Category Archives: Science Publications

Intent of “Expert Consensus” Letter Denying Secret Chemical Spraying Program Is To Deceive the Public

Scientist Exposes Lies & Disinformation Tactics in Public Letter to Universities

August 22, 2016

An Open Letter

To: Matthew P. Scott, President, Carnegie Institution for Science
To: John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University
To: Howard Gillman, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine

From: J. Marvin Herndon, Transdyne Corporation

On August 11, 2016, Christine Shearer, Mick West, Ken Caldeira and Stephen J. Davis published in Environmental Research Letters [hereafter ERL] a nine-page letter entitled “Quantifying Expert Consensus against the Existence of a Secret, Large-scale Atmospheric Spraying Program” [Exhibit A]. Yes, that is indeed shabby science. Science is a logical process, not a democratic process. In science consensus is nonsense. Tabulating opinions has no scientific value, although it may deceive those who are unaware. But there is a far, far more serious problem with the ERL letter. The intent of said ERL letter, I allege, is to deceive the scientific community and the public about the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program that has been going on about fifteen years with ever increasing duration and intensity and that poses potentially adverse health consequences for millions of people in America, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. Said publication involving individuals associated with your institutions, I allege, makes your institutions culpable and potentially exposed to litigation in what many consider crimes against humanity.

Said ERL letter states: “There have been no peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature addressing SLAP [secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program] claims.” That is not true. Two ERL authors, Ken Caldeira and Mick West, were aware of my peer-reviewed article entitled “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity and Earth’s Biota by Clandestine Geoengineering Activity: Implications for India” published on June 22, 2015 in Current Science, which is associated with the Indian Academy of Sciences [Exhibit B].

  • On June 25, 2015 ERL author Ken Caldeira was provided by email a copy of the press release which contained a link to said Current Science article. Caldeira’s disinformation-like response was: “Looks like coal ash, but must be a product of a widespread conspiracy of secrecy rather than some more parsimonious explanation.”[Exhibit C]
  • On June 25, 2015 ERL author Mick West lied about the content of said Current Science article in a posting on metabunk.org [Exhibit D].

There is a well-organized disinformation entity employed to deceive the public about the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program and to deceive the public of the concomitant adverse health effects. Mick West is the administrator for one of the disinformation websites, metabunk.org. There he unwarrantedly discredits scientific observations and evidence and smears individuals’ reputations, including my own. Other persons are also involved in intimidating scientific journal editors with lies and misinformation, and at least in one instance having a face to face meeting with a journal editor to ‘encourage’ unwarranted retraction. Shortly after my Current Science article was published [Exhibit B], an individual contacted the editor with a set of lies and misrepresentations and demanded retraction. The editor, a man of integrity, sent me the verbatim remarks and asked me to respond in writing, which I did [Exhibit E]. The editor would have published the complaint and my response, but the complainer would not give permission to publish.

The disinformation team is well-trained; they succeeded in causing two subsequent peer-reviewed and published scientific papers in public health journals to be retracted without the author being allowed to see the complaints and to respond to them. Exhibit F is a copy of the most recent unwarranted retraction, an article published in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification.” That article provides three independent lines of evidence that the main substance being sprayed into the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is likely toxic coal fly ash and describes some of the serious public health risks. Exhibit G, a posting of communications related to the retraction debacle, gives a clear picture of the unwarranted actions that stem from the disinformation attack on Frontier’s editors and officials.

Frontiers’ protocol for complaints requires that the article’s handling editor first be contacted. ERL author Mick West was the front-man for that operation. In an email dated July 7, 2016, the Frontiers in Public Health Editor Judi Krzyzanowski advised me regarding her being contacted by ERL author Mick West: “I told Mick West that he should publish a rebuttal or scientific paper disproving your theory if he has problems with it. He claimed you didn’t consider the “null hypothesis” that the signatures came from soil. I am not sure that elements from soil leach up into snow, but I also informed him the null hypothesis would be that there is no relationship, not that there is another one.”

In light of the above described evidence, I allege, ERL authors Caldeira and West coopted the good name and resources of your institutions to further deceive the public and the scientific community about the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program and to deceive the public of the concomitant adverse health effects. Why? Perhaps it was in response to the announcement of a pending major lawsuit [Exhibit H].

That lawsuit, I posit, may initiate an avalanche of litigation, and rightfully so. No one has the right to deliberately spray toxic particulates into the air millions of people breathe; even Adolph Hitler never stooped that low. So, what should you do?

If I were in your shoes, I would do three things: (1) Force retraction of said ERL letter; (2) Use your public relations resources to mount a campaign to counteract the disinformation that received widespread press coverage due to said ERL letter, and; (3) Use the scientific resources of your institutions to reveal the truth about the secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program.

Science is all about truth, not deception, not deceit, and not turning a blind eye. You should restore integrity to your institutions. Why? To avoid potential litigation exposure and, more importantly, to restore the lost sense of humanity that should be a part of science and the institutions serving the public.

Sincerely,

J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.

List of Exhibits
Exhibit A Published Environmental Research Letters letter
Exhibit B Current Science article
Exhibit C K. Caldeira email
Exhibit D Excerpt from metabunk.org
Exhibit E Response to Current Science criticism
Exhibit F Retracted Frontiers in Public Health article
Exhibit G Communications related to Frontiers retraction
Exhibit H 60 Day notification of lawsuit

An Open Letter PDF

"The purpose of science is to discover the true nature of Earth and Universe and to share that knowledge with people everywhere. That's what I do." -- J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.

SoCalSkyWatch.net

https://www.facebook.com/SocalSkywatch
https://twitter.com/socalskywatch
https://www.youtube.com/socalskywatch

Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification

J. Marvin Herndon*
Transdyne Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA
*Correspondence: J. Marvin Herndon mherndon@san.rr.com
http://nuclearplanet.com/

PDF Download – OPEN ACCESS

Original Research ARTICLE
Front. Public Health, 30 June 2016 | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139

Edited by: Judi Krzyzanowski, Krzyzanowski Consulting, Canada
Reviewed by: Otto Andersen, Western Norway Research Institute, Norway Yue-Wern Huang, Missouri University of Science and Technology, USA

Specialty section: This article was submitted to Environmental Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
Received: 05 April 2016
Accepted: 16 June 2016
Published: 30 June 2016

Citation: Herndon JM (2016) Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification.

Background: U.S. military perception of nuclear warfare led to countless unethical nuclear experiments performed on unsuspecting individuals without their informed consent. As evidenced here, subsequent perception of weather warfare has led to exposing millions of unsuspecting individuals to toxic coal fly ash with no public disclosure, no informed consent, and no health warnings.

Methods: Three methods were used: (1) comparison of eight elements analyzed in rainwater samples, thought to have leached from aerosolized coal fly ash, with corresponding coal fly ash laboratory leachate; (2) comparison of 14 elements analyzed in air filter dust with corresponding elements in coal fly ash; and (3) comparison of 23 elements analyzed in fibrous mesh found after snow melted with corresponding elements in coal fly ash.

Results: The rainwater element ratios show that the aerial particulate matter has essentially the same water-leach characteristics as coal fly ash. The air filter dust element ratios occur in the same range of compositions as coal fly ash, as do element ratios in fibrous mesh found on grass after snow melted. The fibrous mesh provides an inferred direct connection with the aerosolizing jet aircraft via coal fly ash association with the jet combustion environment.

Conclusion: Strong evidence for the correctness of the hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely the aerosolized particulate emplaced in the troposphere for geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate alteration purposes. The documented public health associations for ≤2.5 μm particulate pollution are also applicable to aerosolized coal fly ash. The ability of coal fly ash to release aluminum in a chemically mobile form upon exposure to water or body moisture has potentially grave human and environmental consequences over a broad spectrum, including implications for neurological diseases and biota debilitation. The ability of coal fly ash to release heavy metals and radioactive elements upon exposure to body moisture has potentially grave human health implications including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory diseases, reduced male fertility, and stroke. The fibrous mesh data admit the possibility of environmentally disastrous formation of methylmercury and ozone-depleting chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons in jet exhaust. Geophysical implications include atmospheric warming and rainfall retardation.

Introduction

In a civilized, humanitarian society, public health responsibilities include revealing threats that arise from both biological and anthropogenic causes. Global-scale naturally caused public health threats have long existed, are generally well known, and have been the subject of scholarly research. Far-reaching human-caused threats to public health, on the other hand, have mainly occurred since World War II and are typically the result of deliberate military activities conducted secretly. Public disclosure of military-originated public health dangers by scientists has galvanized public outrage against such activities in the past. The Manhattan Project gave rise to the nuclear arms race. Unethical nuclear experiments were performed involving unsuspecting individuals, sometimes numbering in the thousands, without informed consent. For example, pregnant women, told they were receiving vitamins, were instead given radioactive iron; newborn infants were injected with radioactive iodine-131 (1–4). Atmospheric detonations of nuclear devices were generally undertaken without regard for the health of unsuspecting residents downwind (5). Atmospheric nuclear testing in the United States ended as a consequence of the public outcry over civilian public health disclosure of the risks associated with strontium-90 uptake by children (6).

Modern commercial weather modification technology began with the 1946 discovery that clouds, seeded with silver iodide or dry ice, could be caused in many instances to yield rain or snow (7). That weather modification method is widely used for agricultural and other commercial purposes. Ski resorts frequently use it to increase the likelihood of snow. Insurance companies use it to cut their risks when guaranteeing certain weather conditions for commercial projects or to minimize potential losses caused by hail storms.

The military has long dreamed of controlling the weather for strategic purposes (8). The early military applications of weather modification were aimed at deliberately causing rainfall at a specific time and place by cloud seeding with substances such as silver iodide or dry ice. Reportedly, the U.S. seeded clouds to squeeze rain out before they reached Cuba in order to ruin the Cuban sugar cane harvest (9). From 1967 to 1972, Operation Popeye involved cloud seeding with the intention of extending the monsoon season over the Ho Chi Minh Trail to impede transport of troops and supplies during the Vietnam War (8, 10). The success of these weather modification activities provided impetus for the subsequent government/military technological interests, expressed in a 1978 U.S. Senate document (11) and described in the 1996 U.S. Air Force document: “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 (12).”

After the Vietnam War, military weather modification became a secret global-scale activity buttressed by a campaign of disinformation. Like its nuclear-warfare predecessor, weather modification or geoengineering continued to be covertly developed and practiced, especially over the past two decades (13). That geoengineering activity poses global-scale public-health dangers due to the nature of the principal substance being sprayed into the lower atmosphere, troposphere (14), where it mixes with the air we all breathe (15) (Figure 1). The government not only hides the known (and unknown) health risks but also misleads the public about its geoengineering program and the nature of the aerosol substances it employs.1

Figure 1. Schematic representation of atmosphere layers at mid-latitudes showing typical regions of cloud formations and passenger jet traffic.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of atmosphere layers at mid-latitudes showing typical regions of cloud formations and passenger jet traffic.

