Showing posts with label climate control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate control. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 March 2010

weatherwars: chemtrails

00

The Pilot’s view

The view from the font of the aircraft, a view very few of us commercial air travelers will ever enjoy. This is a view just not possible from the side portals passengers windows.

These following images are from commercial aircraft leaving condensation and/or chemtrail trails. I will not and cannot differentiate between the two from a single out of context image that I did not photograph. Watching the flight patterns and trail behaviors in realtime plus an awareness of the local weather conditions permits a diagnosis of whether a trail is of the water vapor or chemtrail variety.

This is a water spraying nozzle for testing the de-icing  capabilities of aircraft.  NOT-NOT-NOT for chemtrail dispersion.

This is a water spraying nozzle for testing the de-icing capabilities of aircraft. NOT-NOT-NOT for chemtrail dispersion.

smalldivider

Likely a chemtrail... Note the powder left from a previous plane on  the far right side of the image.

Likely a chemtrail... Note the powder left from a previous plane on the far right side of the image.

These plane are in engaged in a ballet in the sky.  Displaying a  flying precision (displayed above and beyond FAA mandated safety  regulations)

These plane are in engaged in a ballet in the sky. Displaying a flying precision (displayed above and beyond FAA mandated safety regulations) but in relation to other chemtrail flights but more importantly previously laid down trails. Commercial flights don't care about their trail's geometry in relation to other flights... It just isn't important to the paying load.

Wingtip vortices

Wingtip vortices... Note the orange haze, smog, pollution, ozone, previous trail's haze down below.

A  747

A 747 with what looks like more than just exhaust from the turbofan engine nacelles.

smalldivider

A  full wingspan trail

A full wingspan persistent trail

With this kind of 'pollution' at the top of the troposphere why are  we worried about CFC bulbs?

With this kind of 'pollution' at the top of the troposphere why are we worried about CFC bulbs?

Another polluting trail

Another polluting trail

The powdery trails spreading out trying to counteract the cooling  of the planet.

The powdery trails spreading out trying to counteract the cooling of the planet.

Trails of Ionizable Barium Salts greatly enhance the electrical  conductivity of moisture in the atmosphere.

Trails of Ionizable Barium Salts greatly enhance the electrical conductivity of moisture in the atmosphere.

Are aircraft trail one of the causes for 'Global Dimming?"

Are aircraft trail one of the causes for 'Global Dimming?"

Global Dimming from Wikipedia

Note the pink haze between the turbofan exhaust streams... This 747  is-a-chemtrail-ing.

Note the pink haze between the turbofan exhaust streams... This 747 is-a-chemtrail-ing.

Another 'fattie' coming out of a 747.  Certainly these engines are  cleaner than this!

Another 'fattie' coming out of a 747. Certainly these engines are cleaner than this!

These electrical wires, composed of ionizable barium salts, are  used to define boundaries where EM energies are used to alter the  ionization of sections of the atmosphere.

These chemtrails, these electrical wires, composed of ionizable barium salts, are used to define boundaries where EM energies are used to alter/change the ionization of sections/grids/layers of the atmosphere.

Vastly more trails seen in today's skies are chemtrails than not.

Vastly more trails seen in today's skies are chemtrails than not.

smalldivider

smalldivider

Another wingtip vortex trail

Another wingtip vortex trail

They are weather engineering, 99.5% of all trails seen are for this  purpose... The long ones, short one are all for this reason.  It's all  about keeping the geometry of the airflow in the desired channels at the  proper density, speed and direction for their designs downstream.  What  was done over New Mexico today will effect Texas tonight.

Chemtrails are for weather engineering, 99.5% of all trails seen today are for this single purpose... The long ones, short one are all for this reason. It's all about keeping the geometry of the airflow in the desired channels at the proper density, speed and direction for their designs downstream. What was done over New Mexico today will effect Texas tonight.

Trails are flown very low these days.  There is extensive traffic  in the 18-25,000 foot altitudes...  The mid levels of the troposphere.

Trails are flown very low these days. There is extensive traffic in the 18-25,000 foot altitudes... The mid levels of the troposphere.

A  Lufthansa 767 tailing over the States.  I haven't seen a global airline  NOT participating in this program.  No doubt the powers that be buy  payload access OR demand payload access from these corporations. Fascism  at its best.

A Lufthansa 767 tailing over the States. I haven't seen a global airline NOT participating in this program. No doubt the powers that be buy payload access OR demand payload access from these corporations. Fascism at its best.

The earliest photographs of chemtrails that I have seen are from  1976.  Contrails from piston aircraft were first observed in the 1930s.

The earliest photographs of chemtrails that I have seen are from 1976. Contrails from piston aircraft were first observed in the 1930s.

It appears as if a majority of the civilian commercial fleet as  been conscripted to aerosolize the atmosphere to 'combat' the false  notion of global warming.  A separate commercial look-alike fleet flies  amongst the regular traffic commercial laying down the marking or very  persistent trails.  This second fleet need to free to fly to where its  needed free of passengers and a schedule.

It appears as if a majority of the civilian commercial fleet as been conscripted to aerosolize the atmosphere to 'combat' the false notion of global warming. A separate commercial look-alike fleet flies amongst the regular traffic commercial laying down the marking or very persistent trails. This second fleet need to free to fly to where its needed free of passengers and a schedule.

A great source of additional ‘contrail pictures’ can be found for searching for contrails at http://www.airliners.net/

Tuesday, 15 January 2008

chemtrail italia

.
Legislatura 15 Atto di Sindacato Ispettivo n° 4-00053


Versione per la stampa


Mostra rif. normativi


Atto n. 4-00053

Pubblicato il 13 giugno 2006

Seduta n. 8

NIEDDU - Ai Ministri dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio, della difesa, della salute e dei trasporti. - Premesso che: sono rilevabili a quote diverse nel nostro spazio aereo scie persistenti di natura non determinata, denominate dagli organi di stampa e da associazioni specializzate con il termine di chemtrails;

in particolare negli ultimi mesi sui cieli della Sardegna, specialmente nelle giornate limpide, sono state notate da parte della popolazione residente, creando una forte preoccupazione ed apprensione, scie conseguenti ad un intenso traffico di aerei non identificati i quali percorrono rotte non convenzionali;

tali scie intersecandosi tra loro generano una sorta di reticolato, non si dissipano subito, come accade normalmente, ma sfaldandosi si allargano e lentamente si espandono formando un manto nuvoloso che interessa un’area molto vasta;


