got the results back from the rain sample I collected in June

[sheme]

Posted by Tesseract (here)
Did the test report specify a technique and detection limit (DL) for each species?

On Al, this element is dominant in the mineralogy of the earths crust (See Feldspar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldspar). As such, I suspect that exposure to Al is unavoidable, not that I would accept it being added to my food. It may have entered your rain sample via atmospheric dust. Incidentally, a chemical is considered 'dissolved' based on how small the particle is.

Aluminium does not come out of the ground as shiny metal it comes out of the ground as Bauxite ore not Aluminium.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by WhiteFeather (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by sheme (here)
Quote And as I mentioned -- within our processed foods, and other methods, the average uptake of aluminum per person per day is 1bout 200 mgs -- that's milligrams, not micrograms. We are getting vast amounts of aluminum -- but almost nothing from the air -- that wouldn't be a method to spread aluminum if they wanted us to ingest it; we already are ingesting huge amounts of the stuff unknowingly. Fortunately, the body has methods of dealing with and eliminating aluminum fairly efficiently (compared to say, mercury) in most people.

Quote from above article-Aluminium is notoriously difficult to to remove from the body as it wont dissolve in water.

http://giuliaholland.com/how-to-live...-your-marbles/



EDIT: If we are ingesting 200mg of aluminum per day, and 21mcg kills a person as indicated in that ad, the body must be pretty good of ridding the stuff. Else we would have acquired 0.75 kilograms of aluminum in 10 years!

That page is an advertisement, but here's some good take home from there:

Avoid Aluminium that can be found in:

Canned food
Food Additives
Cosmetics – antiperspirants
Baking Soda
Most Vaccines
Silver Foil

These are your top offenders for aluminum.

...

Only problem for those people is it isn’t true.

That’s right Arm and Hammer baking soda is aluminum free! Now you can buy a big bag of affordable, baking soda and know that it’s safe for you and you’re family.

If you’re wondering how I know this know that I’m just brilliant that way. Just kidding. In all seriousness I emailed the company (which if you have a question you should ask them), and here was their reply.

“Thank you for taking the time to contact Church & Dwight Co., Inc. regarding ARM & HAMMER® Baking Soda.
In response to your inquiry, ARM & HAMMER® Baking Soda is 100% sodium bicarbonate and does not contain aluminum.”

So I hope that clears up any questions you’ve had about baking soda, but if you still have a question about it feel free to leave me a comment and I’ll try to answer it as soon as possible.

http://www.gapalicious.com/2011/05/0...tain-aluminum/

http://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2...soda-anti-hoax

http://drsircus.com/medicine/sodium-...um-bicarbonate

I did some research and the offending product is baking POWDER -- NOT baking soda. Baking powder sometimes contains sodium aluminum sulphate -- as the acidic component. I guess that's what happens when you get info from advertisements trying to sell you a book

References here:http://www.cooking.com/recipes-and-m...=Baking+powder
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_bicarbonate

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by sheme (here)

Posted by Tesseract (here)
Did the test report specify a technique and detection limit (DL) for each species?

On Al, this element is dominant in the mineralogy of the earths crust (See Feldspar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldspar). As such, I suspect that exposure to Al is unavoidable, not that I would accept it being added to my food. It may have entered your rain sample via atmospheric dust. Incidentally, a chemical is considered 'dissolved' based on how small the particle is.

Aluminium does not come out of the ground as shiny metal it comes out of the ground as Bauxite ore not Aluminium.

Testing water with bauxite ore would test positive for aluminum, if one was testing for aluminum. The way the tests work, is they test for specific things, each item on the test list was tested for individually -- there is no test that just shows all the stuff in the water, it has to be expected, then tested for that element / compound. That is why the exact same minerals "showed up" on both your test and the guy's in the video -- those are the tests they performed. I'll double check with the QC department today on how to read the tests results, and post it here if there's any new info.

[DeDukshyn]

Ok, so I talked to the people at my work who know all about testing results from labs as they have things tested and have to interpret the results almost daily as their job.
Let’s first get clear that when you submit a substance for analysis, one cannot just drop it off and say “can you see what is in this?” – You would likely get a weird look. You have to indicate exactly which contaminants you want tested for. If you just say “heavy metal assay”, that will be a number of individual tests for each metal, each of which will return a result.

For example, if I test for iron, manganese and zinc, my test result will have results for each of these tests. If I also want to test for copper, than I also will get a result for copper in addition to the other three metals.

This may appear on a test result to look like one sample contained copper and the other did not – not true at all, all the metals you see on an assay are the ones they tested for whether or not the sample contains them, and whether or not it contains anything else. It may contain 50% aluminum, but if you don’t test for it, you will have no indication there is any aluminum in the sample.