Nevertheless, through application of forensic-science methodologies and with sound observations and scientific reasoning, crucial aspects of the covert tropospheric spraying activities can be discerned. For humanity’s sake, the public health and environmental implications of the current on-going, global-scale, covert tropospheric spraying are herewith disclosed for public discussion, research, and verification.

A profound dichotomy exists between the technology, practice, terminology, and public disclosure of geoengineering so that public discussion of its implications for public health is minimized. The academic community describes geoengineering as a possible future intervention in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) to counteract anthropogenic global warming. The stratosphere is the region where volcanic eruption gases have been observed to cause global cooling. There is relatively little convection in the stratosphere so volcanic ejecta can stay suspended in the stratosphere for a year or more (16). Academic scientists postulate future geoengineering in which substances such as sulfuric acid or titanium dioxide are sprayed into the stratosphere in order to block a portion of incident sunlight (17). Various methods have been proposed for emplacing geoengineering substances into the stratosphere including shooting the substances from guns or releasing them from balloons or high-altitude jets (18). The stratosphere is the region harboring the ozone-layer that protects us from the ultraviolet component of sunlight (19). Within the academic perception of hypothetical geoengineering, public health concerns arising from geoengineering are also hypothetical, something that may become important in the future if and when stratospheric geoengineering is put into practice.

In contrast to the presumption of academic geoengineers, covert government/military geoengineering activity has occurred over the past 70 years and has intensified since the end of the Cold War and the discovery of global warming as a national security issue (20). Currently, geoengineering is taking place in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) over a large number of countries, including the United States, Canada, the European Union countries, England, Australia, and New Zealand (14). The academic community has been hesitant to publically acknowledge military geoengineering activity even though there is abundant observational evidence for its existence (8, 14). Since the mid-1990s, there have been numerous observations of aerial spraying of particulate matter in the troposphere. Figure 2 shows some recent examples of the particulate trails; however, this is a minuscule sampling. There are numerous websites devoted to exposing aerial spraying to the uninformed public.214

Figure 2. Images of deliberately produced particulate pollution trails. Photographs by Patrick Roddie, with permission.
Figure 2. Images of deliberately produced particulate pollution trails. Photographs by Patrick Roddie, with permission.

The physical basis for particulate aerial spraying is to control weather and climate by inhibiting rain. The idea behind cloud seeding is to aid the nucleation of rain, ice, or snow whereas the idea behind aerosolized particulate spraying to inhibit rainfall is to interfere with the nucleation process. The methodology is known from pollution studies (21) and is described by NASA15: “Normal rainfall droplet creation involves water vapor condensing on particles in clouds. The droplets eventually coalesce together to form drops large enough to fall to Earth. However, as more and more pollution particles (aerosols) enter a rain cloud, the same amount of water becomes spread out. These smaller water droplets float with the air and are prevented from coalescing and growing large enough for a raindrop. Thus, the cloud yields less rainfall over the course of its lifetime compared to a clean (non-polluted) cloud of the same size.”

The government/military solution to inhibit the fall of rain is to deliberately add an aerosolized pollutant to the region where clouds form to interfere with raindrop nucleation. The intentional addition of particulate pollution not only inhibits the fall of rain but also warms the atmosphere (by absorbing solar energy) and limits loss of heat radiated by Earth. Consequently, the particulate pollution creates an artificial increase in air pressure, which can block the movement of an oncoming weather front thus further keeping the sprayed area from experiencing rainfall (22, 23). Subsequent settling of the pollutant matter on ice sheets may serve as solar heat collectors and aid in melting the ice (24). The harm to citizens, plants, and other biota comes not only from decreased precipitation but also from the toxic content of the pollutant substance widely utilized to retard the fall of rain (25).

The composition of the aerosolized particulate matter, often referred to as “chemtrails,” to distinguish them from contrails, has been a closely guarded secret, and accompanied by a disinformation campaign. For example, in 2005, the U.S. Air Force distributed a document entitled “Contrails Facts”, which asserted in part: “The ‘Chemtrail’ hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications. There is no such thing as a ‘Chemtrail.’ Contrails are safe and are a natural phenomenon. They pose no health hazard of any kind.”

But as Abraham Lincoln famously said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” On February 11, 2016, a bill was introduced into the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island (USA) that would demand public disclosure and health and safety evaluations of any geoengineering activities (26). On March 11, 2016, a mass-tort environmental proposed Class Proceeding (“Proceeding”) was brought in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of all affected Canadians in respect of Aerial Discharges performed directly or indirectly by Her Majesty the Queen and/or her instrumentalities, in Canadian air space, and which Aerial Discharges are alleged to compromise cognitive function, contribute to other neurological disorders, damage property and the environment, among many other heads of damage (27).

The aerial graffiti superficially resembles contrails, which are ice crystals formed from aircraft exhaust, but there are profound differences. Contrails only form in very humid environments, with temperatures low enough for the saturation vapor pressure with respect to ice, and with sufficient moisture content in the exhaust gases. Moreover, the ice crystals that form contrails sublimate, disappearing by evaporation to form invisible gas on a time scale ranging from seconds to minutes (typical) to a few hours (extremes of cold and humidity) (28, 29).

The author has lived in San Diego, California (USA) for more than 40 years and as a trained scientist keenly observes the sky. For many years before the near-daily particulate spraying, the sky overhead was a rich azure blue color, frequently without clouds. In the warm dry air above San Diego, jet contrails are a rare sight that disappear in a matter of seconds to minutes, becoming invisible gas. Figure 3 shows six images of the San Diego sky that not only illustrate the nature of the now-pervasive particulate spraying but clearly provide the basis to refute the Air Force’s published statement. Videos of aircraft spraying particulate matter into the San Diego sky are referenced here.1620

Figure 3. Photographs of the sky above San Diego, California (USA) taken in 2014–2015.
Figure 3. Photographs of the sky above San Diego, California (USA) taken in 2014–2015. Top left: note the mainly blue sky, with a just small amount of white haze. Top right: spray stopped in mid-flight, which is uncharacteristic of jet contrails. Middle left: heavy spraying produced artificial overcast of an otherwise cloudless blue sky. Middle right: heavy spraying changed the blue sky to overcast with a brownish hue. Bottom left: numerous particulate trails unlike paths of normal air traffic. Bottom right: note the white haze caused by micron and sub-micron size particulates, which is uncharacteristic of jet contrails, ice crystals that rapidly disappear by evaporation. The blue stripe copied from the top left image shows the contrast. Before the heavy aerial spraying began, San Diego skies were usually the color of the blue stripe and often without cloud cover. The warm dry climate above San Diego prevents the formation of persistent jet contrails, which are ice crystals.

All of the photographs that comprise Figure 3 were taken on days with no natural clouds in the San Diego sky. The top left image of Figure 3 shows a section of rich azure blue San Diego sky with little evidence of particulate spraying. The top right image shows two trails crossing in the same region of sky, hence in similar environments, but one abruptly ceases, while the other does not. That is not the behavior of contrails, which would have behaved similarly, but rather the operation of particulate sprays where one was shut off or ran out of feedstock. Note the wispy cirrus-like “clouds” in the background. Soon after the particulate trail is laid, it begins to diffuse initially forming cirrus-like artificial clouds, which then further diffuses to form a white haze in the sky. The middle left photograph was taken after heavy spraying throughout the day produced an artificial overcast. The middle right photograph shows even heavier spraying that produced artificial overcast with a brownish hue. The lower left shows multiple particulate trails over a recognizable location in San Diego that is uncharacteristic of normal jet traffic patterns. The lower right image shows the typical white haze produced by the particulate sprays. The blue strip at the top of the image, from the top left photo, shows for comparison natural un-polluted San Diego sky. Jet contrails do not produce white haze in San Diego skies.

Even without knowing the identity of the specific particulate matter being sprayed into the air we breathe, we may infer the potential of major adverse health risks from aerosolized particulates because they are similar in size to air pollution particles the health effects of which have been extensively studied (30). For aerosolized particulates to remain suspended for some period of time before settling, the particles must be micron (μm) or submicron in size (31). As known from epidemiological studies, pollution particles with similar diameters, ≤2.5 μm, referred to as PM2.5, have been found to be associated with increased hospital admissions (32), morbidity and premature mortality (33–35), risk for cardiovascular disease (36) and lung cancer (37), lung inflammation and diabetes (38), risk for stroke (39), Alzheimer’s disease (40, 41), onset of asthma (42), renal function in older men (43), low birth weight (44), and reduced male fertility (45).

The author published the first paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that provided initial evidence that the main substance being aerosolized for military tropospheric geoengineering is coal combustion fly ash (14). The purpose of the present paper is to provide considerably more scientific evidence that the aerosolized particulate matter is coal fly ash, and offer considerably greater insight to the public health risks and environment impact of this multi-component aerial pollutant.

Industrial coal burning produces four kinds of waste products: (1) heavy bottom ash that settles out; (2) micron and sub-micron size particles, called coal fly ash that would go up the smokestack unless electrostatically captured and stored as is presently mandated in Western nations (46, 47); (3) boiler slag; and (4) flue gas desulfurization product (gypsum). Of these, coal fly ash is by far the most toxic substance. When coal formed it trapped a great variety of toxic elements. Much of coal’s toxic component is released upon burning and incorporated in coal fly ash, making coal fly ash a toxic nightmare capable of releasing many toxins upon exposure to water (48). These toxins include aluminum in a chemically mobile form, which is implicated in human neurological diseases (49–51) and biota distress (52, 53). “Forest die-offs and reduced survivorship or impaired reproduction of aquatic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians have been directly connected to Al toxicity. Indirect effects on birds and mammals also have been identified (54).”

Coal fly ash is a major industrial waste stream for Western nations’ coal-fired electric utilities. Notably, coal fly ash has the appropriate grain-size distribution for aerosolized tropospheric spraying or else it is relatively simple to further separate an extra-fine component using cyclone classifiers (separators). Huge quantities of coal fly ash are readily available worldwide at extremely low cost. Moreover, electrostatic trapping and processing facilities, as well as transport infrastructure, are in place and generally out of public view. The author submits the following hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely the principal aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by jets for geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate alteration purposes.