ambienti scientifici internazionali avvalorerebbero la
tesi che si tratta di scie contenenti sostanze nocive per la salute dei cittadini; alcuni studiosi sostengono, peraltro, che tutto ciò sarebbe l’effetto di specifiche sperimentazioni per verificare o provocare mutamenti climatici, altri ancora pensano a possibili utilizzi militari, per la presenza consistente, nelle zone sottoposte a monitoraggio, di
silicio e materiali di altra natura, l’interrogante chiede di sapere:

se il fenomeno sia oggetto di rilevazione o di studio per la parte di competenza di ciascun dicastero;


se i Ministri in indirizzo interessati siano già in possesso di dati o ipotesi che possano in qualche modo far luce sul fenomeno;

se si ritenga opportuno fornire spiegazioni sulle conseguenze che le scie chimiche rilasciate dagli aerei possano avere sulla salute dei cittadini, nonché chiarire se negli ultimi mesi siano stati autorizzati piani di volo sulla regione Sardegna per scopi riconducibili alla materia in oggetto.


Monday, 29 October 2007

geo engineering


http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_industry_plan.071025.htm

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #930, October 25, 2007

INDUSTRY'S PLAN FOR US

[Rachel's introduction: The fossil fuel corporations have a plan for us, and it does not include any substantial investment in renewable solar energy. Their plan is focused on "geo-engineering" -- which means re-engineering the oceans, the atmosphere and the earth itself to make it possible to continue burning fossil fuels. U.S. EPA is on board with the plan.]

By Peter Montague

It now seems clear that the coal and oil industries are not going to allow the United States to curb global warming by making major investments in renewable sources of energy. These fossil fuel corporations simply have too much at stake to allow it.

Simple physics tells us that the way to minimize the human contribution to global warming is to leave the remaining fossil fuels in the ground -- stop mining them as soon as humanly possible. This obvious solution would require us to turn the nation's industrial prowess to developing solar power in its many forms as quickly as we can -- we would need a "'Manhattan Project' for Energy," as the strategy journal of the top U.S. military planners said recently.

Look at the relative size of our current government investments in solar vs. fossil fuels. In 2007 the federal Department of Energy spent $168 million on solar research. On the other hand each year since 1991 the U.S. government has spent 1000 times that amount -- $169 billion -- subsidizing the flow of oil from the Middle East, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our top military planners. And that figure doesn't include what consumers paid for the oil itself. If our solar investment remains one-tenth of one percent of our investment in oil, there will be no solar power to speak of in our future.

A rapid shift to renewables based on solar would not be easy and I don't want to minimize the effort required. It's stupendously large. But we've undertaken heroic industrial projects before -- and with notable success. We mobilized quickly and massively to defeat the combined industrial might of Germany, Japan, and Italy in less than five years after Pearl Harbor. The original Manhattan Project turned a physicist's theory into a working A-bomb in less than 6 years; just building the gaseous diffusion plant near Oak Ridge, Tennessee was a scientific, engineering and industrial feat of astonishing magnitude and complexity. The Marshall Plan successfully rebuilt Europe after WW II. Our Man-on-the-Moon program succeeded just 11 years after the Russians tweaked our national ego by launching Sputnik into orbit in 1957.

Yes, a shift to solar-powered renewables would be difficult, but it's doable. Unfortunately, any plan to shift from fossil fuels to solar has three fatal flaws, from the viewpoint of Big Oil and Big Coal:

1. The fossil fuel corporations have an enormous investment in fossil infrastructure and they own vast quantities of fossil fuels that they plan to exploit with little real effort over the next 50 years. They have been making excellent profits for a century and, as fossil fuels get scarcer, prices will only rise. In 2006, ExxonMobil reaped profits larger than any other corporation in history ($39.5 billion). If the U.S. does not invest seriously in renewable alternatives, we'll have no choice but to pay whatever price the fossil corporations demand. Just a few days ago oil hit $90 a barrel; eight years ago it was selling for $10 a barrel. No wonder ExxonMobil now has a book value larger than the national budget of France. Naturally, they intend to maintain their market share, even if it means doing everything in their power to thwart progress.

2. The fossil fuel business is 100 years old and fully understood. No surprises lie ahead. But renewables? Who knows which renewables will win out in the marketplace of ideas? If Uncle Sam were to invest as much money in solar power as it has so far invested in the Iraq war (roughly $800 billion), who knows what new technologies would emerge? (Incidentally, if we maintain our current solar research budget at $168 million per year, it will be 4761 years before we have spent as much on solar research as we have, so far, spent in Iraq.) New technical innovations could be very unsettling for complacent industries like coal and oil. For them, innovation spells trouble. Innovation could render them irrelevant in a decade or two and they could disappear just like the makers of whale-oil lamps and buggy whips 100 years ago.

3. Coal and oil are highly centralized. It's their nature. Whoever owns the fossil fuels, the big central power plants, and the distribution systems can call the shots. But solar? The sun shines everywhere and it's free. Suppose some woman at MIT develops a solar panel that you paint onto your roof (from a can you buy at Home Depot), attach some wires, and start generating your own electricity? Central control disappears. This would be like tossing a hand grenade into the current corporate/political structure. Of course even right- wing politicians love lefty-sounding slogans like "power to the people," but they don't mean real power like electricity or hot water or home-made hydrogen for transportation fuel. (Check out the Nova TV program, "Saved by the Sun," which briefly mentions paint-on solar panels.)

No, a serious plan to focus the nation's industrial prowess onto a solar-powered rebirth will not be allowed by the fossil corporations. Instead we'll be offered a rolling circus of technical fixes aimed at keeping coal and oil streaming out of the ground. The circus is already well under way.

A Sulfur Parasol to Blot Out the Sun

Just this week the New York Times published a proposal to attach a fire hose to some lighter-than-air balloons for the purpose of injecting at least a million tons of sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere, to create a giant parasol to cool the planet. Such a scheme might further deplete the Earth's ozone shield, which remains frayed from DuPont's earlier botched experiment with CFCs. And it could create large-scale acid rain. But contemplating these clownish Rube Goldberg solutions may at least relieve the stress of facing what really needs to be done.

A new word enters our vocabulary: Geo-engineering

Instead of allowing the U.S. to make the transition to solar power, the fossil corporations have evidently decided it's better to re-engineer the oceans and the atmosphere -- and perhaps even the planetary orbit of the Earth itself -- to make it possible to continue burning fossil fuels for another 50 years.

