Thanks for reading the NanoParticle thread SidneyPosted by Sidney (here)
You are right bobd, there are many problems with pollution with regards to the issues you point out, however the theme of this thread is pertaining to the shiit they are dumping in the sky via tanker jets. If you have studied Clifford Carnicoms work [..]Thing is though I read what Sheme was asking for was a solution to the ALUMINUM coming from nanoparticle emission (and how to get ALUMINUM out of the body using a special type of water).
Below I point out it is really highly logically improbable that high altitude jet emission can create anything down low on earth, and point out very accurate measurement methods to verify that such is not present in jet fuel emission..
I have pointed this out before, the systems that can REMOTELY actually analyze jet exhaust or car exhaust, or volcano exhaust, all emitters of nanoparticle pollution and toxic gases, are what is called an optical Open Path Fast Fourier transform infrared analyzer system. (Optical FTIR).
What it consists of is a telescope, front surface coating, which will reflect infra-red wavelengths pretty well without losses. The information travels into a spectral analyzer, which analyses the chemical constituents from what it is pointed out REMOTELY, non-invasively. Based on something called Beers Law, the amount of concentration of the emission source can be detected.
ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17458466 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18581812 and http://oldimages.vertmarkets.com/crl...mg6176copy.jpg
Pointing it into a VOLCANO, a major source of toxic gas generation, way more than any jet can produce (Tungurahua volcano Ecuador is producing 1500 TONS of SO2 gas which creates sulfuric acid for instance per day):
What this instrumentation is is scientific undeniable documentation technology. It shows REMOTELY what it is pointed at, what is present where it is looking. It shows the chemical species, the concentrations. In other words, no one can hide what they are emitting.
Such a device pointed UPWARDS into contrails will show the content. But we can for now simply use the emissive amount from fuel burning to compute actual volumetric emission that is possible in a contrail, and compare it against ground based sources which are more highly likely to be the actual pollution sources, since ground based monitors is what have been used to document "air quality".
However, whenever this technology is mentioned for actually documenting pollution sources, very shortly, there are derailing attempts.
Sheme asked about chemtrails, what are they really, and some solutions, mentioning aluminum (as you know, many conspiracy websites say "they are spraying aluminum").
I pointed out the obvious, that there are very strong and copious sources of emissions - testing monitoring stations are for ground based testing, which many of those local air testing values point out that at-the-ground levels of pollution, are showing aluminum, and other toxic substances.
The question then is can a "chemtrail" formed at altitudes above 30,000 feet to 41,000 feet fall down to the ground in sufficient quantities after intense dilution. The nanoparticle stay aloft. This has been pointed out in this thread.
It doesn't seem likely that something up in such altitudes 30,000 feet that is not rain, but an aerosol, meaning a finely divided charged floating particle, is going to make it to the ground easily and in any timely manner.
What though IS already on the ground, which can act up and get folks reactive? Ground air pollutions, exacerbated by ultraviolet stimulation, or other photo-stimulation creating noxious byproducts.. (photo-smog for instance).
In fact nanoparticles remain aloft until they combine with water or dust, nucleate, grow larger and cease to be a chemically active problem.
What does happen with particles aloft is that LIGHT quality is changed with hydrocarbon, and/or aluminum "up there" (which would remain aloft cause of the small size). One can only assume that there is aluminum up there based on reading conspiracy websites, but not reading scientific upper air sampling websites.
I have a theory that specific combinations of wavelengths of light can be used to trigger the absorbed nano-particles which came from GROUND based emissions. The ground based emissions would have been the aluminum sources, the carbon sources of nanoparticles...and they are massive. The earlier OP in this thread talks about how a nanoparticle antenna can be created to specifically respond to light wavelengths. I would believe a specific nanoparticle could be created that would be specifically triggerable from OPTICAL nanoparticles. It though would be a pretty haphazard maneuver though to predict when the right time would be to fly jets at altitude to create an optical trigger to affect people on the ground who have absorbed nano-particle antenna molecules in them.. There would be better methods such as a flu epidemic (viral particle release) which would be predictable. And readily deployable with precision. Flying with the variables up there is simply not a reliable method.
It is easier to add a couple gallons of metals/toxins at a gasoline depot and have such emitted en-masse at ground level when the fuel is burned, than it would be to try to get many thousands of gallons of metals up in the 30,000 and higher foot range altitude to spray something which won't fall to the earth fast enough in sufficient quantities to account for the amount of metal showing up in air monitoring stations.
We are going to work out the numbers:
But a coal fired power plant puts out ( see http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-power-plants/ ) 1100 pounds per megawatt hour of carbon nanoparticles. A typical coal fired power plant of average size is 500 megawatts per hour.