The objectives of the author’s research are fourfold: (1) to provide further scientific evidence as to the correctness of the hypothesis that coal fly ash is likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere for geoengineering, weather-modification, and/or climate-modification purposes; (2) to reveal some of the adverse human public health consequences and the antagonistic consequences on Earth’s environment and biota; (3) to provide evidence that, in addition to being directly discharged into the atmosphere, coal fly ash may be exposed to jet fuel combustion environment prior to being dispersed; and, (4) to suggest that ozone-destructive chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons and toxic methylmercury (CH3Hg) may be produced when coal fly ash is exposed to the jet fuel combustion environment.

Materials and Methods

The methodology is threefold: (1) compare the element ratios analyzed in rainwater with corresponding element ratios analyzed in the leachate of coal fly ash laboratory leach experiments (48, 55); (2) compare the element ratios analyzed in dust collected outdoors by high-efficiency particulate arresting (HEPA) air filters with corresponding element ratios analyzed in samples of coal fly ash; and (3) compare the element ratios analyzed in fibrous matter collected on grass after snow melted away with corresponding element ratios analyzed in samples of coal fly ash.

Since at least 2002, individuals have collected post-spraying rainwater for chemical analysis (see footnote text 2–5). Usually only aluminum analyses were requested, but sometimes also barium, and more rarely strontium were also included in the analysis request. In 2015, the author published the first paper showing that for those three-element rainwater analyses, the ratios Al/Ba and Sr/Ba compare favorably with similar ratios from analyses of the leachate from laboratory coal fly ash leaching experiments (14). Here, the author compares three separate San Diego (USA) post-spraying rainwater analyses for Al/Ba, Sr/Ba, Fe/Ba, Ca/Br, S/Br, Mg/Br, and B/Br with corresponding coal fly ash leachate ratios.

Since at least 2008, a few individuals have trapped air-borne particles on HEPA filters and had the dust analyzed. Here, the author compares the analytical results from four samples, expressed as element ratios relative to barium, with corresponding ratios from analyses of coal fly ash.

Occasionally fibers, sometimes referred to as “spider webs,” are observed descending from above, swept along by the wind, trapped on vegetation, and on the ground;2124 some observers have speculated that these originated from aerial spraying. Recently, such fibers were found on grass as snow was melting away and were collected and analyzed. Here, the author compares those analytical results, expressed as ratios relative to barium, with corresponding ratios from analyses of coal fly ash.

Results

Coal fly ash is trapped and confined in Western countries because it contains numerous toxic elements including aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, thorium, and uranium among others. These elements are readily released by contact with water. Moreno et al. (48) conducted leaching experiments on 23 different coal fly ash samples from European sources (Spain, The Netherlands, Italy, and Greece), which they analyzed for 33 elements. They leached 100 g of each sample in 1 liter of distilled water in a 2-liter bottle for 24 h. They then analyzed the filtered leachate solution of each for 38 elements. No reason was given for the greater number of leachate analyses. These data provide the primary standard for comparison of the analytical results for rainwater, HEPA filter dust, and fibrous matter reported here. An additional comparison is made of the range of compositions and range of leachate values of 12 American coal fly ash samples, ten of which come from the Illinois Basin (55).

Rainwater

Before the near-daily aerial spraying in San Diego, California (USA), where the author has resided for more than 40 years, on many days of the year the skies were blue, cloudless and without the white haze that is the consequence of the aerial spraying; now, the visual effects of the spraying are clearly evident (Figure 3). The author collected San Diego rainwater samples in February, May, and December 2015 for analysis. San Diego is ideal for rainwater sample collection as there are no coal-burning facilities nearby or in the path of prevailing winds and there are no heavy industries to cause air borne pollution in San Diego. The residence-time for smokestack particulates in the boundary layer, a few days at most, is too short for coal fly ash to arrive from China via low-level transport, which takes longer than 10 days (56). Further, the observed aerial particulate density, at times sufficient to cause artificial overcast (Figure 3), is related to observed aircraft spraying activities, and is not present in the absence of aerial activity.

The rainwater samples were sent to two commercial state-of-California certified laboratories, Babcock Laboratories, Inc., and Basic Laboratory. Their analytical results, by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, were consistent to within 2–10%. Figure 4 shows the San Diego rainwater analytical element ratios for comparison with corresponding ratios of the average values and ranges of the Moreno et al. (48) laboratory leachate results for 23 European coal fly ash samples and the range of American coal fly ash leachate data of Suloway et al. (55). The European coal fly ash samples were leached using distilled water (pH = 7.00). After leaching for 24 h the pH of the 23 laboratory leachates ranged from 6.40 to 12.54. Comparable data are not available for the American leach experiments as the pH was constantly adjusted during the experiment to maintain a value of 5.00. Figure 4 also includes for comparison the analytical rainwater results from Internet sources (see footnote text 2–5) published by the author (14, 57). Plotted data are shown in Tables 1–3.

Figure 4. Analyzed element ratios in San Diego rainwater samples
Figure 4. Analyzed element ratios in San Diego rainwater samples taken in February, May, and December of 2015 shown for comparison with the range of corresponding element ratios and average values from laboratory coal fly ash leachate of 23 European (48) and 12 American coal fly ash samples (55). Previously published (14) rainwater Al/Ba and Sr/Ba ratios from Internet postings are shown for comparison.
Table 1. Analytical ICP-MS data for San Diego rainwater samples.
Table 1. Analytical ICP-MS data for San Diego rainwater samples.
Table 2. Tabulation of Internet-posted ICP-MS analytical data plotted in Figure 4.
Table 2. Tabulation of Internet-posted ICP-MS analytical data plotted in Figure 4.
Table 3. Analytical ICP-MS data for HEPA filter dust and fibers.
Table 3. Analytical ICP-MS data for HEPA filter dust and fibers.

Ranges of variations are observed in the compositions of coal fly ash (48, 55). These variations arise not only from differences in coal type, in chemical compositions and mineral constituents of the coal from the various locations, but also arise from fly ash characteristics and from boiler configurations and prevailing physical conditions during the burning process. Despite those variable factors, there is nevertheless an overall compositional consistency. Not surprisingly, overall compositional consistency appears to be the case as well for leachate compositions leached from coal fly ash samples from different locations. Note in Figure 4 that the Internet-posted rainwater Al/Ba ratios (14), determined on samples from the United States, France, and New Zealand, are quite similar to the San Diego rainwater Al/Ba ratio and span a range less than the corresponding leachate range of the 23 European coal fly ash samples. A similar observation may be made with respect to the published rainwater Sr/Ba ratios. Indeed, each of the seven San Diego rainwater ratios of the three data sets is remarkably similar to the corresponding European leachate average and range. Rainwater samples absent aerial spraying would be desirable as blanks, but the near-daily, pervasive spraying makes such samples impossible to obtain.

Do the data shown in Figure 4 prove that the aerosolized substance is indeed coal fly ash? Not necessarily, as incontrovertible proof is difficult to obtain, except in mathematics. But the data of Figure 4 do show that some substance in the atmosphere is capable of being leached by rainwater and that substance has for eight elements similar leach characteristics to coal fly ash.

HEPA Air Filter Dust

Citizens throughout Western nations, concerned about the particulate spraying they observe in the troposphere, have taken numerous samples other than rainwater. Some instances, such as soil samples, are too complicated to draw meaningful conclusions. In many instances, though, too few elements were ordered in the analyses. Individuals in Los Angeles and Montebello, California (USA) in 2011, and in Phoenix, Arizona (USA) in 2008 and 2009 were exceptions. During times of intense aerial spraying these citizens ran HEPA air filters out doors for 3 months during times of intense aerial spraying to capture air borne dust which they had analyzed for 14 chemical elements by state-certified laboratories. The laboratory results were posted on the Internet, but led to no immediately conclusions other than that a number of toxic elements were evident.

Having had the experience of comparing post-spraying rainwater analyses to laboratory-produced coal fly ash leachate, the author decided to compare the HEPA air filter analyses with corresponding analyses of non-leached coal fly ash samples (48, 55, 57). As in the case of San Diego, there were no coal burning facilities and no polluting heavy industries nearby or in the path of prevailing winds for the Los Angeles, Montebello, and Phoenix areas where sample collections took place. As noted above, the residence-time for smokestack particulates in the boundary layer, a few days at most, is too short for coal fly ash to arrive from China via low-level transport, which takes longer than 10 days (56).

Figure 5 shows the comparisons of the four sets of analyses of HEPA air filter dust, normalized to barium, with corresponding ratios of the average and range of European coal fly ash compositions from Moreno et al. (48) and from a suite of 12 investigated by Suloway et al. (55) that includes ten from the Illinois Basin (USA), one from North Dakoda (USA) and one from Minnesota (USA). Even though coal fly ash varies in composition according to location, the data presented in Figure 5 show the great similarity between the four samples of HEPA filter dust and coal fly ash compositional ranges. That great similarity is further evidence in support of the following hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely the principal aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by jets for geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate alteration.

Figure 5. Analyzed element ratios of dust collected on four high-efficiency air filters shown for comparison with the range of corresponding element ratios and average values for 23 non-leached European coal fly ash samples (48) and element ratio ranges of 12 U.S. coal fly ash samples (55). Also shown, 11 of 22 element ratios of fibrous mesh (Figure 6); remaining 11 element ratios are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 5. Analyzed element ratios of dust collected on four high-efficiency air filters shown for comparison with the range of corresponding element ratios and average values for 23 non-leached European coal fly ash samples (48) and element ratio ranges of 12 U.S. coal fly ash samples (55). Also shown, 11 of 22 element ratios of fibrous mesh (Figure 6); remaining 11 element ratios are shown in Figure 7.

It follows logically that if aerosolized coal fly ash is the progenitor of the rainwater content of aluminum, barium, strontium, and other elements by leaching, as evidence suggests (Figure 4), then coal fly ash should be found trapped on HEPA air filters (Figure 5) as the tropospheric air at spray-altitudes mixes with the air we breathe (15).

Fibers Found after Snow Melted

In the spring of 2015 a citizen in Laona, Wisconsin (USA) noticed that immediately after snow had melted a fibrous, sticky mesh, initially flexible and sticky, covered the underlying grass (Figure 6). Upon drying over a period of 24 h, the white fibrous mesh became brittle; subsequent addition of water decomposed the fibrous mesh into a black gelatinous mass. Samples of the brittle white fibrous mesh were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry at Northern Lake Services, Inc. in Crandon, Wisconsin. Of the 26 elements detected and measured in the fibrous mesh, 23 had been measured by Moreno et al. (48) in the non-leached coal fly ash European samples. Of the 22 element ratios relative to barium that are common to each data set, 11 are common to element ratios measured in HEPA air filter dust and are shown with those ratios in Figure 5. Considering the compositional variability in coal fly ash from different sources, it is reasonable to conclude that the fibrous mesh ratios are essentially indistinguishable from ratios measured in the HEPA air filter data and in turn are essentially indistinguishable from ratios measured in non-leached coal fly ash. Figure 7 is a comparison of the remaining 11 fibrous mesh ratios with corresponding ratios of the average and range of European coal fly ash compositions from Moreno et al. (48) and American coal fly ash composition ranges published by Suloway et al. (55). The great similarity observed in the data plotted in Figure 7 further reinforces the assertion that the composition of the white fibrous mesh is essentially identical to that of coal fly ash.