Grand schemes for re-engineering the planet now have their own special name -- geo-engineering. The word means, "global-scale interventions to alter the oceans and the atmosphere so fossil corporations can continue business as usual."

The fire-hose-and-balloon project is only one of many "geo- engineering" schemes in the works.

Fertilizing the Oceans with Iron

There are serious plans afoot to dump huge quantities of soluble iron into the oceans as fertilizer, intending to stimulate the growth of plankton, which will then eat carbon dioxide from the air. As the plankton die, their carcasses will sink to the bottom of the ocean, carrying all that carbon dioxide with them, where it will remain for... for... well, actually, nobody knows for how long. How long might it be before that dormant carbon dioxide comes back to bite us? Nobody knows. Would such a plan disrupt life in the oceans? Nobody knows. But private firms are pressing ahead with large-scale ocean- fertilization experiments as we speak. (They are hoping to get rich selling "carbon credits" to polluters so the fossil corporations can continue contaminating the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. We might well ask the ethical question, who gave these cowboys permission to run geo-engineering experiments in the world's oceans?)

This is all very reminiscent of earlier plans to bury nuclear waste in the floor of the Pacific Ocean, on the theory that the seabed has lain dormant for many millions of years. But that plan never caught on because few people could develop sufficient confidence that the future would unfold exactly like the past. There was that nagging doubt... what if we've missed something important and we turn out to be wrong? What if our understanding is flawed? There was too much at stake, and the plan was shelved. (With carbon dioxide, of course, there's far more at stake.)

Mirrors in Orbit

Now there's a new plan to rocket mirrors into orbit around the earth. Another parasol to block sunlight. The mirrors would consist of a mesh of aluminum threads a millionth of an inch in diameter, "like a window screen made of exceedingly fine metal wire," says Lowell Wood at Lawrence Livermore Lab, who dreamed up the idea. The only drawback to this plan mentioned so far is its enormous dollar cost: to reduce incoming sunlight by 1% would require -- get this -- 600,000 square miles of mirror, which is larger than the combined areas of Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island.

Of course the U.S. has a long history of large-scale interventions above the clouds. In 1962 we conducted an experiment called "Starfish Prime" in which we exploded a small nuclear weapon (equivalent to 1.4 million tons of TNT) 400 miles up in the atmosphere, just to see what would happen. What happened came as a complete surprise to the geniuses who set off the blast. The explosion left so much residual radiation trapped in space that the world's first communication satellite -- Telstar, which was launched after Starfish -- failed because it encountered crippling levels of radiation. Ultimately, one- third of all the low-orbit satellites in space at the time were disabled by the residual radiation from Starfish Prime. Another unanticipated cost of Starfish was the temporary shutdown of communications and electrical supply in Hawaii, 1300 kilometers from the blast. Who knew?

Project RBR

Despite lessons supposedly learned from Starfish, just last year the Pentagon proposed a project called RBR ("Radiation Belt Remediation"). The RBR project would generate "very low frequency radio waves to flush particles from the [Van Allen] radiation belts and dump them into the upper atmosphere over one or several days." (There are two Van Allen radiation belts; the one closest to earth lies 400 to 4000 miles in the sky.) The stated purpose of the RBR project is to "protect hundreds of low earth-orbiting satellites from having their onboard electronics ruined by charged particles in unusually intense Van Allen radiation belts 'pumped up' by high- altitude nuclear explosions or powerful solar storms." It seems the Pentagon is making plans for conducting nuclear warfare above the clouds. But I digress.

Luckily a small group of scientists from Britain, New Zealand and Finland (organized as the "British Antarctic Survey") caught wind of the RBR plan and actually gave it some thought. They concluded that RBR would "significantly alter the upper atmosphere, seriously disrupting high frequency (HF) radio wave transmissions and GPS navigation around the world." The world's commercial (and military) transport systems are now almost completely dependent upon GPS navigation, so disrupting the global GPS system would create economic chaos, not to mention loss of life. Who knew?

A Plan to Change the Earth's Orbit

As pressure builds on the fossil corporations to quit contaminating the atmosphere with CO2, plans for geo-engineering the planet grow ever-more grandiose and desperate. There is now talk of moving the Earth 1.5 million miles out of its orbit around the sun, to compensate for doubling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Ken Caldeira of Stanford University has calculated that moving the Earth in this fashion would require the energy of five thousand million million hydrogen bombs (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs). No doubt the Pentagon is studying it with considerable interest.

The Biggest Geo-engineering Project: Carbon Sequestration

Now, the biggest earth-based geo-engineering project of all is in the late stages of development by the coal and oil industries, and is about to be "regulated" by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is the plan that convinces me that the fossil corporations have no intention of allowing the U.S. to make a rapid transition to solar power. This Big Fossil plan is called CCS, short for "carbon capture and sequestration" and it, too, closely resembles dozens of previous unsuccessful attempts to figure out what to do with radioactive waste.

Carbon sequestration is a fancy name for what used to be called the "kitty litter solution" to radioactive waste: bury it in the ground and hope it stays there. Carbon sequestration is a plan to capture gaseous carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants (and perhaps from other industrial operations as well), turn it into a liquid, and pump it into the deep earth or perhaps into the ocean, where it will remain for an unknown period of time. Professional optimists employed by the fossil industries claim the unknown period of time is "forever." But how can they be sure?

Saving the Coal Industry

The future of the coal industry, in particular, is at stake. Without carbon sequestration, the coal industry will not survive. Just this month the state of Kansas refused to license the construction of a new coal-fired power plant simply because of its carbon dioxide emissions. This is the first time a coal plant has been turned down merely because of its contribution to global warming. The hand writing is on the wall: Big Coal is doomed unless they can find some way to demonstrate that "clean coal" is more than an advertising slogan. This is what carbon sequestration geo-engineers are being paid to do.

Saving the Oil Industry (and the Automobile Industry)

But there's more at stake than just the coal industry. The oil industry, too, is depending on "carbon sequestration" to convince the public that continuing to burn fossil fuels is safe. Even the car companies have recognized that their future depends upon convincing us all that carbon sequestration will work -- and work forever.