Also, every test that is performed will return a result either greater than the detection limit, or be indicated as less than the detection limit – even if it has zero of that substance. An indication of “ND” or “Not detected” is only applicable for tests where the result only needs to be either “detected” or “not detected” – an example of this would be the test for salmonella, no one cares how much is in your food, because any detected amount is a fail, so these tests are simplified, and allow only a “detected” or “not detected” result. An assay that gives you an amount and indicates a detection limit, will never give you “ND” as a test result.

If you see “less than” symbol “<” – that means less than the detection limit. It may be zero, it may be slightly more than zero, but the methodology used is not robust enough to accurately give a result, so the official result is “Less than detection limit” which is written as, for example “<0.2mcg/l” – which means “the methodology cannot accurately show these results, we can guarantee that there is less than 0.2mcg/l – because that is the limit we can test to.”

You will never see a greater than symbol in these types of test results, it just wouldn’t make much sense.

In the first image below, you can see some test result samples I found. This first one is a heavy metals assay and you can see that for the first three metals, the result is a “less than” scenario, but you can also see that every time that is used as a result, that it indicates the detection limit as shown in the next column. Mercury, has a proper numerical result, as the quantity is above detection limit – if they find an amount of something, that is above the detection limit – it will be displayed like this.

The next image is a micro assay, where we can see test results as “Not Detected” – and it clearly shows in the “units” column, that the test only returns a presence or an absence. The following three micro tests on that page give an exact count as there are acceptable limits of those, but as shown all were below detectable limits – in this case, 10.

I hope that clarifies a little.

.

[Nick Matkin]

Trees began to die in the early 70's with the Elm, the gentlest of all the trees allegedly from "Dutch elm disease" (which doesn't exist). The truth is, that is when colour broadcasting in the UK went main stream.

A most amazing example of spurious correlation. (The colour TV signal had the colour information 'woven' into the monochrome luminance signal for backwards compatibility.) There is absolutely no difference in the signal as transmitted. For more spurious correlations visit this website. For example the number of people who died by becoming entangled in their bedsheets absolutely correlates with total revenue generated by US skiing facilities 2000 - 2009.

And I think there are plenty of amateur and professional biologists who will tell you that not only does Dutch Elm disease exist, but what causes it and how it's spread - unless you can provide information to the contrary.

Back on topic.

It would be interesting to know which lab did the analysis, and if that was their known expertise. Also where was the rainwater collected? How was it collected? Are there any industrial plants or coal burning power stations down wind? What containers were used to collect the water and where had they been stored?

All these sources are easily able to give the 'contamination' that was measured. On the other hand, if the lab supplied the collecting flask and it was miles away (in the ocean?) from industry or agriculture, then that would give more weight to those figures.

Nick

[DeDukshyn]

I thinking, perhaps Avalon could start a project, and have people from all areas do some basic rainwater testing for us to collect some stats.

We would need to know:
-Water size sample -- should be standard (maximum required by most labs)
-Where the sample was taken (GPS coordinates) plus whether rural or urban.
-Date range of sample collected
-weather stats during collection time -- including chemtrail activity with photos

Things that should be standardized:
-Plastic collection container
-Minimums and maximums for collection times

If we could get a couple dozen of these, that would be huge!

My 2 cents

[Nick Matkin]

Excellent idea DD. This thread has run to three pages, yet hardly anyone has considered the important aspects around the collection, or queried the competence of the lab. Most people seem to have just taken the results at face value without even questioning their validity!

The results may be significant, but not if the container was contaminated, or if there is relevant industry near the collection point, or if the lab does not specialise in this type of analysis.

I thought forum members here were supposed to question stuff...?

Nick

[sheme]

Thanks for your input your protestations intrigue and enlighten me Nick.

All the protocols DeDukshyn mentions where followed apart from the photographs. I had to wait a long time for the results.

[Daphne]

Posted by Sidney (here)
As a side note, i am actually very skeptical as to how many of thes testing labs can be trusted for accurate results, as IMO it is these types of places, like hospitals, dr. Offices, pharma, schools,etc. That have been heavily infiltrated by those that are carrying out these evil deeds.

Agreed Sidney. I was watching a video on a different thread Alex Jones was talking about their father who was a doctor and all of his colleagues at his practice were approached by one of the nasty agencies CIA, FBI Homeland security and asked to spy on their patients and report back to them. There are trolls, shills and those who will do anything for a buck! now Alex Jones may or may not be legit, I don't know, but I don't doubt that story.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DjzoZvz62Bo

[sheme]

Daphne what part of this video would you like me to take note of ? Please recall the nature of the OP is about what is falling from my sky - don't want anyone thinking you are attempting to side line the thread. Watched this for 15 minutes nothing relevant so far- Israel Isis capitalism Rothschild -relevance please?