Figure 6. Photographs of fibrous mesh observed atop grass just as snow had melted showing its initially “sticky” nature. Photos by Robert West, with permission.
Figure 6. Photographs of fibrous mesh observed atop grass just as snow had melted showing its initially “sticky” nature. Photos by Robert West, with permission.
Figure 7. Remaining 11 of 22 analyzed element ratios of fibrous mesh found after snow had melted (Figure 6) shown for comparison with the range of corresponding element ratios and average values for 23 non-leached European coal fly ash samples (48) and element ratio ranges of 12 U.S. coal fly ash samples (55). See Figure 5 for the other 11 of 22 element ratios of fibrous mesh.
Figure 7. Remaining 11 of 22 analyzed element ratios of fibrous mesh found after snow had melted (Figure 6) shown for comparison with the range of corresponding element ratios and average values for 23 non-leached European coal fly ash samples (48) and element ratio ranges of 12 U.S. coal fly ash samples (55). See Figure 5 for the other 11 of 22 element ratios of fibrous mesh.

Coal fly ash is electrostatically trapped as a powder that ranges in color from tan to dark gray depending on composition, which is consistent with observations of the dust trapped by HEPA air filters, which is further consistent with the hypothesis that coal fly ash is sprayed from jet aircraft. So, how might one account for the strikingly different appearance of the fibrous mesh morphology if indeed it is, as evidence indicates, essentially identical in composition to coal fly ash? For the reasons and observations described in the next section, the author posits potential circumstances in which coal fly ash is sometimes exposed to jet fuel combustion, which usually leads to aerosolized coal fly ash, but occasionally, depending physical variables, leads to the production for fibers instead. Viewed this way, the fibrous mesh provides an inferred direct connection with the aerosolizing jet aircraft and also admits the possibility for further investigation of environmentally disastrous formation of methylmercury (CH3Hg) and/or the production of ozone-depleting chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons in the jet exhaust.

Discussion

The analytical results reported for rainwater (Figure 4), airborne particulates collected on HEPA air filters (Figure 5), and the fibrous mesh (Figures 4 and 6) stand as evidence that coal fly ash is the principal material emplaced in the troposphere for ongoing, covert geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate alteration. For more precise information, future experiments should sample airborne particulates at the altitude in which they are being dispersed into the atmosphere. Alternatively, the nature of the substances being sprayed into the air people breathe may be sought through the process of judicial discovery in legal proceedings such as recently initiated in Canada (27).

Biotic and Public Health Consequences of Tropospheric Spraying

The ultra-fine particles of aerosolized coal fly ash do not long remain at the altitudes they are emplaced in the troposphere. The particles mix with and pollute the air people breathe (15) and contaminate the soil with toxic, soluble aluminum. The coal fly ash also causes pH changes in the soil. Aluminum is an abundant element in Earth’s crust, but typically it is tightly bound to oxygen and other elements. Earth’s biota evolved without adapting defense mechanisms for soluble aluminum compounds. Tropospheric aerosolized coal fly ash poses environmental health threats from aluminum similar to those posed by acid rain, but without necessarily requiring an acid environment. The pH of coal fly ash varies and can be acidic or basic depending on its coal source. Eastern USA bituminous coal fly ash, for example, has been found to be acidic with pH in the range of 4.3–4.9 (58), whereas coal fly ash from the Western USA tends to be more basic, with pH in the range 8.16–12.4 according to one study (59). Uncontaminated natural rainwater has an acidic pH of about 5.7 due to interaction with atmospheric CO2 (60); however, an acidic pH is not a required to leach toxins from coal fly ash. In the experiments on European coal fly ash samples by Moreno et al. (48), distilled water led to aluminum extraction while other chemicals extracted led to leachate pH values in the range 6.2–12.5.

Before action was taken to prevent acid rain (61), chemically mobile aluminum, which is soluble in water, was released into the environment from geological sources, such as mine tailings, and caused serious adverse effects on forests. Forest die-backs in North America were attributed to aluminum toxicity. These blighted forests included balsam fir, Fraser fir, loblolly pine, red spruce, slash pine, and sugar maples (54). Whereas reductions in NOx and SO2 emissions have seriously reduced the acid rain threat, there is a global decline in large old trees (62) and particularly in the Western USA (63). The biochemical–geochemical cycling of aluminum is complex. Its dissolved form is most readily assimilated by living organisms. Once in solution, aluminum may combine with several organic complexes, especially oxalic, humic, and fulvic acids. The metal may also combine with inorganic anions including sulfates, fluorides, phosphates, bicarbonates, or hydroxides, depending on their relative concentrations. Biological activity and toxicity vary with composition and pH. Generally, sulfates are less toxic than hydroxide or organically bound aluminum; however, aqueous trivalent aluminum is considerably more active chemically and biologically (64). Soluble aluminum is toxic to plants in a variety of ways, including formation of root lesions (65) that may weaken the plant, making it vulnerable to disease, or may kill it outright. Coal fly ash leaching studies reveal that even distilled water can solubilize aluminum, but details of the mechanism have not been disclosed (48, 55). The author posits that aerosolized coal fly ash directly settled in soil or brought down in rainwater is damaging plants both from soluble aluminum toxicity and from pH changes (14).

Exposure to air pollution particulates, not necessarily coal fly ash, in sizes ≤2.5 μm in diameter – often designated PM2.5 – is especially detrimental to human health (66). Although the specific mechanisms are not well known, epidemiological studies are beginning to reveal some of the adverse consequences of such exposures. As noted above, exposure to PM2.5 has been shown to be associated with increased hospital admissions (32), morbidity and premature mortality (33–35), risk for cardiovascular disease (36) and lung cancer (37), lung inflammation and diabetes (38), risk for stroke (39), Alzheimer’s disease (40, 41), onset of asthma (42), renal function in older men (43), low birth weight (44), and reduced male fertility (45). One may therefore reasonably conclude that aerosolized coal fly ash, at least the PM2.5 component, is harmful to human health.

Coal fly ash occurs with grain sizes down to ~0.1 μm in diameter (67). In principle, extracting an ultra-fine fraction of coal fly ash is relatively simple and inexpensive using cyclone classifiers (separators). Certainly, such an ultra-fine fraction would be advantageous for aerial spraying due to added loft time. But there is a serious downside: the toxic elements of coal fly ash tend to be concentrated in the ultra-fine fraction (55). It is not known whether this mechanism for producing ultra-fine enrichment is being used for the covert tropospheric emplacement, but if it is, then that component would be even more toxic than typical coal fly ash.

The toxins in coal fly ash make that substance especially injurious to human health. The small particle size of aerosolized coal fly ash (PM2.5) enables particulate intake through inhalation, ingestion, and induction through eyes or skin (68). When inhaled, PM2.5 particles can penetrate and become trapped in terminal airways and alveoli, and retained for long periods of time. Here, it can cause inflammation and injury through antagonistic contact (69), through in situ toxin release by body moisture (70), and through ionizing radiation from uranium, thorium, and their radioactive daughter products found in coal fly ash (71). Coal fly ash has been described as being more radioactive than nuclear waste (72).

Coal fly ash is able to liberate a host of toxins through exposure to body moisture (70), including aluminum, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, lithium, selenium, strontium, thallium, and thorium and uranium with their radioactive daughter products, and other toxins. Each one of these can have adverse human health consequences, but in combination their synergistic effects may be even more deleterious. Moreover, Haber’s Rule or some more general concentration versus exposure-time relationship may be expected in certain instances where a lower concentration for a long time exposure is approximately equivalent to a higher concentration exposure for a short period of time (16).

The extent of physiological damage from tropospheric coal fly ash is a function of a variety of factors including concentration and exposure duration, as well as the individual’s age, physical condition, and individual susceptibility. Generally, the most at-risk individuals are pregnant women, children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune and respiratory systems. The fetuses of pregnant women exposed to inorganic arsenic from coal fly ash are at risk as arsenic can crossover the placenta. Arsenic can be involved with hypertension-related cardiovascular disease (73), cancer (74), diabetes (75), respiratory diseases (76), and stroke (74). Moreover, arsenic is just one of the numerous toxic elements of coal fly ash that are released by water and by body fluids. Another component, chromium VI, which comprises an estimated 10% of the chromium content of coal fly ash, is not only cytotoxic for lungs and kidneys but is also a carcinogen with the ability to cause lung cancer (77). These examples are just snippets of a vast array of debilitating conditions that can potentially arise from human exposure to aerosolized coal fly ash.

Although aluminum is abundant in Earth’s continental crust, comprising about 8%, it is tightly bound within minerals, and thus is essentially insoluble, i.e., immobile. But coal fly ash is an unnatural product whose aluminum is not so tightly bound. Aluminum in coal fly ash can be extracted in a chemically mobile (soluble) form by water or in situ by body fluids (70). Aluminum is implicated in neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Parkinson’s, and attention-deficit disorder (ADHD) (49, 51, 78–80), all of which have increased markedly in recent years. Moreover, aluminum is thought to reduce fertility in men (81) and is implicated in neurological disorders of bees and other creatures (82–84).

As might be expected of a covert operation, there have been no public disclosures identifying the principal substance being sprayed, no informed consent, no health warnings, and no serious investigation of the adverse health consequences. The data described here, however, provide strong evidence that the main aerosolized substance being sprayed is coal fly ash; public health inferences can be drawn from extent literature, some of which is cited herein. These citations only provide glimpses of the potential risks involved, but they are sufficient to suggest the possibility of a multi-dimensional global public health crisis, a slow pandemic in the making.

Potential Unforeseen Hazards Inferred from Fibrous Mesh

From observations, photographic and video evidence, patent literature, and airline pilots’ statements there appears to be two main methods for dispersing the particulate matter in the troposphere: (1) blowing or pumping the powder through nozzles; and (2) dumping large quantities of the powder for the winds to spread. The evidence of a fibrous form of coal fly ash disclosed here presents the possibility of a third dispersing mechanism, one that may pose yet further public health risks.