We know this is really, really important to the fossil corporations because some of the biggest names in global industry are underwriting "geo-engineering" solutions for the carbon dioxide problem at some of the most prestigious U.S. universities. The Center for Energy & Environmental Studies at Princeton University is conducting geo- engineering studies (1.4 Mbyte PDF) funded by BP (the felonious oil corporation formerly known as British Petroleum) and by Ford Motor, the troubled manufacturer of SUVs. Geo-engineering work at Stanford University is being supported by ExxonMobil, by General Electric, by Schlumberger (the oil-drilling services giant), and by Toyota.

To convince the U.S. environmental community that geo-engineering carbon dioxide is the only way to go, the Stanford geo-engineering group has linked up with NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). Together, they are publishing clever propaganda masquerading as science. For example, in a recent letter to California legislators they say, "We only wish to address the science of CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] here." So we are expecting a scientific argument. Instead, the letter tries to persuade legislators to support carbon sequestration using arguments that have nothing to do with science.

The letter is peppered with distinctly unscientific language like "perfectly safe" to describe the fossil corporations' favorite geo- engineering solution. "Perfectly safe" is not a scientific concept. It is a political concept.

To be fair, deep in their letter NRDC and friends add a few caveats to their "perfectly safe" claim. For example, they say, "Leakage is conceivable but it is unlikely in well-selected sites, is generally avoidable, predictable, can be detected and remedied promptly, and in any case is extremely unlikely to be of a magnitude to endanger human health and the environment if performed under adequate regulatory oversight and according to best practices." [Emphasis in the original.]

So carbon sequestration will be "perfectly safe" if it occurs at "well-selected sites" and if performed under adequate regulatory oversight and according to best practices."

Let's examine these caveats. Are these scientific concepts? Do they even refer to anything in the real world?

Human History: Selecting Sites for Dangerous Projects

What experience do humans have siting dangerous facilities at only "well-selected sites"? I am thinking of the atomic reactor in Japan sited near an earthquake fault and recently shut down by serious earthquake damage. I am thinking of the U.S. radioactive waste site proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada where government and private engineers felt the need to falsify data to make the site appear acceptable. How do NRDC and Stanford propose to avoid a repeat of these fiascos when it comes time to select dozens or hundreds (perhaps thousands) of sites for pumping carbon dioxide into the ground?

Human history: Best practices with Dangerous Technologies

And that about "best practices"? Does this phrase take into account actual human experience with power plant operators photographed asleep in the control room of nuclear reactors? Or young men deep in missile silos relieving their boredom by getting drunk or taking drugs while standing ready to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with hydrogen warheads?

Will Every Nation Abide by the NRDC/Stanford Prescription?

After the U.S. begins injecting billions of tons of liquid carbon dioxide into the earth, won't China, India and other countries do the same? If they do, can they be counted on to choose only "well-selected sites" and to follow only "best practices" for the next hundred years? Who will oversee carbon sequestration in Nigeria or Uzbekistan?

How do NRDC and Stanford imagine that standards for site selection and "best practices" will be enforced around the globe? Have NRDC and Stanford published solutions to these problems? Or are they just putting empty words on paper hoping to fool clueless legislators into adopting untestable technical solutions that the fossil corporations are paying them to promote?

But the most dubious part of the NRDC plan to geo-engineer carbon sequestration is their claim that is will be "perfectly safe" if performed with "adequate regulatory oversight." Can NRDC and their friends at Stanford point to any instances of large-scale industrial enterprises that currently have "adequate regulatory oversight?"

Everyone knows that regulators quickly get captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate. There is a substantial body of social science literature on this point. Regulators are poorly paid, but if they look the other way at regulatory violations, they may find a lucrative job awaiting them when they retire from government. Less sinister but more pervasive is the simple fact that regulated corporations spend a lot of time befriending regulators, dropping by to say hello, asking about the kids, gaining their trust and ultimately their allegiance. Are NRDC and Stanford prepared to deny this indisputable history of regulatory collapse? Have they examined the dismal record of the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Are they prepared to design and describe regulatory institutions that do not suffer from these same fundamental human flaws? Or are they just blowing smoke?

So let's examine these caveats just a bit more.

1. What actual experience to do humans have designing anything to be kept out of the environment forever? Answer: None. Absolutely none. In this context, then, what can "perfectly safe" possibly mean?

2. What human regulatory institutions can NRDC and friends point to that have proven adequate? Let's see. The regulatory system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Today, 40 years after the inception of the non-proliferation treaty, Israel, India, North Korea, Pakistan -- all have The Bomb despite heroic efforts to prevent its spread. The only reason Iraq and Syria don't have a nuclear weapon is because Israel bombed their nascent nuclear power plants to smithereens.

What about the regulatory system for controlling the discard of radioactive waste? Radioactive waste is loose at thousands of locations around the planet. In hundreds (perhaps thousands) of instances we do not even know where the stuff has been dumped. This technology was developed by the smartest people in the world with unlimited budgets -- yet at places like the gold-plated Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico (now renamed the Los Alamos National Laboratory), plutonium, americium-241, strontium-90 and other supremely dangerous radioactive elements were buried in shallow pits, or simply dumped into mountain canyons without any records kept of their whereabouts. The kitty litter solution. And this was a federal scientific laboratory under strict military surveillance and control at the time. Can we expect the fossil corporations under the watchful eye of EPA (wink, wink) to do better?

How about the regulatory system for curtailing the widespread destruction of wildlife and human health from hormone-disrupting, cancer-causing chlorinated chemicals? The arctic, which has no industrial enterprises to speak of, is among the most heavily contaminated places on earth because the chemical regulatory system failed to consider how chemicals migrate once they are released into the environment.

So where can we find real-world examples of this "adequate regulatory oversight" that NRDC and Stanford say will be necessary to make carbon sequestration "perfectly safe"?

Maintaining vigilance for hundreds or thousands of years?

Elsewhere in their letter, NRDC and the engineers from Stanford say they believe carbon sequestration can be maintained for millions of years, but they say, if something goes wrong, rapid response will be possible.

Is this really true?

Again, let's return to the debates over radioactive waste from the late 1970s. Back then scientists were a bit more candid: they admitted they knew of no way to pass information reliably to future generations describing the location of radioactive waste dumps. Given human history and the evanescence of human institutions, they could not imagine a way to reliably warn future generations about dangers buried in the earth. At one point they considered writing a huge warning across the face of the moon using graphic symbols because they had no idea which human languages would survive thousands of years into the future. Have NRDC and Stanford published their solution for this problem?

