the trails do exist, i call them chemtrails myself, not because i think they are 100% chemtrails but so people know what im refering to.
the trails 100% exsist, which is why it gives the theory more credibility when people deny they are different or appear in the sky. because when they appear in the sky again, people will be like "i thought they did'nt exsist, look theres one now being made"
at least others do not deny their exsistence or the need to find out what they are. yes jumping to conclusions is'nt good but then i don't know what evidence others are basing their opinons on.
i can only go on what i believe from the information i have looked at. when critics turn up and mock and take the piss and deny their exsistence, then i debate with them because i know the 'trails' are there and do happen. the only thing in question is what they are.
Why waste all the vitriol on people who don't believe in chemtrails? After all we are just on one side of the fence you so often claim to sit upon. Don't you have anything to say to Karlos, or Mr Nice or conspiracy analyst? Or are you happy that they blindly assume chemtrails to exist, just as I apparently blindly assume that they don't?
i don't, they waste all the vitriol denying something that is clearly there. im not the one who turns up denying what is obviously there in the sky and occurs.
The ball is still in Karlos's court, in terms of producing the overwhelming evidence he claims to know about, and the barium oxide claim... i'd love to see any evidence - there's certainly no point in hiding it from the rest of us.
well we'll see. i can only go on what i have read or seen with my own eyes.
the letter i linked above which mentions cloud seeding is more likely in my book, it was always one of the possibilities and there we have a airforce letter acknowleging that cloud seeding is indeed done by 'commercial companies' and that to achieve rainfall chemicals are released to make the rain droplets heavy, so who is wrong here?. unless of cause total proof comes to light saying otherwise.
For a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures. Cloud seeding requires the release of chemicals in the atmosphere in an effort to have water crystals attach themselves and become heavy enough to produce rain. The air force does not have cloud seeding capability. The air forces policy is to observe and forcast the weather to support military operations. The airforce is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.
so from my understanding of this letter, it is saying that chemtrails intended to kill or harm do not exsist.
however chemicals are released into the atmosphere by commercial companies inorder to cloud seed. there is no mention in this letter of if the chemicals released in this instance are harmful either short or long term on a persons health.
i would assume not harmful, but then i have no possible way of knowing this, its more a leep of faith.
but overall, it seems to me chemtrail theory is not far of the mark. if a chemtrail is a plane releasing chemicals then it seems spot on.
however if by chemtrail we mean a plane releasing harmful chemicals intended for the public in a evil plot against humanity, then it may of been exagerated.
the only reason i say may of been, is because im not sure if chemicals released for cloud seeding are harmful, however i am now more than satisfied if that is the case, then the chemicals were only meant for cloud seeding and not intended to harm the public, wether the public could be harmed as a result of cloud seeding is another matter(floods).
in other words the scenerio could be that cloud seeding is done and that the chemicals effect public health, however that was not the intention, the intention was simply cloud seeding for rainfall.
so unless proof can be provided of harmful chemicals or that cloud seeding can cause persistent rain which causes floods, i see no foul play in the trails at all.
however at the same time the trails exsist and do occur and chemicals are released into the atmosphere, they just were'nt what some people thought they were.
Minimize exposure. Recover waste silver for re-use if possible.
Not hazardous according to Directive 67/548/EEC
Silver iodide and dry ice are the most commonly used substances in cloud seeding.
im not sure which other chemicals are sometimes used.
When studying the efficacy and consequences of cloud seeding experiments, the experimenters tend to be biased in saying cloud seeding with silver iodide enhances precipitation without negative consequences. However, much of the literature substantiates that not only does cloud seeding fail to achieve the desired effect, it also yields harmful consequences. Some of these consequences include rain suppression, flooding, tornadoes, and silver iodide toxicity. (1,2,3).........................
Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)
Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.
who do you believe? however this does answer pepiks question of why not attack the water supply, which spraying from the sky would do, well that is assuming he knows how water circulation works.
regardless i thought i had it solved about how harmful this stuff is then i found this which says the polar opposite.
From the cytogenetic in vitro studies, it was observed that silver iodide, either in acetone solutions or as a suspension with polyacrilamide, scarcely causes a doubling effect on SCEs at nearly toxic concentrations (1 g/ml). Such a doubling effect by silver iodide on SCEs in P388 leukemia cells in vivo was not achieved even after using 100 g/g mouse body weight.
In the Ames/microsome test actually a doubling effect on revertants was only isolately achieved with 30 g/ml in TA 102 (S9-) and at 150 g/ml in TA 97 (S9+) doses, which appear to be nearly toxic for bacteria.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1/ABSTRACT
discussed here to.
i am now stuck again about if they are harmful or if they are not. understand that i was researching at the same time as writing this post.
so if my opinons change or sway from one side to the other please understand that i was typing this as i went along.