That then for ONE average sized coal fired power plant is 550,000 pounds of carbon nanoparticles, every hour or 275 tons per hour. For a day that amount comes to 6600 tons of carbon nanoparticles every day. In that coal, there is aluminum, and all the other toxins mentioned in an earlier post.
Comparison wise, a single 747 jet will burn 96 tons of fuel during an 8 hour transatlantic flight for instance. Of that burning Jet fuel (which is pure devoid of the other elements present in coal), the carbon nanoparticle output is based on this formula: 1 ton of burnt jet fuel emits 3.15 tons of gaseous carbon bound to oxygen. The jet will burn an average of between 20,000 and 30,000 pounds (10-15 tons) of fuel per hour during an average flight. Assuming an average 12 tons per hour, for an 8 hour flight, the total carbon output is 96 x 3.15 or 302.4 tons. The carbon nanoparticle output per hour for that jet becomes 38.8 tons per hour.
Comparison, JET 38.8 tons per hour nanoparticle creation, Coal fired power plant 275 tons per hour nanoparticle creation. Which is worse? The jet lands in 8 hours, the power pant runs 24/7 continually. 7 Jets would have to be flying continuously over ONE spot of land to emit the same amount of nanoparticle amounts as ONE stationary ground based power plant. The reality is, the jet is moving. And it is moving fast. Let's look up at the sky from horizon to horizon and take a look at how much distance is there linearly that we can see a contrail in.
Considering that the jet now is moving let's say 565 miles per hour, what portion of that nanoparticle is present per hour to come up with a dispersion rate? The jet takes 10 minutes to travel from left to right let's say in our field of view. That's like 9.4 miles per minute. So what are we seeing then "up there" in nanoparticles? How much? Computing, 38.8 tons per hour, divided by 60 minutes exposure time, to get an deposition rate of .646 tons per minute. Multiply that times 9.4 minutes, and we have a total "up there" deposition of about 6 tons in that visible contrail.
Remember an average 500 mgawatt coal fired power plant is putting out 275 tons per hour at ground level, and that is easy to mix with ground air couple hundred feet up. Jets are flying 30,000 feet up and above, not an easy mix to ground level air.
So to actually create a density equivalent, comparing a bunch of jets to ONE coal fired power plant, we would need 275/6 or 45 jets per hour above us all creating contrails. Doesn't happen does it? Then there is the problem of trying to get something 35,000 feet up somehow down to the immediate earth below it. The particles float, they don't immediately sink. Big problem with "the contrail logic of pollution".
Let's add in the next obvious pollution source - auto engines (this is an extremely conservative example at that)
Running this on a car, for a 4.7 litre engine size idling, like stuck in a traffic jam, about .6 gallons per hour will be consumed. How many pounds of carbon nanoparticles is that? 19.64 (per gallon of gasoline) multiplied by .6 or 11.784 pounds per hour per car emitted, idling stuck in traffic. How many cars in a traffic jam?
see: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carmaged...a-traffic-jam/ - Carmageddon, 64 MILE long traffic jam.. (oye).. 50,000 cars average assuming 6 lanes stuck for one hour.. ONE ROAD, the 405.. that's 589,200 pounds of carbon nanoparticles emitted, or 294.6 tons of those particles in the air.
AT GROUND LEVEL at that per hour in a stationary location.. 294.6 from automobiles ! That is just a little above the amount of a single coal fired power plant produces per hour every hour for 24/7.
AND can we ignore that there are 2782 Coal fired power plants emitting toxic nanoparticle pollution continually, not just for ONE HOUR during rush hour like autos do?
Gee, One would need 49 planes per hour making continual contrails to equal one hour of rush hour traffic. From vehicles stuck idling in traffic for an hour... oye.
One major road, in LA, stuck in traffic, 294.6 tons, at ground level; not up at 35,000 feet up where a small 6 ton visible contrail would be formed from a major transcontinental jet.. One would need 49 planes per hour making continual contrails to equal one hour of rush hour traffic. Rush hour goes on for more than one hour usually.. How can we forget that?
And the point is like in LA, or UK, there are way more than just ONE ROAD too, that gets traffic jammed during the day. Multiply the above figures by 10 or so to be more realistic with traffic issues. Realistically one could expect close to 3000 tons per hour for a major city during stuck rush hour traffic (that would be close to 500 planes flying overhead in an hour !)