Why should we assume that humans a hundred years from now -- let alone 500 or 5000 years from now -- will be able to monitor for carbon dioxide leaks, locate them, and take rapid action to control them? The prudent assumption would be that humans will NOT have those capabilities. It seems to me it would be unethical to design our technologies based on untested and untestable (and wildly optimistic) assumptions about future humans and their social organizations. Who gave us the right to make decisions now based on assumptions, which, if they are wrong, could destroy the planet as a place suitable for human habitation -- which is precisely what the carbon sequestration researchers are intending to do.

With the future of the human species at stake, isn't a little humility in order? Will these geniuses find themselves staring into the mirror one day toward the end of their shameful careers muttering, "Who knew?"

But ordinary people who aren't subsidized by energy or automobile corporations are asking the same sorts of common-sense questions they asked 20 years ago when the same sorts of brainy university types were telling us it was "perfectly safe" to bury radioactive waste in the ground:

** What if these scientists and engineers turn out to be wrong?

** What if there's something important they haven't thought of?

** Are these people infallible or are they human? They can't be both.

** Isn't it unethical to claim that something will be "perfectly safe" when as a scientist you know you can't be perfectly sure?

** When the fossil corporations impose their plan on us and begin large-scale carbon sequestration, won't that become a powerful incentive to reduce federal funding for conservation, renewables, and solar power? Then won't we have all our eggs in one basket? And didn't our grandmothers tell us that was a bad idea?

** After the fossil corporations impose carbon sequestration on us, won't we be saddled with even more killer fly ash choking the air, and even more toxic bottom ash threatening groundwater supplies? Won't we have even more destruction from mountain-top-removal coal mining, plus the enormous waste of water and land in the mid-western and western coal states? "Clean" coal will still be one of the dirtiest and most destructive forms of energy. And oil will still keep dragging us into endless bloody resource wars because we will still need to funnel more and more of the world's remaining petroleum into our astonishingly wasteful and inefficient enterprises. Is this really the direction we want to be going? Is this a plan we can explain to our children with pride? Is this a plan that will give our children hope?

** Would carbon sequestration truly be reversible if we discovered far in the future that it was a mistake? If not, who can claim that it is ethical to proceed?

** If radioactive waste and carbon dioxide are so dangerous and so hard to manage, how does it make sense to steer the nation and the world onto a course that will guarantee continued production of these lethal substances far into the future?

** With the survival of humans at stake, isn't this a classic and urgent case for applying the precautionary principle?

Friday, 1 March 2002

chemtrails basics

-- CHEMTRAILS --

Covert Climate Control?

Under the banner of some top-secret scientific agenda, the US military continues to weave chemical-laden contrails in the skies, causing health problems for unprotected people on the ground.


Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 8, Number 6 (October-November 2001)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by William Thomas © 2001
Heron Rocks 1-9
Hornby Island, BC
Canada
V0R 1Z0
Email: willthomas@telus.net
Website: www.lifeboatnews.com


For nearly three years, chemtrail observers have hoped an official would step forward to explain the origin and purpose of broad white plumes criss-crossing the skies above a dozen allied nations. Their wait is over...

It was nearly noon when S.T. Brendt awoke and entered the kitchen of her country home in Parsonsfield, Maine. As she poured her first cup of coffee, the late night reporter for WMWV Radio could not have guessed that her life was minutes away from drastic change. Her partner Lou Aubuchont was already up, puzzling over what he had seen in the sky a half-hour before. The fat puffy plumes arching up over the horizon were unlike any contrail he had ever seen, even during his hitch in the Navy.

Like breath exhaled on a winter's day, the contrails he was used to seeing would flare briefly in the stratosphere as hot moist engine exhaust flash-freezes into a stream of ice-crystals. These pencil-thin condensation trails are pretty to watch but short-lived, subliming into invisibility as exhaust gases cool quickly to the surrounding air temperature.

But in late 1997, Aubuchont started observing thicker 'trails extending from horizon to horizon. Hanging in the sky long after their creators had flown from view, these expanding white ribbons would invariably be interwoven by more thick lines left by unmarked jets, Air Force white or silver in colour.

On this March 12th morning in 2001, Lou did not mention his sighting as S.T. indulged in caffeine. Sipping gratefully, she glanced out the window. It looked like another gorgeous, cloudless day. But not quite. Brendt baulked at several chalk marks scrawled across the crystalline blue sky. "Contrails or chemtrails?" she jokingly remarked. Lou got up and looked. What kind of clouds run exactly side by side in a straight line? he wondered. It's just too perfect to happen naturally. When he said he wasn't sure, S.T. stopped smiling and went outside.

Looking up towards the southeast over West Pond, she spotted the first jet. A second jet was laying billowing white banners to the north. Both aircraft appeared to be at over 30,000 feet. Turning her gaze due west, Brendt saw two more lines extending over the horizon. She called Lou. Within 45 minutes the couple counted 30 jets. This isn't right, S.T. thought. We just don't have that kind of air traffic here. While Lou kept counting, she went inside and started calling airports. One official she reached was guarded but friendly. He had relatives in West Pond.

The Air Traffic Control manager told Brendt her sighting was "unusual". His radars showed nine commercial jets during the same 45-minute span. From her location, he said, she should have been able to see one plane.

And the other twenty-nine? The FAA official confided off the record that he had been ordered "by higher civil authority" to re-route inbound European airliners away from a "military exercise" in the area. "Of course, they wouldn't give me any of the particulars and I don't ask," he explained. "I just do my job."

Excited and puzzled by this information, S.T. and Lou got into their car and headed down Route 160. Looking in any direction they could see five or six jets flying at over 30,000 feet. Never in the dozen years they'd lived in rural Maine had they seen so much aerial activity.

A former US Navy Intelligence courier, Aubuchont was used to large-scale military exercises. But he told S.T. he had never seen anything this big. "It looked like an invasion," he later recounted.

Another driver almost went off the road as he leaned over his dashboard trying to look up. As they passed, he acknowledged them with a nod.

As far as they could see stretched line after line. Two giant grids were especially blatant. Instead of dissipating like normal contrails, these sky trails grew wider and wider and began to merge. Looking towards the Sun, Aubuchont saw what appeared like "an oil and water mixture" reflecting a prismatic band of colours. He couldn't call it a rainbow. Rainbows aren't sinister.

