Chemtrails, Seeing is believing.

by pedal power 482 Replies latest social current

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24 don't accept that cloud seeding might be harmful to you? You have read and can find countless articles on what is used in cloud seeding and what harm those chemicals can do to living things - and you still believe that the junk sprayed in the air, that subsequently falls to the ground, is completely harmless?

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, there are people who believe that the radiation from Fukushima isn't dangerous either. People who don't believe the oil spill in the Gulf has done any major damage. After years of research, all those conspiracy nuts who spoke about the danger of plastic bottles finally have their day - they were right. Scientists and Doctors are so split on fluoride that some are calling for a ban on it in the drinking water - studies related increasingly to alzheimers and parkinsons. Years ago people were told to smoke cigarettes because it was a good way to relax - yup they believed. They want to give all little kids cholesteral pills because there's so much obesity and put sedatives in the water so people will feel happy and suicide will go down. People believe those are good things too.



    Is Cloud Seeding Harmful?

    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.

    The harm of rain suppression is obvious to everyone. For farmers and ranchers, this would mean no rain, no gain -- an economic loss. Losses would include poorer crop harvest, lack of range vegetation, and a loss of hunting lease income due to wildlife reduction. This is particularly true for ranches in western

    Potter County, an area PGCD has called “geographically handicapped.” Most ranchers and farmers do not choose to take the gamble on their land and livelihood based on experimentation.

    The harmful effects of silver iodide are insidious. Yet, according to the web site of the PGCD, the effects are so minimized that the following is stated: “The concentration of iodide in iodized salt used on food is far above the concentration found in rainwater from a seeded cloud.” In addition, in early December of 2002, at the Amarillo meeting jointly conducted by the Panhandle Groundwater and the North Plains Groundwater Conservation Districts, one representative stated that silver iodide was good for the heart. In a private conversation, another explained that silver miners live longer. Iodized salt may seem benign; however, some states such as Colorado have outlawed the use of salting icy roads. Among harmful effects, salt is toxic to the water and land.

    The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil. It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans. Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract. Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.

    Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows:

    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 a rgyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin. 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. Some industries have learned this all too well.…According to the PGCD, “Every year, two viable samples of rainwater must be sent to a laboratory for analysis and in return forwarded to TNRCC to ensure that the water is not contaminating the area.” This is faulty sampling and testing over a seven county area. If PGCD can not control where the seeded clouds dumps water, how can they take only two rain samples per year to test for silver concentrates of the clouds they seeded? At least it is an admission that silver toxicity is an issue. Such misleading statements based on faulty data are not uncommon to the PGCD. In 2001, rainfall amounts were grossly over inflated in multiple rain gauges. Such overstatements are to prop up the benefits of their program while denying the adverse effects.

    To effectively monitor the levels of silver toxicity, at the very minimum, water samples should be taken on a monthly basis from every dam, creek, stock tank, and other water capture places in the respective district while cloud seeding is being conducted. Also, soil samples should taken. According to the Colorado National Park Service and the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, the result of cloud seeding with silver iodide and run off have adverse effects on the water, soil, and flora and fauna. “Elevated silver concentrations in biota occur in the vicinities of sewage outfalls, electroplating plants, mine waste sites, and silver iodide-seeded areas.” In fact, in the 1980s the CDC had hoped that silver toxicity would be reduced nationally based on a reduction of cloud seeding activity. “Fallout from cloud seeding with silver iodide is not always confined to local precipitation; silver residuals have been detected several hundred kilometers down wind of seeding events.”

    “Anthropogenic sources associated with the elevated concentrations of silver in nonliving materials include smelting, hazardous waste sites, cloud seeding with silver iodide, metals mining, sewage outfalls, and especially the photo processing industry.” Silver leaches into groundwater, streams, soil, and the root systems of plants.

    “Silver was measured in particular samples from rural and urban area both adjacent to and removed from activities such as metal smelting, refining, and silver iodide cloud seeding” and found “concentrations in precipitation resulting from seeding clouds with silver iodide were 10-450 ng/L compared with concentrations of 0-20ng/L without cloud seeding (Cooper and Jolly 1970).” That translates in 10 to 225 times greater silver concentration in those areas.

    If the public is to allow the spreading of this toxic material on an experimental basis, monitoring should be required and published to protect the public health and private lands. The cloud seeding program is designed with the use of public money over private land without voter approval or land owners permission. If private land or public health is compromised, then the program should be held liable. In the past, a Texas rancher was able to stop cloud seeding over private land based on trespassing and nuisance law. However, there are greater issues at stake.

    by Johnny Micou

  • Qcmbr

    I did have a good read and the concentrations arguement was pretty poor imo. 100 times pretty much nothing is still pretty much nothing. If I read the above measurements correctly that is 450 ng and 1 nanogram (ng) is 10 -9 gram which taking a rough equivalence of 1ltr = 1 kilogram would be:

    450 parts per trillion

    So I looked up how much silver is in seawater and found this interesting comment info : (

    ' In oyster tissue concentrations of approximately 890 ppm (dry mass) were found.'

    890 parts per million

    Seeding clouds is infrequently done and unlikely to cause real issues - eating oysters is a relatively common occurence. Now I bet your crapping yourself IF you really are concerned about silver poisoning. But I'd suggest you rest easy as the same study has some helpful comments RE silver and human health:

    'The drinking water guideline for silver is 0.05 mg/L, if a guideline is fixed at all'

  • shamus100

    Well, I must say, between the lack of answers from anyone on this topic to Sammie who thinks that people think that nuclear radiation from Japan isn't harmful, I've heard enough.

    Thank you for answering nothing.

  • ProdigalSon

    Chemicals being sprayed from nozzles, not engines, and being switched on and off, caught on tape....

  • ProdigalSon

    Metorologist Confirms Chemtrails Spraying Is Real

  • ProdigalSon
  • ProdigalSon

    Want some more nothing? monkey?

  • Qcmbr

    The website referenced in the video doesn't exist anymore. After a bit of research (30 secs) I found several comments regarding the nature of the websites previous owner and here is a taste.

    In summary the guy is accused of being a fraud.

    I still see nothing beyond regular cloud seeding ( no one is arguing that this isn't occurring. ) I'll happily change my mind when presented with real evidence. YouTube seems, in general, a very poor place for quality evidence.

    Cofty - excellent vid btw. Hopefully she's spent some time looking up rainbows in the meantime.

  • sizemik
    Its not rocket science is it ?, PP

    Rockets are not that complicated . . . you just light the blue touch-paper, stand well clear, and wooooooosh, off they go!

  • sizemik

    Hey guys guys guys . . . whoa! . . . hold up a second here.

    Cloud seeding . . . Cloud seeding usually occurs ABOVE THE CLOUDS . . . you don't SEE aircraft seeding clouds . . . because suprise! suprise! . . . there are CLOUDS in the way!!!!

    This has no relationship WHATSOEVER to slowly dissapating contrails on a clear day . . . having, or not having, chemicals in them.

    The critical thinking skills of some here are below the level of a child . . . sorry, but it has to be said.

Share this