The author can envision no practical reason for coal fly ash to be deliberately converted into an aerial fibrous form. Moreover, the fibrous form is only sporadically observed, which suggests it is the result of the occasional failure of a specific dispersing mechanism for particulate spray. This fiber-producing mechanism is different in that it involves a heat source, necessary to liquefy the material that generates fibers, a progenitor matrix that may contain additives in addition to coal fly ash, and a motive-mechanism for elongating the liquid into fibers. One known mechanism for producing fibers is to inject a liquid into a blowing stream of air, which causes elongation (85, 86). In principle, fluid drops of coal fly ash and its additives when subjected to the high speed jet combustion exhaust under appropriate physical conditions may be lengthened to form fibers. Two potential processes come to mind that might result in coal fly ash being exposed to jet fuel combustion temperatures: (1) the coal fly ash powder, which may contain dispersion-assisting additives, is injected into the proximity of the jet engine combustion chamber, or (2) the coal fly ash is suspended in the jet fuel, possibly added along with a surfactant at the refinery or fuel distribution center.

The exposure of coal fly ash to the jet fuel combustion environment has further – and perhaps unanticipated – global public health consequences.

As is well known, coal fly ash contains mercury (87–91) in concentrations of 0.1–1.1 μg/g, which may be expected to pollute the environment with mercury as the aerosolized coal fly ash settles to the surface or is brought down by precipitation. Mercury is readily volatile; the possibility should be considered that at elevated temperatures in the presence of copious hydrocarbons, such as are found in the jet fuel combustion environment, conceivably, toxic methylmercury (CH3Hg) might form, and be released into the environment. This could explain the methylmercury recently discovered in California fog (92). To the author’s knowledge, this explanation has not been previously considered, and the author could not find either experimental verification or theoretical justification in the scientific literature. Experimental verification should be relatively straightforward. In addition, those who measure methylmercury in fog might look for other toxic gases that might have been produced from coal fly ash at elevated temperatures in the presence of copious hydrocarbons in the jet fuel combustion environment. One possibility that comes to mind is arsine, AsH3, but there may be others; this is an unexplored potential area of investigation.

Coal fly ash contains readily volatile chlorine, ca. 200 μ/g (93), and fluorine, ca. 225 μ/g (94). At elevated temperatures in the presence of copious hydrocarbons, such as are found in the jet fuel combustion environment, conceivably chlorine and fluorine might react to form chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons capable of damaging Earth’s ozone layer (95, 96). This could explain the observed post-Montreal Protocol emissions of those ozone-layer-damaging compounds (97). But, as in the case of methylmercury, experimental verification is extremely important because of the potentially profound implications.

Geophysical Considerations

Within the academic community, there has been some debate as to whether substances emplaced high in the stratosphere will have the intended result of cooling Earth to counteract global warming (18). There is no debate, however, in the open scientific literature on the efficacy of the ongoing covert tropospheric emplacement of aerosolized particulate matter. There should be. Geophysical considerations provide a basis for that discussion.

Although there is no open (unclassified) scientific literature on aerosolized coal fly ash, there are some published articles on the effects of carbon/soot particles. Although coal fly ash may be less efficient than carbon black, generally its effects are similar. Coal fly ash sprayed into the troposphere is expected to inhibit radiation from Earth into space and to heat the atmosphere (98). Coal fly ash particles, settling atop glaciers, will aid in their melting (99).

In copious amounts aerosolized coal fly ash particles, like other pollution particulates, will inhibit rainfall by preventing the smaller water droplets from coalescing and growing large enough to form raindrops (see footnote text 15). Moreover, coal fly ash is hygroscopic. Having formed under anhydrous conditions, it traps water droplets, further inhibiting rainfall. Furthermore, the particulate pollution heats the atmosphere (by absorbed solar energy) and retards heat loss form Earth; consequently, this produces an artificial increase in local atmospheric pressure, which blocks incoming weather fronts, additionally limiting rainfall. Rather than cooling Earth, aerosolized coal fly ash enhances global warming. It also has potentially devastating effects on habitats, including agriculture, from changes in natural weather patterns, from changes in soil pH, and from multiple toxic substances that derive from the coal fly ash.

For at least 15 years, covert weather/climate modification activities have been taking place that involve spraying pollutant particles into the troposphere as observed by many thousands of individuals (see footnote text 2–14). Yet none of the consequences of this near-global weather/climate modification activity has been taken into account by any of the climate change models evaluated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which calls into question their validity.

As a weapon aerosolized coal fly ash can be used to cause droughts and concomitant livestock deaths and human starvation. Worse, as discussed above, coal fly ash is a multi-component environmental public health hazard, a slow pandemic that may already be evident in the observed increase in neurological diseases.

Conclusion

The research results reported here provide strong evidence for the author’s hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely the aerosolized particulate emplaced in the troposphere for geoengineering, weather modification and/or climate alteration purposes. The rainwater element ratios show that the aerial particulate matter has essentially the same water-leach characteristics as coal fly ash. The HEPA air filter dust element ratios occur in the same range of compositions as coal fly ash, as do the element ratios in fibrous mesh found on grass after snow melted.

The documented public health associations for PM2.5 particulate pollution are also applicable to aerosolized coal fly ash, which is similar in grain size. These associations include increased hospital admissions, morbidity and premature mortality, low birth weight, lung inflammation and diabetes, risk for cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, lung inflammation and diabetes, risk for stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, onset of asthma, renal function in older men, and reduced male fertility.

The ability of coal fly ash to release aluminum in a chemically mobile form upon exposure to water or body moisture has potentially grave human and environmental consequences over a broad spectrum, including implications for neurological diseases, reduced male fertility, neurological disorders of bees and other creatures, and biota debilitation.

The ability of coal fly ash to release heavy metals and radioactive elements upon exposure to body moisture has potentially grave human health implications over a broad spectrum, including, but not limited to, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory diseases, and stroke.

Toxic methylmercury and ozone-damaging chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons, the author posits, may be produced from certain types of tropospheric spraying that places coal fly ash in the jet-fuel combustion environment. Experimental verification is warranted.

From a geophysical perspective, coal fly ash sprayed in the troposphere warms the atmosphere, blocks heat from Earth radiating back into space, and retards rainfall, which can artificially elevate atmospheric pressures that can block incoming weather fronts, further leading to drought conditions. If anything this activity contributes to global warming, the purpose of this covert activity is unknown to the scientific community and to the public. The time has come for the scientific community and especially the environmental science and public health communities to understand that a multiplicity of toxic substances is being sprayed into the air breathed by people in many parts of the world and that it will adversely affect virtually all life on Earth.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

Only internal funding, no extramural funding.

Footnotes

  1. ^http://NuclearPlanet.com/AFD-051013-001.pdf
  2. ^http://globalskywatch.com
  3. ^http://www.cielvoile.fr
  4. ^http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
  5. ^https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com
  6. ^http://www.endgeoengineering.com
  7. ^http://stopsprayingcalifornia.com
  8. ^http://socalskywatch.net
  9. ^http://byebyebluesky.com
  10. ^http://www.tankerenemy.com
  11. ^http://weatherwars.info
  12. ^http://www.sauberer-himmel.de
  13. ^http://www.canadaskywatch.com
  14. ^http://www.guardacielos.org
  15. ^http://nuclearplanet.com/NASA_Particulates_Effect_on_Rainfall.pdf
  16. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp2wWuqfbi0
  17. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gjw_7c7GzA
  18. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty1cDrUYwYg
  19. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1zNJzCXHZQ
  20. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwbhzCgGYw
  21. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpysApXRXYE
  22. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJMgYdExWjQ
  23. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5T4KcM5GB4
  24. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KLU2kATAvQ&feature=youtu.be

References

1. Cole LA. Clouds of Secrecy: The Army’s Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc (1988). Google Scholar

2. Goliszek A. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation. New York: St. Martin’s Press (2003). Google Scholar

3. Hornblum AM, Newman JL, Dober GJ. Against their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (2013). Google Scholar

4. Loue S. Textbook of Research Ethics: Theory and Practice. US: Springer (2000). Google Scholar

5. Gallagher C. American Ground Zero: The Secret Nuclear War. New York: Random House (1993). Google Scholar

6. Reiss LZ. Strontium-90 absorption by deciduous teeth. Science (1961) 134(3491):1669–73. doi:10.1126/science.134.3491.1669 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Schaefer VJ. The production of ice crystals in a cloud of supercooled water droplets. Science (1946) 104:457–9. doi:10.1126/science.104.2707.457 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Fleming JR. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York: Columbia University Press (2010). Google Scholar

9. Ex-Researcher Says US. Seeded Clouds Over Cuba. Palm Beach Post-Times. June 27 (1976). Google Scholar

10. Rainmaking Used as Weapon of War in SE Asia. Daytona Beach Morning Journal. May 19 (1974). Google Scholar

11. United States Senate. Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential. Washington, DC (1978). Google Scholar

12. House TJ, Near JB, Shields WB, Celentano RJ, Husband DM, Mercer AE, et al. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. US Air Force (1996). Google Scholar

13. Thomas W. Chemtrails Confirmed. Carson City, NV: Bridger House Publishers (2004). Google Scholar

14. Herndon JM. Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India. Curr Sci (2015) 108(12):2173–7. Google Scholar

15. Kley D. Tropospheric chemistry and transport. Science (1997) 276(5315):1043–4. doi:10.1126/science.276.5315.1043 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Miller FJ, Schlosser PM, Janszen DB. Haber’s rule: a special case in a family of curves relating concentration and duration of exposure to a fixed level of response for a given endpoint. Toxicology (2000) 149:21–34. doi:10.1016/S0300-483X(00)00229-8 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Pope FD, Braesicke P, Grainger RG, Kalberer M, Watson IM, Davidson PJ, et al. Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management. Nat Clim Chang (2012) 2(10):713–9. doi:10.1038/nclimate1528 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Robock A, Marquardt A, Kravitz B, Stenchikov G. Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett (2009) 36:L19703. doi:10.1029/2009GL039209 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Bais AF, McKenzie RL, Bernhard G, Aucamp PJ, Ilyas M, Madronich S, et al. Ozone depletion and climate change: impacts on UV radiation. Photochem Photobiol Sci (2014) 14:19–52. doi:10.1039/c4pp90032d CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Weart S. A national security issue? How people tried to frame global warming. In: Pumphrey C, editor. Global Climate Change: National Security Implications. Vol. 1, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College (2008), 23–4. Google Scholar