As Lou and S.T. completed their errands, the jets kept them company, leaving lines and even circles that resembled smoke rings. Even living near Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark jetports, Aubuchont had never seen so many big jets performing identical manoeuvres in the same sky. When they returned to Parsonsfield around four, the lines were starting to merge into a dingy haze.

Richard Dean called back. After receiving S.T.'s message, the assistant WMWV news director had gone outside with other news staff and counted 370 lines in skies usually devoid of aerial activity.

Brendt put in another call to the FAA official. He had never heard of chemtrails. In their first face-to-face interview, the chain-smoking controller responsible for air traffic over the northeastern seaboard repeated his earlier statements on tape. Similar military activities were ongoing in other regions, he added. On his 'scopes he could track the tankers flying north into Canadian airspace.

Speaking before witnesses at WMWV on condition of strict anonymity, our "Deep Sky" source answered a series of yes/no questions I helped Brendt prepare when she contacted me.

After nearly three years on this case, I wanted to corroborate extremely high levels of aluminum [aluminium] powder found in samples of rainwater falling through thick sky plumes over Espanola, Ontario, in the spring of 1998.

The Espanola lab tests were conducted after residents began complaining to the provincial environment ministry. Severe headaches, chronic joint pain, dizziness, sudden extreme fatigue, acute asthma attacks and feverless "flu-like" symptoms over a 50-square-mile area coincided with what they termed "months of 'spraying'" by photo-identified US Air Force tanker planes.

The USAF denied the intrusions. But former Ontario Provincial Police Officer and Supreme Court expert witness Ted Simola reported lingering Xs and numerous white trails, some of which "just ended" as if they had been shut off but remained in the sky.

Another Espanola resident told me that mental confusion and short-term memory loss were so prevalent that forgetting where their cars were parked had become "a standing joke" in the tiny town.

On November 18, 1998, the people of Espanola petitioned Parliament. Addressing the Canadian government on their behalf, defence critic Gordon Earle explained:

"Over 500 residents of the Espanola area have signed a petition raising concern over possible government involvement in what appears to be aircraft emitting visible aerosols. They have found high traces of aluminum and quartz in particulate and rainwater samples.

"These concerns combined with associated respiratory ailments have led these Canadians to take action and seek clear answers from this government. The petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected."

The Ministry of Defence eventually replied: "It's not us."

Which was true. While the US Air Force counts 650 four-engine KC-135 Stratotankers and 50 KC-10 Extenders in its active inventory, Canadian Forces do not fly armadas of tankers. But they do operate the biggest radar installation in Canada at CFB Comox on Vancouver Island, easily capable of tracking the American formations coming up from the south.

"Was the classified operation a radar experiment?" we asked Deep Sky.

"That wasn't what I was told."

Were ATC radars "enhanced or degraded", we wanted to know. The barium spread in exercises conducted out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base acts as an electrolyte, enhancing conductivity of radar and radio waves. "Wright Pat" has also long been deeply engaged in HAARP's electromagnetic warfare program.

A SKY SHIELD TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING?

The puzzle pieces fell into place with Deep Sky's revelation that ATC radars were being "degraded" by tanker-released particles showing up as a "haze" on their screens. This radar characteristic matched the high concentrations of aluminum powder found along with a preponderance of quartz particles in Espanola's chemtrail-contaminated rainwater.

The tankers' aluminum powder emissions also matched the Welsbach patent. Issued in 1994 to the Hughes aerospace giant "for Reduction of Global Warming", the sky shield blueprint calls for dispensing microscopic particles of aluminum oxide and other reflective materials into the upper atmosphere to reflect one or two per cent of incoming sunlight. Computer simulations by Ken Caldeira at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory calculated that this would be enough to stop warming over 85 per cent of the planet, despite an anticipated doubling of carbon in the atmosphere within the next 50 years.

Lawrence Livermore priced the aerial spray program at US$1 billion dollars a year--a cheap fix to maintain massive petroleum profits in the face of Kyoto's internationally agreed carbon cutbacks.

Livermore's founder, Edward Teller, lobbied hard for another chance to play with planetary processes. At the 1998 International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, the Father of the H-bomb presented his Next Big Idea. Having earlier pressed for detonating nuclear bombs to carve new harbours out of American coastlines, Teller now called for reflective chemicals to be spread like mirror-shades over the Earth. Or at least over allies who could agree in secret for this unprecedented geoengineering experiment to be carried out over their unsuspecting constituents.

In a draft report leaked to me soon after it appeared for peer review in May 2000, an expert panel chosen among 3,000 atmospheric scientists looked at Caldeira's computer simulations and agreed that Teller's scheme might work. But the IPCC warned against unpredictable upsets of the atmosphere, as well as against angry populaces reacting to "the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky".

Caldeira was so concerned he went public, warning that deflecting sunlight would further cool the stratosphere, concentrating icy clouds of ozone-gobbling CFCs that could destroy Earth's solar radiation shield.

Was the sky shield experiment already underway? Deep Sky hinted that it was.

Were the tankers involved in weather modification? Our FAA source hesitated before responding. "That approximates what I was told."

For the third interview we rephrased our key question. Were the tankers repeatedly observed on ATC radars involved in climate modification? I caught my breath as Deep Sky confirmed that this is what he was told was the object of the missions.

Here at last was our "smoking nuke" admission. After years of "airliner" double-speak, we could now corroborate Deep Sky's report of military aircraft dispensing reflective materials with an earlier report by a Canadian aviation official.

On December 8, 2000, Terry Stewart, the Manager for Planning and Environment at the Victoria International Airport, had broken this story wide open when he responded to a caller's complaint the previous day of Xs, circles and grids being woven over the British Columbia capitol. Leaving a message on an answering machine tape, later heard by more than 15 million radio listeners, the public servant explained: "It's a military exercise, US and Canadian Air Force exercise that's going on. They wouldn't give me any specifics on it."

Stewart added that he found the incident--one of hundreds reported over Canada's west coast since the fall of 1998--"very odd".

Tasked with defending Canadian airspace in the region, CFB Comox chose instead to defend a classified collaboration. "No military operation is taking place," the base information officer tersely told me when I called for details. But Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier that his information had come directly from CFB Comox.

CONTRAILS vs CHEMTRAILS

Across the strait from the island air base, a concerned mother of three children was noticing that people in Gibsons were coming down with ailments that coincided with constant chemtrail activity. Suzanne Smart's husband contracted asthma; their children were always sniffling and coughing. Smart ended up in the small coastal town's Emergency unit with a sore throat, "super-stiff" neck, pounding headache and ears "ringing like crazy". Even her teeth hurt.

