again


I said that the NAS, just like the later Ministry of Defence commissioned report, were NOT given access to all trials data.

Notice the word 'all'?

You cannot give an accurate estimate of dosage for trials of which you hold no data. As the NAS were not given data for all of the trials, they could not give an accurate estimate of dosage for those trials with missing results. I think most people, but probably not you, would call that a significant flaw




why not? Again you assume that because you think there is a problem with the data therefore it is completely useless.

However there are multiple well known techniques for dealing with deficient data - you can examine what is collected, how it is collected, and what the characteristics of the collection system are, then make allowances, test presumptions and incorporate certainty measurements. Such measures are taught starting in Stats 101

apparently you do not know of any of them......and it is reflected in your unjustified conclusions.


Take a deep breath Aloysius and read what I wrote once more..


In case that doesn't work, lets try again. The US Army's Tripartite Agreement partner, CDEE Porton Down, concluded in the early '60s that Impactor air sampling devices (Roto-Rod is an impactor device) did not give an accurate particle count as it collected a significant amount of local pollution which obscured Zinc Cadmium sulphide particles already impacted. This prevented the very accurate particle count which was needed for concentration studies. Porton scientists rightly concluded that only millipore [membrane] filters should be used for concentration studies.

The NAS report that 'the methods [Filter or Roto-Rod] used at specific locations are not described in detail in Army risk-assessment documents'.

Unfortunately, like yourself, the NAS apparently were unaware that according to Porton Down, only one of those sampling devices was capable of providing particle concentration data which was relatively unaffected by pollution - the Membrane Filter.

Although particle counts collected by Impactor devices were suitable enough for mere trajectory studies, where actual concentration counts were unnecessary, Impactor devices were NOT suitable for concentration studies.

As the Army didn't provide data concerning how the method by which ZnCds particles were collected for each individual trial, this puts rather a large whole in any guesstimate..


Along with filtration - and apparently the rotorod is well suited to measuer concentrations....oops!!


Er....here you go again making hasty judgements.

Take the time to look closer at that link link of yours Aloysius, bearing in mind that the particle size used in ZnCds field trials varied between 0.5 microm and 6.5 microm - the normal size of a Biological Warfare simulant.

That is, a size



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift

Then we have the fact that the NAS based their dosage estimates on particle counts without questioning the purpose of each field trial. This is very important as many of these tests were not done with concentration in mind. Most were purely particle trajectory trials, so the data collection was directed towards that purpose.

Therefore information (particle counts etc) collected during trajectory orientated field trials was useless for use in dosage estimation.



Says who?


Says Porton Technical Paper No 811 - The Loss of Fluorescence By Airborne Tracer Particles (FP) GF Collins May 1962



...but since apparently at last 1 of the collection methods is able "to record the same relative changes in airborne particle concentrations" it seems to me that a lot of your basis for complaint is jsut wishful thinking on your part due to ignorance.


Er... calculating a relative change is what was used in trajectory studies, Aloysius.


Whereas an accurate particle count is what is needed for concentration/dosage calculations - something an Impactor sampler doesn't provide.



And then of course we have the fact that little or no mention was made by the NAS about the deleterious effects of sunlight on ZnCds particles.



And so what?


Isn't it obvious to you, Aloysius?

The collected samples were often hand counted with the use of a microscope and a high-intensity ultra-violet light. A 50% loss of fluorescence gives a correspondingly low count.

Which means that a significant proportion of ZnCds particles from the ZnCds samples collected from daylight field trials may have gone undetected.



Your leaps from "the data is not ideal" to "therefore the data is completely useless" are not backed up by any real reasoning.



Naughty naughty Aloysius.

Misquoting me to suit your bias won't help your case.

I said the "therefore information (particle counts etc) collected during trajectory orientated field trials was useless for use in dosage estimation" NOT "therefore the data is completely useless".

I realise that you appear to have difficulty in understanding this but surely it must be obvious, even to you, that using particle counts obtained from an device that has a proven low collection efficiency for the particle size used in ZnCds experiments cannot give an accurate dosage estimation.

Take a bit of time Aloysius. Do a bit of research on the extensive US/UK/CAN ZnCds field trials programme - examining the actual ZnCds field trials reports would be a start.

You may then realise that the NAS report, just like the UK equivalent, contains major flaws.

Or then again, you may not.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
I realise that you appear to have difficulty in understanding this but surely it must be obvious, even to you, that using particle counts obtained from an device that has a proven low collection efficiency for the particle size used in ZnCds experiments cannot give an accurate dosage estimation.

Take a bit of time Aloysius. Do a bit of research on the extensive US/UK/CAN ZnCds field trials programme - examining the actual ZnCds field trials reports would be a start.

You may then realise that the NAS report, just like the UK equivalent, contains major flaws.

Or then again, you may not.

Nice work, Z-Lift.


There are BIG questions in life: Why Does the Caged Bird Sing? Because we must. Truth should always be shouted…or warbled, whatever.

Then we have other questions like: Why Does the Chicken Dance? Tough question…and none of the answers are very flattering to the chicken.

Is it because he is fed quarters? Does he work for chicken feed?



Is it because he likes to dance no matter how dated & bogus the music?



Or--and this is the one where I have my money placed--Has he been Hypnotized by his Handler?




Please, if you've followed along this far, DO NOT miss the Dance of the Chicken-Shill:



Dance, Chicken, Dance!





edit on 5-10-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join