21. Warner J. A reduction in rainfall associated with smoke from sugar-cane fires: an inadvertent weather modification? J Appl Meteorol (1968) 7:247–51. doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1968)007<0247:ARIRAW>2.0.CO;2 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Changnon SA. Inadvertent weather modification in urban areas: lessons for global climate change. Bull Am Meteorol Soc (1992) 73(5):619–27. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1992)073<0619:IWMIUA>2.0.CO;2 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Robinson E. Effects on the physical properties of the atmosphere. In: Stern AC, editor. Air Pollution: The Effects of Air Pollution. Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, Inc (1977), 349–400. Google Scholar

24. Hansen J, Nazarenko L. Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2004) 101(2):423–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Gupta DK, Rai UN, Tripathi RD, Inouhe M. Impacts of fly-ash on soil and plant responses. J Plant Res (2002) 115(6):401–9. doi:10.1007/s10265-002-0057-3 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. State of Rhode Island House Bill 7578: An Act Relating to Health and Safety – Geoengineering. (2016). Available from: https://legiscan.com/RI/text/H7578/id/1334695 | Google Scholar

27. Canadian Aerial Discharge Class Action. (2016). Available from: http://www.aerialdischargeclassaction.ca/ | Google Scholar

28. Jiusto JE. Prediction of Aircraft Condensation Trails, PROJECT CONTRAILS. Buffalo, NY: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (1961). Report No. VC-1055-P-5. Google Scholar

29. Schumann U. On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts. Meteorologisch Zeitschrift (1996) 5:4–23. Google Scholar

30. Kampa M, Castanas E. Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut (2008) 151:362–7. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Tegen I, Lacis AA. Modeling of particle size distribution and its influence on the radiative properties of mineral dust. J Geophys Res (1996) 101(D14):19237–44. doi:10.1029/95JD03610 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Bell ML, Ebisu K, Leaderer BP, Gent JF, Lee HJ, Koutrakis P, et al. Associations of PM2.5 constituents and sources with hospital admissions: analysis of four counties in Connecticut and Massachusetts (USA). Environ Health Perspect (2014) 122(2):138–44. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306656 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Dai L, Zanobetti A, Koutrakis P, Schwartz JD. Associations of fine particulate matter species with mortality in the United States: a multicity time-series analysis. Environ Health Perspect (2014) 122(8):837–42. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307568 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Dockery DW, Pope CA, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME, et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U. S. cities. N Engl J Med (1993) 329:1753–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM199312093292401 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Pope CA, Ezzati M, Dockery DW. Fine-particulate air polution and life expectancy in the United States. N Engl J Med (2009) 360:376–86. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0805646 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Haberzetti P, Lee J, Duggineni D, McCracken J, Bolanowski D, O’Toole TE, et al. Exposure to ambient air fine particulate matter prevents VEGF-induced mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells from bone matter. Environ Health Perspect (2012) 120(6):848–56. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104206 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Beeson WL, Abbey DE, Knutsen SF. Long-term concentrations of ambient air pollutants and incident lung cancer in California adults: results from the AHSMOG study. Environ Health Perspect (1998) 106(12):813–22. doi:10.2307/3434125 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Potera C. Toxicity beyond the lung: connecting PM2.5, inflammation, and diabetes. Environ Health Perspect (2014) 122(1):A29. doi:10.1289/ehp.122-A29 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Hong YC, Lee JT, Kim H, Kwon HJ. Air pollution: a new risk factor in ischemic stroke mortality. Stroke (2002) 33:2165–9. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000026865.52610.5B PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Calderon-Garciduenas L, Franko-Lira M, Mora-Tiscareno A, Medina-Cortina H, Torres-Jardon R, Kavanaugh M. Early Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease pathology in urban children: friend verses foe responses – it’s time to face the evidence. Biomed Res Int (2013) 32:650–8. doi:10.1155/2013/161687 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Moulton PV, Yang W. Air pollution, oxidative stress, and Alzheimer’s disease. J Environ Public Health (2012) 109(8):1004–11. Google Scholar

42. Tetreault L-F, Doucet M, Gamache P, Fournier M, Brand A, et al. Childhood exposure to ambient air pollutants and the onset of asthma: an administrative cohort study in Quebec. Environ Health Perspect (2016). doi:10.1289/ehp.1509838 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Mehta AJ, Zanobetti A, Bind MC, Kloog I, Koutrakis P, Sparrow D, et al. Long-term exposure to ambient fine particulate matter and renal function in older men: the VA Normative aging study. Environ Health Perspect (2016). doi:10.1289/ehp.1510269 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Ebisu K, Bell ML. Airborne PM2.5 chemical components and low birth weight in the northeastern and mid-atlantic regions of the United States. Environ Health Perspect (2012) 120(12):1746–52. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104763 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Pires A, de Melo EN, Mauad T, Saldiva PHN, Bueno HMdS. Pre- and postnatal exposure to ambient levels of urban particulate matter (PM2.5) affects mice spermatogenesis. Inhal Toxicol (2011) 23(4):237–45. doi:10.3109/08958378.2011.563508 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Chakraborty R, Mukherjee A. Mutagenicity and genotoxicity of coal fly ash water leachate. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf (2009) 72(3):838–42. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.09.023 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Ruhl L, Vengosh A, Dwyer GS, Hsu-Kim H, Deonarine A, Bergin M, et al. Survey of the potential environmental and health impacts in the immediate aftermath of the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Environ Sci Technol (2009) 43:6326–33. doi:10.1021/es900714p PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Moreno N, Querol X, Andres JM, Stanton K, Towler M, Nugteren H, et al. Physico-chemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. Fuel (2005) 84:1351–63. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2004.06.038 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Bondi SC. Prolonged exposure to low levels of aluminum leads to changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration. Toxicology (2014) 315:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2013.10.008 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Good PF, Olanow CW, Perl DP. Neuromelanin-containing neurons of the substantia nigra accumulate iron and aluminum in Parkinson’s disease: a LAMMA study. Brain Res (1992) 593(2):343–6. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(92)91334-B PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Yokel RA, Rhineheimer SS, Sharma P, Elmore D, McNamara PJ. Entry, half-life and desferrioxamine-accelerated clearance of brain aluminum after a single Al-26 exposure. Toxicol Sci (2001) 64(26):77–82. doi:10.1093/toxsci/64.1.77 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Cape JN. Direct damage to vegetation caused by acid rain and polluted cloud: definition of critical levels for forest trees. Environ Pollut (1993) 82(2):167–80. doi:10.1016/0269-7491(93)90114-4 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Singh A, Agrawal M. Acid rain and its ecological consequences. J Environ Biol (2008) 29(1):15–24. Google Scholar

54. Sparling DW, Lowe TP. Environmental hazards of aluminum to plants, invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol (1996) 145:1–127. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2354-2_1 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Suloway JJ, Roy WR, Skelly TR, Dickerson DR, Schuller RM, Griffin RA. Chemical and Toxicological Properties of Coal Fly Ash. Illinois: Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources (1983). Google Scholar

56. Stohl A, Eckhardt S. Intercontinental transport of air pollution: an introduction. Air Pollution. In: Stohl A, editor. Berlin: Springer (2004). p. 1–11. Google Scholar

57. Herndon JM. Obtaining evidence of coal fly ash content in weather modification (geoengineering) through analyses of post-aerosol spraying rainwater and solid substances. Indian J Sci Res Technol (2016) 4(1):30–6. Google Scholar

58. Peffer J. Fly ash disposal in a limestone quarry. Ground Water (1982) 20(3):267. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1982.tb01346.x CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Theis T, Gardner K. Environmental assessment of ash disposal. Crit Rev Environ Control (1990) 20(21):21. doi:10.1080/10643389009388388 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Goodarzi F. Characteristics and composition of fly ash from Canadian coal-fired power plants. Fuel (2006) 85:1418–27. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2005.07.008 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Likens GE, Bormann FH, Johnson NM. Acid rain. Environment (1972) 14(2):33–40. doi:10.1080/00139157.1972.9933001 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Lindenmayer DB, Laurance WF, Franklin JF. Global decline in large old trees. Science (2012) 338:1305–6. doi:10.1126/science.1231070 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

63. van Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL, Byrne JC, Daniels LD, Franklin JF, Fulé PZ, et al. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science (2009) 323:521–4. doi:10.1126/science.1165000 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Driscol CT, Schecher WD. Aluminum in the environment. In: Siegel H, Siegel A, editors. Aluminum and Its Role in Biology. Metal Ions in Biological System. Vol. 24, New York: Marcel Dekker (1988). p. 59–122. Google Scholar

65. Kopittke PM, Moore KL, Lombi E, Gianoncelli A, Ferguson BJ, Blamey FP, et al. Identification of the primary lesion of toxic aluminum in plant roots. Plant Physiol (2015) 167(4):1402–11. doi:10.1104/pp.114.253229 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Arnold C. Air pollution and ASDs: honing in on an environmental risk factor. Environ Health Perspect (2015) 123(3):A68. doi:10.1289/ehp.123-A68 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Linak WP, Miller CA, Wendt JOL. Comparison of particle size distributions and elemental partitioning from the combustion of pulverized coal and residual fuel oil. J Air Waste Manag Assoc (2000) 50:1532–44. doi:10.1080/10473289.2000.10464171 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Cho K, Cho YJ, Shrivastava DK, Kapre SS. Acute lung disease after exposure to fly ash. Chest (1994) 106(1):309–31. doi:10.1378/chest.106.1.309 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Gilmour MI, O’Connor S, Dick CAJ, Miller CA, Linak WP. Differential pulmonary inflammation and in vitro cytotoxicity of size-fractionated fly ash particles from pulverized coal combustion. J Air Waste Manag Assoc (2004) 54:286–95. doi:10.1080/10473289.2004.10470906 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Twining J, McGlinn P, Lol E, Smith K, Giere R. Risk ranking of bioaccessible metals from fly ash dissolved in simulated lung and gut fluids. Environ Sci Technol (2005) 39(19):7749–56. doi:10.1021/es0502369 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Stuart BO. Deposition and clearance of inhaled particles. Environ Health Perspect (1984) 55:373–93. doi:10.1289/ehp.8455369 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Hvistendahl M. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Scientific American. (2007). Available from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ | Google Scholar