It was all very nerve-wracking. Smart contacted a Transport Canada investigator who had noticed the jet trails too and was convinced it was normal contrail activity. Why he took special notice of normal contrails was not explained. But the TC official told Smart he hoped the Canadian equivalent of the FAA would be notified of any military exercises taking place.

On June 17, 2001, after photographing massive plumes over Gibsons, Smart checked with aviation authorities and found that no airline flight plans had been filed for that airspace at that time. Official weather data showed that when her photos of multiple white plumes were taken, the 30 per cent humidity at 30,000 and 35,000 feet was less than half that needed for contrails to form.

As NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter explains, for even short-lived condensation trails to form, "we're talking temperatures lower than about minus 76 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity at jet altitudes of 70 per cent or more".

Smart sent her findings to Transport Canada with a request for an explanation of how contrails could form when they couldn't. "It is my understanding," she wrote, "that the only way to form jet trails at yesterday's low humidity is to introduce very fine particulates into the atmosphere."

Smart's homework hit like hardball. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, the only way to form artificial clouds in warm dry air is to introduce enough particulates into the atmosphere to attract and accrete all available moisture into visible vapour. If repeated often enough, the resulting rainless haze can lead to drought.

Following standard procedure to ignore all evidence contradicting the official line, Transport Canada's Randy Phillips responded by advising Smart to check out the "urban legends" website ridiculing chemtrails.

Col. Walter Washbaugh, Chief of the Congressional Inquiry Division for the Secretary of the Air Force in Washington, DC, also calls chemtrails "a hoax". In an April 20, 2001, letter to a US senator, Washbaugh blamed the increased number of contrails on "significant civil aviation growth in the past decade".

He was right. A National Science Foundation study has found that, in certain heavy traffic corridors, artificial cloud cover has increased by as much as 20 per cent since the jet age took off. Dr Patrick Minnis, a CERES atmospheric researcher and ardent chemtrails critic at NASA's Langley Research Center, reports that cirrus cloud cover over the United States is up five per cent overall because particulates in engine exhaust are acting as cloud-forming nuclei. As the number of flights currently exceeds 15 million annually worldwide, the NSF, NASA and EPA predict artificial clouds will intensify as air travel continues climbing sharply.

What about chemtrails? Colonel Washbaugh ascribed widely reported grid patterns to overlapping aircraft flying north-south, east-west airways. The only thing wrong with this explanation, an air traffic controller told me in Texas, is that US airways do not run north-south.

The biggest laugh came when the colonel told the senator: "The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification and has no plans to do so in the future."

In fact, attempts to steer hurricanes by spraying heat-robbing chemicals in their paths began in the 1950s. The recipe for creating "cirrus shields" was outlined in an unusually arrogant US Air Force study. Subtitled "Owning the Weather by 2025", the 1996 report explained how "weather force specialists" were dispersing chemicals behind high-flying tanker aircraft in a process the air force calls "aerial obscuration".

Official denials reached new altitudes of absurdity when another colonel claimed: "The US Air Force does not conduct spraying operations over populated areas." USAF spokeswoman Margaret Gidding told a Spokane newspaper: "The Air Force doesn't do anything that emits anything other than a normal contrail, which is vapor."

So were their replies. Apparently Anderson and Gidding had forgotten how US Air Force spray planes crippled a country and a culture by dispensing over Vietnam thousands of tons of "Agent Orange" defoliants containing dioxin toxins as hazardous as plutonium.

SEEING IS BELIEVING?

In the end, it has proved impossible to continue skywriting giant billboards advertising government duplicity, while insisting they are not there. By the summer of 2001, the controversy entered a new phase. Pictures of contrails were being distributed to newspapers by the Associated Press, and "chemtrails" could be overheard in coffee shop conversations across an entire continent.

When it comes to chemtrails, seeing is disbelieving official disinformation. As public awareness grows, people like war veteran David Oglesby are looking up. The 11 fat plumes fanning out over his Coarsegold, California, home did it for Oglesby last June.

"The trails formed a grid pattern," he told WorldNetDaily News. "Some stretched from horizon to horizon. Some began abruptly, and others ended abruptly. They hung in the air for an extended period of time and gradually widened into wispy clouds resembling spider webs."

A retired US Air Force radar tech named Shimera called a colonel responsible for all military operations in central California. "What would you say if I said there are three aircraft up there right now?" Shimera asked. "Are they there?"

"No," the colonel replied. "They are not there."

The Houston study is not so easily dismissed. Mark Steadham was looking for contrails when he started observing the skies over this busy Texas hub last winter. Using FAA tracking software called Flight Explorer to identify each aircraft, Steadham clocked contrails trailing from Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus airliners. All but two of these condensation trails sublimed into invisibility within five to 20 seconds; the only exceptions persisted for two and 25 minutes.

Flight Explorer does not show altitudes for military jets, but, according to the FAA, tankers and transports usually transit continental airspace at around 30,000 feet to ensure safe separation from airliners flying between 35,000 and 39,000 feet. Military "heavies" flying below 30,000 feet should not leave contrails at all. Major-General Gregory Barlow confirms that Air Force tankers do not perform refuelling missions at contrail-forming altitudes.

But Steadham found just the opposite in his study. While observing air traffic for 63 days, the Houston skywatcher found that thick white plumes laid by similar-sized military aircraft--at the same time, in the same airspace as 20-second airliner contrails--lingered for four to eight hours.

GLOBAL CHEMTRAIL REPORTS

Sightings of oddly lingering plumes sometimes resembling rocket trails are not confined to North American skies.

While on leave in Italy in the summer of 1999, the US Navy's Kitty Chastain sat on her hotel balcony and watched aerial grids being laid all day just offshore over the Bay of Naples. "People were coughing all over Naples," she wrote. On the bus ride in from the base, Chastain explained chemtrails to many sailors with hacking coughs.

On October 12 that same year, a Paris correspondent reported "...heavy activity from all directions, X upon X. The pilots here seem to like to play chicken; they fly right at each other and then one will swerve, their trails forming pitchforks and Xs." No contrails were being left by "normal planes" in the same skies. But the next day, planes flying over Paris "from all directions" obscured the sky with more Xs that continued into the evening.

