Chemtrails: GAO report admits "chaff"
#11
gladius_veritatis Wrote:  While asking questions, ask this: How do you know they did not go to the local Press, getting laughed to scorn at the prospect of printing this story?

 
Because they would have mentioned it.  These are people that live for that kind of opposition.
 
 
Quote:
Btw, is the bit you quoted about the Idaho Observer supposed to discredit them as a reliable source of information?  What "worth" do you attach to the words you posted?  Thank you.
 
They are an easily discreditable source, yes.   The fact that they have an axe to grind is quite apparent.  

Reply
#12
Sophia Wrote:They are an easily discreditable source, yes.   The fact that they have an axe to grind is quite apparent.  
If they are easy to discredit - an idea which I am not arguing against at present - please do so using the words you quoted - or any additional words from them you think necessary.  So far, we have only a few non-incriminating words and your unsubstantiated claim that "they are easily discredited".  This is not sufficient. 
Reply
#13
gladius_veritatis Wrote: This is not sufficient. 

It is for me, and for most people.  But go ahead, I know you can't stand not to have the last word. 
Reply
#14
Please, 2 cancers in a pinkish dust on their roof-top ????
As if cancer is a substance and that it can subsist on it's own.
 
Cancer is a disease that affect living tissue.  Are we working under the assumption that this extra-ordinary powder was alive and fighting not one, but two cancers?  [Image: huh.gif]
 
Also, Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs, not a bacteria in it-self, and no specific bacteria causes it.
 
I'll agree to one thing with this article.  "Those substance are not suppose to be there."  Simply because it makes no sense.
 
I could continue... Traces of anthrax is a perfectly natural thing to find in rural areas. It would only be mentioned because of it's shock value.  Listing it amongst item that should not be there is again, inaccurate and inane science
 
 
 
Reply
#15
Vandaler,

I don't necessarily believe the whole chemtrail thing, but there are definite bacteria and viruses that cause Pneumonia.  There is bacterial Pneumonia and viral Pneumonia. There is strep, staph and pseudomonis bacteria that cause pneumonia.  In adults herpes zoster virus( the cause of chicken pox) can cause pneumonia.  It is a misconception to say:

Quote: Pneumonia is an infection, not a bacteria in it-self, and no specific bacteria causes it.

If you would like to read up on it here is a good report on pneumonia. site:http://www.reutershealth.com/wellconnected/doc64.html


Quote:Not only that, there is only one type of cancer... and it's name is well: Cancer.  It can attack different tissue, thus being, skin cancer, liver cancer etc... but it's the same disease nontheless. The mention of 2 cancers is childish science.

Not so.  There are 90+ diseases attributed to cancers.   Liver cancer cells are much different than  ovarian cancer cells and so on. It is not at all the same.  It is a cell gone bad so to speak, and viruses have been attributed to certain cancers. 

In Christ
Monique

Reply
#16
Quote:Vandaler,

I don't necessarily believe the whole chemtrail thing, but there are definite bacteria and viruses that cause Pneumonia.  There is bacterial Pneumonia and viral Pneumonia. There is strep, staph and pseudomonis bacteria that cause pneumonia.  In adults herpes zoster virus( the cause of chicken pox) can cause pneumonia.  It is a misconception to say:

Agreed, of course we are constantly surrounded by various agents then could cause a lung infection. That condition is not exceptional either  But could you write that pneumonia is found in a pinkish powder?.



Quote:
Quote:Not only that, there is only one type of cancer... and it's name is well: Cancer.  It can attack different tissue, thus being, skin cancer, liver cancer etc... but it's the same disease nontheless. The mention of 2 cancers is childish science.

Not so.  There are 90+ diseases attributed to cancers.   Liver cancer cells are much different than  ovarian cancer cells and so on. It is not at all the same.  It is a cell gone bad so to speak, and viruses have been attributed to certain cancers. 
 
Agreed, I edited myself even before you corrected me.  I still think the way it's written makes no sense. I'd be fine with mentionning substances that are known for causing cancer (again something normal, we are constantly exposed to cancer inducing agents) ... But actual cancer in dust? 
 
Reply
#17
It does sound a little strange. I tried googling chemtrails and one of the sites I came up with had a bunch of weird stuff about syphs????? Whatever they are. THEY are supposed to be protecting us from the chemtrails. [Image: pointandlaff.gif]It kinda made the whole thing seem nutty.

In Christ
Monique


Reply
#18
 
 
The actual GAO report. 

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-98-219.htm

 

It details that...