73. Tseng CH, Chong C-K, Tseng C-P, Hsueh Y-M, Chiou H-Y, Tseng C-C, et al. Long-term arsenic exposure and ischemic heart disease in arseniasis-hyperendemic villages in Taiwan. Toxicol Lett (2003) 137(1–2):15–21. doi:10.1016/S0378-4274(02)00377-6 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Smith AH, Hopenhayn-Rich C, Bates MN, Goeden HM, Hertz-Picciotto I, Duggan HM, et al. Cancer risks from arsenic in drinking water. Environ Health Perspect (1992) 97:259–67. doi:10.1289/ehp.9297259 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Kile ML, Christiani DC. Environmental arsenic exposure and diabetes. JAMA (2008) 300(7):845–6. doi:10.1001/jama.300.7.845 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Hendryx M. Mortality from heart, respiratory, and kidney disease in coal mining areas of Appalachia. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2009) 82(2):243–9. doi:10.1007/s00420-008-0328-y PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Meij R. Health aspects of coal fly ash. International Ash Utilization Symposium. Lexington, KY: Center for Applied Energy Research: University of Kentucky (2001). Google Scholar

78. Good PF, Perl DP, Bierer LM, Schmeidler J. Selective accumulation of aluminum and iron in the neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer’s disease: a laser microprobe (LAMMA) study. Ann Neurol (1992) 31:286–92. doi:10.1002/ana.410310310 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Prasunpriya N. Aluminum: impacts and disease. Environ Res (2002) 82(2):101–15. Google Scholar

80. Rondeau V, Jacqmin-Gadda H, Ciommenges D, Helmer C, Dartigues JF. Aluminium and silica in drinking water and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease or cognitive decline: findings from 15-year follow-up of the PAQUID cohort. Am J Epidemiol (2009) 169:489–96. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn348 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Klein J, Mold M, Cottier M, Exley C. Aluminium content of human semen: implications for semen quality. Reprod Toxicol (2014) 50:43–8. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.10.001 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Kowall NW, Pendlebury WW, Kessler JB, Perl DP, Beal MF. Aluminum-induced neurofibrillary degeneration affects a subset of neurons in rabbit cerebral cortex, basal forebrain and upper brainstem. Neuroscience (1989) 29(2):329–37. doi:10.1016/0306-4522(89)90060-2 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Exley C, Rotheray E, Goulson D. Bumblebee pupae contain high levels of aluminum. PLoS One (2015) 10(6):e0127665. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127665 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Yellamma K, Saraswathamma S, Kumari BN. Cholinergic system under aluminum toxicity in rat brain. Toxicol Int (2010) 17(2):106–12. doi:10.4103/0971-6580.72682 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Sinha-Ray S, Yarin AL, Pourdeyhimi B. The production of 100/400 nm inner/outer diameter carbon tubes by solution blowing and carbonization of core-shell nanofibers. Carbon N Y (2010) 48:3575–8. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2010.05.056 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Reneker DH, Inventor. Process and Apparatus for the Production of Nanofibers. (2003). US Patent No. 6,520,425 B1 Google Scholar

87. Hower JC, Senior CL, Suuberg EM, Hurt RH, Wilcox JL, Olson ES. Mercury capture by native fly ash carbons in coal-fired power plants. Prog Energy Combust Sci (2010) 36(4):510–529. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.003 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Nadkarni RA. Multitechnique multielement analysis of coal and fly ash. Anal Chem (1980) 52:929–35. doi:10.1021/ac50056a036 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Sager M. Determination of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, stibium, thallium and zinc in coal and coal fly-ash. Fuel (1993) 72(9):1327–30. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(93)90132-L CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Natusch DFS. Potentially carcinogenic species emitted to the atmosphere by fossil-fueled power plants. Environ Health Perspect (1978) 22:79–90. doi:10.1289/ehp.782279 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Li S, Cheng C-M, Chen B, Cao Y, Vervynckt J, Adebambo A, et al. Investigation of the relationship between particulate-bound mercury and properties of fly ash in a full-scale 100 MWe pulverized coal combustion boiler. Energy Fuels (2007) 21:3292–9. doi:10.1021/ef0701384 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

92. Weiss-Penzias PS, Ortiz C Jr, Acosta RP, Heim W, Ryan JP, Fernandez D, et al. Total and monomethyl mercury in fog water from the central California coast. Geophys Res Lett (2012) 39:L03804. doi:10.1029/2011GL050324 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

93. Lei C, Yufeng D, Yuqun Z, Liguo Y, Liang Z, Xianghua Y, et al. Mercury transformation across particulate control devices in six power plants of China: the co-effect of chlorine and ash composition. Fuel (2007) 86:603–10. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.07.030 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Carida A, Cereda E, Fazinic S, Jaksic M, Braga-Marcazzan GM, Valkovic O, et al. Fluorine enrichment phenomena in coal combustion cycle. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res (1992) B66:298–301. doi:10.1016/0168-583X(92)96168-X CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

95. Organization WM. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Geneva: Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project (2002). Report No. 47 2003. Google Scholar

96. Organization WM. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Geneva: Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project (2010). Report No. 52 2011. Google Scholar

97. Laube JC, Newland MJ, Hogan C, Brenninkmeijer CAM, Fraser PJ, Martinerie P, et al. Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. Nat Geosci (2014) 7:266–9. doi:10.1038/ngeo2109 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

98. Ferraro AJ, Highwood EJ, Charlton-Perez AJ. Stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols. Geophys Res Lett (2011) 38(24):L24706. doi:10.1029/2011GL049761 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

99. Xu BD, Cao J, Hansen J, Yoao T, Joswia DR, Wang N, et al. Black soot and the survival of Tibetan glaciers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2009) 106(52):22114–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910444106 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: geoengineering, coal fly ash, aerosol particulates, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, neurological disorders, chemically mobile aluminum

Citation: Herndon JM (2016) Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification. Front. Public Health 4:139. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139

Received: 05 April 2016; Accepted: 16 June 2016;
Published: 30 June 2016

Edited by:
Judi Krzyzanowski, Krzyzanowski Consulting, Canada

Reviewed by:
Otto Andersen, Western Norway Research Institute, Norway
Yue-Wern Huang, Missouri University of Science and Technology, USA

Copyright: © 2016 Herndon. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: J. Marvin Herndon, mherndon@san.rr.com

SoCalSkyWatch.net

https://www.facebook.com/SocalSkywatch
https://twitter.com/socalskywatch
https://www.youtube.com/socalskywatch

 

Visual Evidence of Aerosol Injection Spraying, What are the Health Effects?

Study assesses potential public health impacts of inadvertent exposure to aerosols used for “Solar Radiation Management”

A Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan paper published online January 19, 2016 attempts to characterize the potential human health impacts of geoengineering, particularly with regards to solar radiation management [SRM] approaches involving stratospheric aerosols. The article describes the potential public health impacts of exposures to aerosols likely to be used for SRM, including sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, black carbon, and specially engineered discs composed of metallic aluminum, aluminum oxide and barium titanate.

This shocking analysis suggests “that adverse public health impacts may reasonably be expected from SRM via deployment of stratospheric aerosols”. The paper examines inhalation as the primary route of exposure which “could occur during the manufacture, transportation, deployment and post-deployment of these materials”.

“Due to atmospheric circulation and gravitational deposition, large-scale population exposures to atmospherically-injected SRM materials will almost certainly occur after their deployment. Population exposures could also occur through ingestion of food and water contaminated with deposited particles, as well as transdermally.”

The study also suggests population exposures to SRM materials will be continuous and prolonged over months to years, thus the health effects will be primarily chronic in nature. Five of the seven potential SRM aerosols suggest ‘death’ as a possible health hazard. All of them suggest respiratory and neurologic health effects. See Table 1 from article below.

Table1-SRM-aerosols-Human-health-effects
source – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/

This is not the first published study on the possible negative health consequences attributed to aerosol injection spray geoengineering. Geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon Ph.D. [http://nuclearplanet.com/] authored the following two articles last year:

Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India (download PDF)
Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health (download PDF)

Effect on sunlight, sky and clouds

The Wikipedia entry for Solar Radiation Management cites the following:

It is believed that there would be a significant effect on the appearance of the sky from stratospheric aerosol injection projects, notably a hazing of blue skies and a change in the appearance of sunsets.[31] Aerosols are affecting the formation of clouds, especially cirrus clouds.[32]

Wikipedia also lists under the possible side effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) to include, “Whitening of the sky: Stratospheric aerosols have the potential to whiten the sky and cause more colorful sunsets, dependent on the amount being sprayed.[26]

This is exactly what is happening on days when planes leave persistent expanding trails in the sky. In addition to the white haze and colorful sunsets, we also witness solar halo rings around the sun (and nighttime rings around the moon), sun dogs, anomalous rain-less “chembows” and now brilliant pink illuminated clouds before sunrise and after sunset.

1/22 6:36am Expanded sunrise reflecting aerosol injection trail.
1/22 6:36am Massively expanded aerosol injection trail reflecting the sun over the horizon before dawn.
1/22 6:38am Just sprayed pink reflecting trail.
1/22 6:38am Pink reflecting aerosol injection trail just sprayed in the form of a check mark as the sprayer jet flies away, changing direction to spray somewhere else.
1/22 6:41am Pink cloud before sunrise.
1/22 6:41am Massive “volcano ash” looking cloud glowing with intense pink colors before sunrise. Known as “chembombs”, the source material is likely coal fly ash.
1/22 6:53am Multi spray plane fake cloud formation.
1/22 6:53am The previous “check mark” aerosol injection trail was crossed by another spray plane forming this ghastly apparition.

VIDEO: Intense Solar Halo from Massive Spraying

Extreme “Cloud Seeding” Weather Modification Stealing Water from California

Friday January 22, 2016 San Diego, CA – Solar halos and lunar halos (circular rainbow-like rings around the sun & moon) are becoming a visible phenomena 24 hours a day, every day. This is happening because we are being sprayed continuously night and day.

Video index (direct access on YouTube page):
0:01 Long chemtrail across the sun intersecting with a shorter aerosol spray segment and casting a shadow line.
0:55 Intense solar halo ring around the sun chembow, parallel chemtrails
1:30 Feathered spray trail for spatial reference.
2:09 First in a series of spray planes leave segmented / intermittent lines and “squirts”.
2:32 Second plane sprays roughly parallel to previously sprayed and now expanded trail.
3:04 A third plane flies in from the opposite direction and suddenly meets a fourth plane following the first two.
4:20 Forth plane starts “seeding” existing “cloud”.
5:00 Point where turned off sprayers show a visible spray gap.