In Spain on April 27, 2000, American tourist John Hendricks dashed off a quick email from El Café de Internet: "Were we surprised to see that the chemtrails are as bad here as they are anywhere, both in Mallorca and in Barcelona." He and his wife "took plenty of pictures" before noticing a postcard they'd bought captured a perfect chemtrail.

"Add Sweden to the list," a Swedish resident wrote after spotting eight to 10 parallel 'trails and contracting flu for the first time in years. Weather conditions at the time were not conducive to contrail formation. "I know the commercial routes, and we have a bunch of them, but not where these trails were."

Chemtrail activity has been reported in at least 14 allied nations including Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden and the United States. Croatian chemtrails began the day after that country joined NATO.

ATMOSPHERIC ORGANISMS

Many chemtrail observers note that chemtrails are often laid down at the leading edge of approaching frontal systems. While rare "sundogs" form ice-crystal circles around the Sun in advance of strong winds, much more common "chemdogs" create prismatic solar halos during stable weather.

More and more observers, like this Vancouver resident, wonder why "on the days of heavy spraying you will notice a rainbow around the Sun". Many more people who have been healthy all their lives wonder why they keep getting desperately sick whenever the chemplanes appear.

Unlike the refined aluminum in cooking utensils that is tenuously linked to Alzheimer's disease, aluminum oxide is as inert as sand and is not considered toxic.

But in a story headlined "Tiny particles can kill", the August 5, 2000, edition of New Scientist reported that "city-dwellers in Europe and the US are dying young because of microscopic particles in the air".

Looking at byproducts of hydrocarbon burning, a Harvard School of Public Health team determined particulates with a diameter less than 10 microns as being a serious threat to public health. (A human hair is about 100 microns across.) In 1987, US environmental regulations limited airborne concentrations of particles less than 10 microns in diameter.

But air pollution has grown worse. On April 21, 2001, the New York Times warned: "These microscopic motes are able to infiltrate the tiniest compartments in the lungs and pass readily into the bloodstream, and have been most strongly tied to illness and early death, particularly in people who are already susceptible to respiratory problems."

David Hawkins, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, speaks for "about a quarter-million Americans who have died prematurely as result of fine-particle exposure".

That number may be boosted sharply by chemtrail spraying. On December 14, 2000, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that inhaling particulate matter of a size 10 microns or smaller leads to "a 5% increased death rate within 24 hours".

Teller's sunscreen calls for spraying 10 million tons of talcum-fine reflective particulates of 10 to 100 micron sizes.

Allergic reactions to airborne fallout do not explain the entire syndrome of chemtrail-related illness. Falling blood temperatures accompanying symptoms of intense yet feverless "flu" is a classic sign of chronic fungal infection. Blamed for a host of auto-immune dysfunction, from chronic fatigue to fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis, the fungus within us also signals its presence in sharp joint pain, sudden extreme fatigue, sudden dizziness, mental confusion and short-term memory loss.

After nearly three years of intense investigation, I have found no proof that chemtrails constitute a deliberate biological attack. Research for my books on the Gulf biowar and earlier germ warfare experiments (Bringing The War Home; Scorched Earth) show that bio-attacks are conducted at low level and never in daylight, in order to avoid ultraviolet sterilisation of toxins.

The biohazards in chemtrails may be bad LUC. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" states that every human intervention creates unpredictable consequences. Chemtrails can cause drought by soaking up all available moisture, and drooping chemical curtains fall through vast colonies of UV-mutated bacteria, viruses and fungi living in the upper atmosphere. Could these malevolent micro-organisms be piggy-backing on the plumes?

A series of balloon flights made in the US during the 1960s collected startling stratospheric samples swarming with bacteria and fungi as well as viruses bigger than any known at the time.

If viruses fall from the sky, most would land in the sea. Dipping their beakers into coastal seawater, scientists found as many as 10 million large virus-like particles per quart. As one researcher said: "No one knows where they come from or what they do. Their size and shape match the virus-like particles found in the upper atmosphere."

Other life-forms, even tinier than bacteria, are also thriving in our atmosphere. The discoverer of nanobacteria, Dr Robert Folk, describes the most populous organisms on Earth as "dwarf forms of bacteria, about one-tenth the diameter and 1/1000th the volume of ordinary bacteria".

The Professor Emeritus at the University of Texas figures that these ultra-tiny bugs are "possibly an order of magnitude more abundant" than normal bacteria that swarm everywhere.

Since chemtrails are commonly spread over populated areas where temperature differentials are greatest and solar shading most needed, it is probable that particulate-laden plumes are precipitating airborne viruses, bacteria and fungi down into human lungs and respiratory systems unable to recognise or resist the alien invaders.

This possibility was further strengthened when Dr Folk chose a lightweight metal as a matrix to grow bugs too small to be seen by optical microscopes. Folk viewed under electronic magnification entire ecologies of swarming nanobac. The bacteria were feasting on (he called it "metabolising") aluminum.

PUBLIC CONCERN SPREADS

Are we worried yet? An August 2001 WorldNetDaily poll asked Americans: "Do you think 'chemtrails' are anything to worry about?" Forty-three per cent answered "Yes"; another 30 per cent wanted more information on chemtrails--a total 73 per cent of US respondents concerned about chemtrails.

As lawyers across the US discuss filing the "Mother of All Lawsuits" against Boeing, Bush and the US Air Force, their case now appears tight enough to force further disclosures. The last glaring evidential gap--photos of ground-based chemtrail operations--may soon be forthcoming.

What to do?

A British campaigner involved in another bid to reclaim individual sovereignty and local autonomy held out the best hope for change when she told a CBC radio interviewer: "The only way to get government to do anything is if enough people stand up and shout, 'This is ridiculous!'"

Stay tuned. With chemtrails confirmed as a military operation aimed at climate modification, the biggest trial is about to begin--in the court of public opinion.


References:
About the Author:William Thomas specialises in health and environment issues. His award-winning writing has appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries. His editorial commentaries have been published in The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun and Times-ColonistEarth Island Journal and Ecodecision magazines. He has also appeared on CBC radio and TV, CNN and New Zealand national television. His articles, "Poison from the Sky: the 'Chemtrails' Crisis" and "Probing the 'Chemtrails' Conundrum", were published in NEXUS 6/03 and 7/02 respectively. He can be contacted by email at willthomas@ telus.net, or via his Lifeboat News website, www.lifeboatnews.com. newspapers as well as

rainbow bar