Why chemtrails cannot be discussed without turmoil.

reply to post by nomnom

It's pretty obvious that cancer incidence has risen alongside industrial pollution over the last 150 years.

So how can you say the incidents has risen overthe last 150 years, which btw is 1863, when from your link I see this...

Cancer incidence increased steadily between 1973 and 1996, and probably for longer than that, although the government did not keep track of cancer rates before 1973.

www.chemicalindustryarchives.org...

If you don't have records then how do you know it increased steadily?

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Hopechest

 

I would add, how long is the expected to take, since it has apparently been happening since the 1990's?

By the likes of sites like these and all the events happening round our world these days...it's happening NOW!

reply to post by nomnom

You'll note that the statistics you quote only go up to the mid-1990s—almost a generation ago. There's a reason that site doesn't quote any newer stats, because the mid-Nineties is exactly when cancer incidence began to fall. I'm not sure if I posted this link earlier; it features a neat little graph that displays the fall.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Very easy, my friend. Why have incidences increased since 1973? What has increased? Environmental pollution. Industry creates this. It has been increasing since the industrial revolution.

I asked why, and deduced the most likely cause. That's how.

lol i dont think anyone wants to believe were all being sprayed with chemicals but the reality of it is theses chem trails didnt exist in the last decade or so only lately have people been noticing them you dont know what your talking about

reply to post by Astyanax


That is for the United States.

What has decreased in that same time-frame?

We deindustrialized to the extent that 1/3 of industry jobs are now gone.

It means we have less industry related pollution. We outsourced the pollution along with the jobs and industry.

reply to post by nomnom

Why have incidences increased since 1973?

What about the years before that?

You stated 150 years, and I was interested in how you know figures before 1973 without anything to look back on?

And how does this relate to chemtrails?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Basic reasoning.

I'm not sure what you're missing

Originally posted by zedy63
lol i dont think anyone wants to believe were all being sprayed with chemicals but the reality of it is theses chem trails didnt exist in the last decade or so only lately have people been noticing them you dont know what your talking about

I'm afraid it is your good self that doesn't know what you're talking about.

There are probably hundreds of posts here on ATS that show "chem trails" going back as far as, and before, the second world war.

People are noticing contrails more these days for a number of simple reasons, reasons that somebody with your disposition would probably not accept.

The idea you espouse that some people on here just don't want to "believe" in chemtrails because it is too much for them to handle is infantile. The whole chemtrail debate is centered(or should be at least) around evidence. And if you take the time to research some threads on here it would become apparent that the evidence is stacked against the existence of chemtrails, and no, the evidence is not stacked against the existence of chaff, cloud seeding, Agent Orange or even the notion and discussion of geo-engineering, it is stacked against the theory that there is a worldwide 'spraying' program involving hundreds if not thousands of aircraft. Whatever these supposed aircraft are supposedly spraying depends on the person making the claims.

Here's an interview with Rosalind Peterson, an outspoken chemtrail activist, at 1:50 she admits there is "no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions".

reply to post by nomnom

I'm not sure what you're missing

I am missing the evidence you have that shows it increased steadily for the last 150 years, or did you just pull that number out of your hat?

Is there something your missing with my question, as it was pretty straightforward or am I missing something here?


And again how does this relate to chemtrails?

its true i dont know much about them but i do know i had never seen these before as much as now they are not normal con trails something is amiss here

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


How can you ask for data that doesn't exist? It makes no sense, man.

Fact: Industry releases pollution which contain carcinogens.

Fact. Carcinogens are cancer-causing.

Fact. Industrial pollution has increased over the last 150+ years.

Are you... slow in the head

As for how this relates to "chemtrails", it doesn't. It was something mentioned earlier in the thread which I responded to.

reply to post by nomnom

That is for the United States. What has decreased in that same time-frame? We deindustrialized to the extent that 1/3 of industry jobs are now gone. It means we have less industry related pollution. We outsourced the pollution along with the jobs and industry.

Source

It seems your opinions are based not on fact but folklore.

reply to post by Astyanax


No. It doesn't. Please look at the regulations which have been introduced. A switch to cleaner techniques within industry have been implemented.



Industry Emissions in Decline

Originally posted by zedy63
lol i dont think anyone wants to believe were all being sprayed with chemicals but the reality of it is theses chem trails didnt exist in the last decade or so only lately have people been noticing them you dont know what your talking about

I can accept that I don't know what I am talking about. But in order for that to be true, I am going to need you to tell me what chemicals are in these trails, and how you came about that knowledge.
And please, tell me how you folks are able to tell what chemicals are in the trails from the ground with just your eyes. That is an amazing feat.

reply to post by nomnom

That is for the United States.

So are the figures you quoted; that is why I presented mine, which prove yours wrong. Neither are to the point I was making to you earlier, which was about global cancer rates. You have not shown that these are increasing in any meaningful sense.

You're a slippery fellow, aren't you? First you claim that cancer rates are increasing. When shown that they are not, you say it's because the US has been deindustrialising since the 1990s. When you are shown that deindustrialisation has not taken place, you change your story and say it's because of cleaner manufacturing. What next?

Anyone can come here and blow hot air. The trick is to be able to back up what you say. It seems you are not a person to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by zedy63
its true i dont know much about them but i do know i had never seen these before as much as now they are not normal con trails something is amiss here

so the fact that air travel has increased dramatically over the years, along with the high bypass engines that are more conducive to making persistent contrails means nothing and you would rather ASSUME that it's a worldwide spraying operation on a massive scale that has been kept so secret, that no evidence exists for it's being there except lines in the sky that look a whole lot like contrails?

Just checking to see if that is your position.

As I have said in many other threads....when you see these things it's obvious.....I am very in-tune with nature since I was a child.....my background is in Horticulture........and in CA, USA something is going down!!!

reply to post by MountainLaurel


So knowing that white lines that form behind airplanes way up in the air are called contrails and they can an do persist for hours or minutes depending on the conditions, why would you automatically assume they were chemtrails? Couldn't they be contrails just like they have been since the beginning of flight?

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
As I have said in many other threads....when you see these things it's obvious....

It cannot be "obvious" otherwise we wouldn't have that discussion.