Let's add in the emission from UK, from China, from India and the world is innundated by such nanoparticle pollution. When conditions are right, when water vapor levels are right, nucleation is going to happen and particles become larger and visible (then they get noticed). But they are at the deadly stage long before being visibly noticed ! That was pointed out previously in earlier posts in this thread.
What's wrong with the contrail/chemtrail conspiracy? Other than they never worked out the actual math, nor understood the mechanism that keeps particles UP in the air at altitude, nor studied or understood how nucleation works.
BUT chemtrail conspiracy gives one something to blame, and it gives one something to point fingers at, and of course, for the actual perpetrators, the hydrocarbon burning purveyors, it lets the real pollution generators hide in plain sight! And people continue to let that happen, is that ODD or what?
A lot (of) the blame seems to not be grounded (literally) in understanding emission amounts and aerosol distribution concepts (dilution issues are ignored by the conspiracy buffs).
The point is very clear, we are being DISTRACTED looking up at water vapor aggregation binding nanoparticles from planes, when there is an immediate need at ground level to deal with that pollution and toxin issue. The numbers above show why. It is simple really.
How many coal fired power plants around the world? (statistically averaged based on coal/tons per gigawatts produced) - 2782 plants.
Times 275 tons per hour or 765,050 tons per hour for the world's coal fired power plant nanoparticle production. That is insane. Such happens 24/7
US - 589
China - 1028
India - 224
Japan - 82
Germany - 85
South Africa - 76
Korea - 70
Australia - 54
Russia - 51
Poland - 44
All other - 418
How many trans-Atlantic flights per day? (and they don't fly all week, just a couple times per week is the average) but, let's say there are 350 each 8 hour long flights worldwide.. And let's assume every one of them is "spraying", how much possible tonnage of nanoparticle is coming out of their engines? Refreshing our memory, 302.4 tons of nanoparticles for the 8 hour flight.
Times 350 flights, the total airborne emission for a day's flights comes to only 105,840 tons for aircraft transoceanic flights or transcontinental flights of 8 hours.
Compare now 8 hours of the world's coal fired power plants emissions: that is 765,050 tons per hour times 8 hours, or 6,120,400 TONS from the coal fired power plants for the equivalent amount of time that jets could possibly do.
The logic says the power plants put out about 57 times MORE nanoparticle pollution, including lead, cadmium, uranium, thorium, carbon, aluminum.. than all the transatlantic flights per day.
To say the small amounts from jet travel is doing ANYTHING of any significance compared to ground based nanopollution sources does not hold any merit in my simple opinion looking at the numbers.
To say that one is seeing "severe spraying" and that is affecting someone from the pollutants present in the jet contrails, immediately "falling to earth", one is not grounded in the data of aerosol dispersion. http://intellectualventureslab.com/w...per-300dpi.pdf When the volcano Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 it spewed ash into the atmosphere (nano-particle sized) where the jets fly at altitude. 2 years later the particle were still circulating, not having reached ground.
If one is feeling something, take a look at ground based sources... Don't be distracted by the visible contrails, and look at the poisons coming from the ground based sources. It can't be any clearer explaining. I will do up an article about ALUMINUM in the environment since folks seem to be saying aluminum is coming from fuel burning (spraying from jets). Let's find out really where the aluminum is coming from.
Summarizing:
- One hour of rush hour traffic in a major city like LA, during a traffic jam, can cause more nanoparticle pollution than 500 jets can flying overhead. Put that into perspective when you say, "they are spraying" and you feel it immediately..
- Coal fired Power plants put out about 57 times MORE nanoparticle pollution, including lead, cadmium, uranium, thorium, carbon, aluminum.. than all the transatlantic flights per day.
- Aerosol particles in the upper atmosphere, above 30,000 feet (where the contrails can form) remain aloft for 2 years or more before falling. It is impossible to get such aerosols from anything called "spraying" to immediately reach the ground to create any effects.
- If metallic aerosols (or other modificants) are distributed for "climate control" or warfare or other hostile use, it needs to be mentioned that high altitude release (>30,000 feet where contrails would form) of the aerosols that such would remain aloft and not fall to the ground immediately - (that would be the logic of performing high altitude seeding for climate control for instance).
There is international legislation prohibiting the attempts of any such use. The use of remote sensing FTIR optical open path spectrometers would be a verification method to show treaty violation. No such violations have been noted since the treaty was signed by major nations worldwide, including the US who signed in 1977. International monitoring is in effect to ensure compliance.




Thing is though I read what Sheme was asking for was a solution to the ALUMINUM coming from nanoparticle emission (and how to get ALUMINUM out of the body using a special type of water). 

Reply With Quote










