Aluminum: New factor in the decline of bee populations?

a reply to: gernblan

They're not, it's in the soil mostly.

Then that soil gets blown around and lands on the plants where the bees come in contact with it..

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: spirit_horse

Al is used in jet fuels for lubrication. Al could have built up over a long period of time. It would be interesting to see if the skyrocketing Alzheimer's cases coincide with the decline in the bee population.

Bingo!

People are wondering what has changed in terms of flight and contrails over the last 20, 30 years, yet they keep forgeting the advancements in nanotechnology. Try aluminum nanopowder for increased combustion efficiency...for starters.

One thing to note is also the lack of regulations of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres.

It`s easy to connect the dots here. Cost reduction and lack of regulations on such materials will always lead to the same conclusion. Abuse and overuse. But that just the first step into the contrail=chemtrail CT.

you are aware that jet fuel, the same stuff that is loaded onto the aircraft, can be purchased right from the airport right? So, if that's the case, am I to believe that NOT ONE person has had the idea to buy a gallon and have it tested? (Surely you know that fuel is sampled and tested rigorously and often)

If you want to discuss reality, I think that's a wonderful idea and it might lead to some good discussion, but using silly words like "nanotechnology" as a buzzwords is not productive at all.

If you were to get a sample and test it, then I'm sure the findings would be wonderful to start a thread over.

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: spirit_horse

Al is used in jet fuels for lubrication. Al could have built up over a long period of time. It would be interesting to see if the skyrocketing Alzheimer's cases coincide with the decline in the bee population.

Bingo!

People are wondering what has changed in terms of flight and contrails over the last 20, 30 years, yet they keep forgeting the advancements in nanotechnology. Try aluminum nanopowder for increased combustion efficiency...for starters.

One thing to note is also the lack of regulations of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres.

It`s easy to connect the dots here. Cost reduction and lack of regulations on such materials will always lead to the same conclusion. Abuse and overuse. But that just the first step into the contrail=chemtrail CT.

Aluminium/aluminum nanoparticles are also used in the following additional applications:
Dispersion-strengthening
Nanocomposites
Catalyst support
Transparent conductive coatings
Biomaterials
Heat-transfer fluids (suspensions)
Drug delivery
Sources for IC board or package
Transparent optical coatings
Wear-resistant additives
Material surface coatings

Source

I didn't realize that Al nanoparticles were in wide use. This could definitely be the source of environmental contamination. I don't think AL in soil would be much of an issue, but nanoparticles used in combustion and other manufacturing processes would add up over time significantly.

Ahem. There is no bee population decline.

That whole notion is a misunderstanding that came about because people like to imagine the worst and then blame "The Man" for it. What there really is is a bee "shortage" because demand for bees went out of control when privileged yuppies and hippies decided they wanted more organic honey.

See, bees are an industry. Bees are owned by various companies, and they're rented out to organic farmers. In order to keep up with the demand, the bee companies started splitting up hives and sending off immature queens, which had a very disruptive effect on the whole industry.

There are just as many wild bees as there were before, but the bee industry is still trying to figure out how to meet demand without damaging the hives. Because of the demand from the environmentally sensitive types, the very people making a big deal about a bee shortage in the first place. So there's a little irony for you.

a reply to: network dude

you are aware that jet fuel, the same stuff that is loaded onto the aircraft, can be purchased right from the airport right? So, if that's the case, am I to believe that NOT ONE person has had the idea to buy a gallon and have it tested? (Surely you know that fuel is sampled and tested rigorously and often)

Have it tested for what is the right question. People only care so far as the passing of the regulation test goes. It`s not like you are going to discover some banned chemicals in the feul, it`s completely legal but over time it will accumulate and change the ecosystem.

If you want to discuss reality, I think that's a wonderful idea and it might lead to some good discussion, but using silly words like "nanotechnology" as a buzzwords is not productive at all.

a buzzword for you maybe. I think we can just peacfully agree to disagree and leave the subject alone

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: network dude

you are aware that jet fuel, the same stuff that is loaded onto the aircraft, can be purchased right from the airport right? So, if that's the case, am I to believe that NOT ONE person has had the idea to buy a gallon and have it tested? (Surely you know that fuel is sampled and tested rigorously and often)

Have it tested for what is the right question. People only care so far as the passing of the regulation test goes. It`s not like you are going to discover some banned chemicals in the feul, it`s completely legal but over time it will accumulate and change the ecosystem.

well, if you were claiming it was full of nano particles that were killing humanity, or causing Alzheimers, perhaps you might test for them. You know, to prove they exist.

If you want to discuss reality, I think that's a wonderful idea and it might lead to some good discussion, but using silly words like "nanotechnology" as a buzzwords is not productive at all.

a buzzword for you maybe. I think we can just peacfully agree to disagree and leave the subject alone



sadly, that is the easiest option and the usual outcome. Just look up! have a good day.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: elementalgrove

Near extinction of real bees could not happen so quick unless the auli is from checmtrails. Not sure how its been done but I would not be suprised if it was planed and intentional.

how exactly do you arrive at that conclusion?

Bees have been around a long time and while disease runs through them from time to time, they would not disappear to the edge of extinction so quickly as has been previously reported on this website.

At the same time how can anyone be certain that genetically modified bees do not have an adverse health impact on natural bees? The same goes for the impact of the level of pollutants in the atmosphere whether by chemtrails or thru any other means. Given that the decimation of the natural bee population has occurred soon after the introduction of GMO bees, IMO that is likely to be the cause. ie cause and effect.

a reply to: Azureblue

I was concerned about the conviction you seemed to have when you said this:

Near extinction of real bees could not happen so quick unless the auli is from checmtrails.

I am not convinced that chemtrails are anything other than contrails that are being mis-identified. There seems to be a huge lack of evidence supporting their existence, and a huge amount of evidence explaining contrails. Plus we have the poster just a few up who claims that bee population is just fine and it's all in our heads. So it's hard to know what's right.

a reply to: Azureblue

There are many other relatively recent changes in global pollution emissions (rising of CO2 levels, etc.) over the past few decades. Why not one of those being the cause? And the cause may not be a direct effect on the bees themselves, but something else that -- down the ecological chain -- ends up visibly affecting bees the most.

Chemtrail conspiracy promoters say that chemtrails have been around since at least the early to mid 1990s (that's when chemtrail conspiracists first said "when I was young contrails didn't persist like that; therefore, they must be trails of sprayed chemicals rather then contrails".

Besides the obvious problems with that theory (such as how can they possibly fit enough of a volume of a chemical on a plane to be able to spray a chemical trail for hundreds of miles), there is also this problem with timing: The dying off of bees known as "Colony Collapse Disorder" seems to have begun around 2005 or 2006 while the whole contrail conspiracy theory started 10 yeas+ before that.

I suppose you could argue "well, it took 10 years of chentrail spraying to affect the bees to this degree", and maybe you would have a point -- maybe it could take 10 years before affecting bees. However, this timing issue along with the fact that there are problems with the whole idea idea that persistent contrails are actually chemtrails makes me think that hanging your hat entirely on the chemtrail explanation for bee demise -- as if it is the only explanation for bee demise -- is premature.

What makes you so sure that chemtrails are the environmental factor in causing the collapse of bee colonies?