 

(1) chaff is used worldwide in conjunction with military
training, testing, and other assigned missions;

 

(2) in fiscal year (FY) 1997, the Air Force reported using about 1.8 million bundles worldwide, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft used more than 354,000 bundles and 593 rolls, and Navy combat ships used about 10,000 large bundles;

 

(3) DOD records indicate that FY 1998 inventories include more than 37 million bundles and more than 141,000 rolls of chaff;

 

(4) the Air Force holds about 77 percent of the bundles, while the Navy and Marine Corps hold all the rolls;

 

(5) the Army has some mission needs but possesses and uses little chaff in peacetime training or testing;

 

(6) while DOD components report that chaff is an effective means of defense for aircraft, ships, and related weapons systems, DOD and other agencies
have identified some unintended and potential side effects of chaff;

 

(7) chaff can affect safety by interfering with air traffic control radar;

(8) chaff can also affect weather radar observations and the operation
of friendly radar systems, especially when vehicles stir up chaff that
has settled on the ground;

 

(9) the services have a number of ongoing initiatives to address concerns about the unintended and potential effects of chaff;

 

(10) for example, DOD has entered into or is negotiating agreements with other federal agencies to address issues related to commercial air safety, weather forecasting, and environmental impacts on public lands;

 

(11) also, the Navy has started a program to
develop degradable chaff that is estimated to cost about 40 percent more
than the current chaff;

 

(12) while intended as beneficial, the Navy has not yet defined the operational and environmental benefits that could result from this program;

 

(13) notwithstanding DOD's actions, some concerns continue to be raised by the public and federal agencies about the potentially harmful or undesirable effects of chaff on the environment;

 

(14) also, some of DOD's studies cite additional areas where questions have been raised about the unintended effects of chaff;

 

(15) DOD has not systematically followed up on these questions or on the
recommendations of these reports to determine whether they merit
additional review; and

 

(16) DOD continues to retain lead-based chaff in its inventory even though this type of chaff has not been manufactured since 1987 and is reportedly no longer in use.

Reply
#19
And here, A research on the use of Chaff and it's impact on the environement.: https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/L...report.pdf
 

Summary Findings and Recommendations

· Chaff particle concentrations in air of chaff-affected areas are 1/100th of allowable limits set by EPA and less than 1/10th of the natural background concentration for suspended soil particles.

· Deposition of chaff, even under areas of intensive use, is hundreds of times less than the annual deposition of dust in the southwestern U.S. The chemical composition of chaff is very similar to the chemical composition of desert dust.

· Estimated U.S. chaff emissions are several orders of magnitude less than the U.S. mass emissions estimated by the U.S. EPA for dust, vehicle exhaust, power generation and industrial emitters.

· Deposition of chaff does not result in the accumulation of toxic or otherwise undesirable substances in soils.

· The risk of exposure for humans through inhalation or ingestion is considered negligible because chaff fibers are too large pass through the nose or mouth or do not exceed known toxic thresholds.

Environmental Effects of RF Chaff

__________________________________________________

4

· Inhalation and ingestion exposure to domestic livestock and non-domestic grazers isconsidered minimal to nil. Nutritional values of chaff are low and comparable in composition to soil.

· Marine and freshwater organisms exposed to relevant levels of chaff are unlikely to exhibit effects in their growth or development.

· Previous studies on the environmental effects of chaff failed to consider realistic chaff exposure levels. Extremely high, non-relevant exposures were used to predict an effect.

· Of the open questions identified by the GAO, only resuspension, abrasion and exposure of chaff were identified as requiring additional research efforts by the DOD.

· The panel recommends that the DOD address the following questions related to theresuspension and fate of chaff:

1. What fraction of emitted chaff breaks up in atmospheric turbulence into respirable particles?

2. How much chaff is abraded and resuspended after it is deposited on a surface?

3. What are the shapes of chaff particles after abrasion?

4. What is the empirical terminal deposition velocity of chaff?

5. What is the spatial distribution of chaff under different release and meteorological conditions?

6. How do chaff emissions and expected concentrations compare to emissions and concentrations from other particle emitters over the time and areas where chaff is released?

7. What quantities of inhalable chaff are found in communities near training facilities where chaff is released?

· Degradable chaff is under development. However, the environmental effects of this material are unknown, and current DOD efforts fall short of demonstrating degradability, ultimate fate, and environmental effects.

· Further, the panel recommends an organized program addressing the environmental effects of degradable chaff.
 

Reply
#20
Sophia Wrote:It is for me, and for most people.  But go ahead, I know you can't stand not to have the last word. 

I shall prove you 'right', of course, my lady, but it has nothing to do with having the "last word".
 
You selected some words, in an attempt to discredit the source I used (fair enough).  This article may be crapola for all I know (I am no scientist, nor an expert on chemtrails - although I do think there is some rather strange activity in our skies these days).  However, you did not show how the words you selected discredit them, yet  you claimed they are an easily discredited source.  I am not saying you are incorrect - but that you have not discredited them in any way to this point.
 
I am simply asking you to do it, which should not be too troublesome, as you say it is easily done.
 
Comments about having the last word only leave me with the thought (right or wrong) that you realize (to some degree) you spoke in haste, and have chosen not to do what you have said is easily done - but to act as if my pride (which is very real) is somehow an issue.  The real issue is that you have made an assertion, said it was easily proved, and yet failed to prove it - even when expressly asked to do so.  Now, I am just asking you to do so (again).  Thank you.
 
 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)