#Chemtrails #GeoEngineering #WeatherModification #HAARP #ClimateEngineering #ClimateIntervention #ClimateModification #AlbedoModification #SolarRadiationManagement #CAdrought

Related Links:

“A Case For Climate Engineering” author David Keith explains his proposal to use geoengineering as a means of slowing climate change. @ The Colbert Report
http://tinyurl.com/h7c2sqp

“Proposed self-aligning, levitating, sunlight-reflecting nano-disc” (David Keith, 2010) In a nutshell, David’s idea is to engineer discs around 10 micrometers across and 50 nanometers thick, with a core of aluminum, a top layer of aluminum oxide, and a bottom layer of barium titanate. Injected high enough into the atmosphere (so Brownian motion didn’t muck things up) the discs should align with the lighter aluminum/aluminum oxide side facing up, and the heavier barium titanate side facing down. This is important, because the way these two surfaces interact with air molecules when the particles heat up – as they would do in sunlight – means that there would be a net force pushing the discs up (photophoresis). In effect, the particles would levitate to a stable position in the atmosphere, while keeping their shiny side to the sun – thus reflecting sunlight away from the earth (or increasing albedo).

Could precisely engineered nanoparticles provide a novel geoengineering tool?
http://tinyurl.com/3ndxm9l

Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering
http://tinyurl.com/js67x7z

Climate scientists ponder spraying diamond dust in the sky to cool planet
http://tinyurl.com/p2rozfq

Scientific American – Could Diamond Dust Sprayed into the Sky Cool Earth?
http://tinyurl.com/o8n4rv4

Bloomberg Business – Mimic an eruption by spraying sulfuric acid into the stratosphere.
http://tinyurl.com/psqc6aq

Where’s the flippin’ sun?!
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=28811

http://socalskywatch.net/
https://socalskywatch.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/SoCalSkyWatch/
https://twitter.com/socalskywatch
@socalskywatch
https://www.youtube.com/socalskywatch

Public Notice from J. Marvin Herndon PH.D.

Public Notice of the Author’s Rejection of the Retraction of the Peer-Reviewed and Published Scientific Article “Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health” by the MDPI journal, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH)

September 24, 2015

In the instant matter, singly and/or the collectively, IJERPH Editor Dr. Paul B. Tchunwou, MDPI Chief Science Officer Dr. Franck Vazquez, and MDPI Principal Dr. Shu-Kun Lin (hereafter MDPI AG) the author alleges:

  • Acted in blatant disregard of long standing scientific and ethical principles based upon an appeal to truth
  • Acted in blatant disregard of MDPI’s published “strict ethical policies and standards”
  • Allowed MDPI AG to be deceived and/or coerced and/or co-opted into acting in such a manner as to deceive the public about evidence of a grave, pervasive, and widespread public health threat
  • Required the author to sign a statement of no conflict of interest, but did not require same for individual(s) making critical statements upon which said retraction was based
  • Required the author to submit to peer-review but did not submit to peer-review said critical comments upon which retraction was based
  • Failed to provide verbatim critical comments to the author for written response and publication
  • Based said retraction upon false critical statements
  • Published false, misleading and/or pejorative statements as the basis for said retraction
  • Published false, misleading and/or pejorative statements libelous to the author and failed to remove same even after being advised on September 5, 2015 of the false nature of same
  • Aided and abetted an organized disinformation campaign whose actions are aimed at deceiving the public about an on-going program of spraying of toxic substances into the air over inhabited areas

As described in detail below, there is no demonstrated legitimate basis for MDPI AG to have retracted said article; MDPI AG should promptly republish it with the author’s corrections as presented here.

Key Links:

Immediately after the author published the first article in Current Science providing evidence that the particulate matter being sprayed into the air over inhabited areas is most likely toxic coal combustion ash, the Editor received a lengthy list of complaints about the article and a demand for retraction. The Current Science Editor responded by sending verbatim comments to the author and requested point-by-point responses in writing. The comments were false, misleading and/or pejorative. The following example from the author’s response to Current Science includes a few of the comments made and is revealing as to their origin:

“The attack on my scientific ethics, capability, and intent is inexplicable from the standpoint of academic debate, but may be understandable in light of a 1967 United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) dispatch marked ‘psych’ for ‘psychological operations’ or disinformation and ‘CS’ for the CIA’s ‘Clandestine Services’. The dispatch employed the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ and stated in part: ‘The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims … To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics…. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.’ The criticisms made by the individual to which this response is addressed appear to be crafted in accordance with that CIA dispatch, including but not limited to the following remarks: ‘The general tone of the article is just strange, and inadequate in a scientific journal….The article uses very low quality, unscientific references such as various conspiracy theorist web sites and their unreliable data…. Reading the entire paper, it is clear that Dr. Herndon’s goal is to spread a known conspiracy theory called the ‘chemtrail conspiracy theory’, while providing completely invalid and unscientific evidence for it. This conspiracy theory has no scientific basis, and it is pure fabrication’.”

The fact that criticism of both papers, Current Science and IJERPH, is posted on the well-known disinformation website http://metabunk.org is evidence that the source of the criticisms comes from an organization that consistently misleads the public with false information about a covert program involved in spraying toxic substances into the air over inhabited areas.

MDPI AG erred by failing to provide the author with verbatim comments for his response and possible publication. The journal website http://mdpi.com publically states: “MDPI is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication”. Retracting a peer-reviewed paper written by a senior, internationally recognized scientist, without full disclosure and independent adjudication, on the basis of false, misleading and/or pejorative remarks by one or more persons allegedly associated with an organization that misleads the public about serious health related matters stands in stark contradiction to said “strict ethical policies and standards”. Such behavior is an abomination, a perversion of long-established scientific principles.

MDPI AG published three bulleted “concerns” as justification for said retraction: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/10941/htm It is obvious that those remarks were parroted from statements made by one or more experts at deception whose aim was to have said paper retracted. In the following, the author proceeds line by line to demonstrate the distortions and misrepresentations. Red are MDPI AG quotes under Editor Tchunwou’s name; blue are the author’s responses to same.

The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 and used by the author to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is incorrect.

Not true. The incorrect data was not for the average leachate concentration, but for the average un-leached coal fly ash composition. The incorrect data was only used to normalize the data presented in Figures 4 and 5, not in Figures 2 and 3.

The author uses 70,000 μg/kg, while the correct value resulting from the un-leached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by Moreno et al. [2]) is 140,000,000 μg/kg.

Those criticizing my paper make it look like a huge error, and the half-truth makes it seem so. What should have been stated is that the un-leached column heading was mistyped as μg/kg, but should have read μg/g; the data were tabulated as μg/g. The error was in listing the aluminum value as 70,000 μg/g when it should have been 140,000 μg/g, a factor of two. In scientific literature, this is the kind of error that is usually allowed to be corrected as it should have been in the present instance.

This error invalidates the conclusions of the article.

No, it does not. In the worst case, if uncorrected, it might invalidate the data shown in Figures 4 and 5, but the conclusions of the article are derived from Figures 2 and 3 which are not affected by the error. Moreover, Figures 4 and 5, when normalized to another element, for example, barium are not invalidated.

The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments [2]. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources.

Not true. I stated that there were no sources of industrial pollution in the area, and provided reason why coal fly ash from China was unlikely.

Thus, at this stage, the work is preliminary since it is not clear what the source of these chemicals is.

In the absence of viable other sources, the evidence is that the coal fly ash is likely the substance being placed in the atmosphere by tanker-jets. That is consistent with the nature of the material, and its availability from existing production facilities. Yes, this needs to be proven conclusively. But it is a misrepresentation to state “is not clear what the source of these chemicals is”. Science involves the progressive replacing of less-precise understanding with more-precise understanding. Indeed, much of the current underlying understanding in the natural physical sciences is in a sense “preliminary” and subject to revision by subsequent more-precise understanding, but that is no reason or basis to prevent publication of relevant evidence.

The language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically objective for a research article.

Not true. Reviewers, especially the particularly meticulous Reviewer 1, would never have approved the paper if this was the case. He/she was especially meticulous to make sure that every statement was precise. This criticism has no merit. A similar criticism as made in an effort to cause retraction of the author’s Current Science paper, namely the statement “The general tone of the article is just strange, and inadequate in a scientific journal”. The author has a lengthy track record of publishing important advances in world-class scientific journals and knows how to write scientific papers: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/advances.htm

In his September 5, 2015 letter, the author substantially conveyed these responses to MDPI AG, but to date those published misrepresentations have been allowed by MDPI AG to stand, thereby aiding and abetting those who intentionally deceive the public about the on-going toxic spraying and its adverse public health consequences: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/10941/htm

As a basis for retracting said paper, MDPI AG quoted the above statements, shown here in red, that allegedly are intended to deceive for the purpose of causing the retraction of the author’s article by an entity with an allegedly malevolent agenda. The remarks made are libelous, causing harm to the author’s reputation; those who systematically deceive the public in this matter have widely propagandized said retraction. That is fundamentally wrong scientifically and ethically. Moreover, it allegedly makes MDPI AG complicit in deceiving the public about evidence of a grave, pervasive, and widespread public health threat. By retracting said paper, based upon false and misleading statements by an entity that allegedly wishes unwarrantedly to discredit and hide the author’s work from public view, MDPI AG emboldens said entity to do the same thing to other publishers. MDPI AH by its action demonstrates that false and misleading statements, perpetrated by those with a conflict of interest, or purposeful malevolent agenda, carry more weight with MDPI AG than scientific reason based upon an appeal to fact. MDPI AG therefore allegedly prolongs the period of time during which the most vulnerable among us, pregnant women, children, those with compromised respiratory/immune systems and the elderly, will suffer the consequences of unrelenting toxic particulate matter sprayed into the air people breathe.

The author has requested the following from MDPI AG: (1) To be allowed allowed make revisions to said published paper, as is the normal process when errors occur; and, (2) For MDPI AG to request the full credentials (including position and organization) of those making complaints, and their permission to publish their remarks so that the author might respond in print. To date, those requests have not been fulfilled.

With the anticipation and expectation that eventually MDPI AG will correct allegedly blatant failings in their response to the attack by those individuals who allegedly seek to deceive the public and wish to hide and discredit the author’s published scientific article, the author has made a few changes to correct the consequences of the error in Table 1, as well as to debilitate accusations made by those who allegedly act to systematically deceive the public and the scientific community: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-error_corrected.pdf

The following principal changes were made:

  • Although Figures 2 and 3 are correct as published, these Figures are renormalized to barium so as to include previously published rainwater data and to make these Figures consistent with the revised Figure 4. Figure 3 is presented in a different format to show additionally the ranges of experimental European coal fly ash leachate values.
  • Figure 4 was renormalized to barium and put into a different format to show measured ranges of coal fly ash compositions, both from Europe and the United States, thereby obviating Figure 5. Three additional sets of HEPA air filter data are included.

The author herewith requests and indeed demands that MDPI AG rescind retraction of said scientific article and publish said article with corrections as shown here: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-error_corrected.pdf

J. Marvin Herndon PH.D.

J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.
Transdyne Corporation

%d bloggers like this:
Skip to toolbar