Chemtrails & Geoengineering Information & Activism.

October
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Who's Online Now
1 members (Russ Tanner), 7,119 guests, and 92 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Support Our Forum
Popular Topics(Views)
Credits & Thanks!
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,874
D
Master Elite Member
Mr. Mangles writes on Oct. 30, 2009:
"The soil scientists from the USDA Soil Conservation Department visited private property east of Shasta Lake, California, on Oct. 27, 2009. Mr. Bailey, Komar, and Owens tested the pH with standard federal meters. All agreed the pH should be 5.5.
Under Douglas fir, the ph was 7.4, astoundingly basic for that habitat.
Under Poderosa pine, at the precise soil-needle interface, I would expect a pH of 5. At that point, Bailey's meter showed 6.5. This is high for a microhabitat that should be very acid. Old soil surveys indicate this soil should be very acid, around pH of 5.5.
I bought a house in Mt. Shasta old black oak/pine pasture in 2002, tested the pH at below 6, good for vegetable gardening. It was a major reason for purchase, and proceeded with highly acid composting of leaves and grass to drive the pH down or at least keep it low, as every master gardener knows. I added a touch of sulphur and avoided wood ash to insure acidity, and proceeded to teach organic gardening courses out of my yard through COS. The pH tests were an embarrassment because now my garden is pH 7, sometimes higher. This is the opposite of what should happen.
The pH meter of Jon McClellan proceeded to show pH in McCloud gardens also running close to 7 or 8, which is too high for heavy organic mulch with no ashes. General lawns were also running over pH 7 under oaks and pines and fir trees. This is contrary to everything I learned in college and the Soil Conservation Service for 35 years. The old data sheets say these soils should be running at a pH of 5-6.
I tested my rainwater in a plastic NWS rain gauge set high on a pole, and got 1010 ug/l aluminum, with substantial amounts of barium and strontium included, where it should be non-detectable. Others from the West Coast have similar repeated results, from the Bay Area to Washington."
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/htm/303.html

Picture 1rst below:
Brian M. Bailey, NRCS Soil Conservationist, Marin, TX, (Center)
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/tx/newsroom/stories/?cid=nrcs144p2_003232

Picture 2nd below ( http://www.tcrcd.net/almanac/nws-v04n2.htm ):
Area Resource Soil Scientists
Contact Information
Jim Komar (with the back on the right side of the picture)
Area 1 Soil Scientist

Address
Red Bluff Area Office
1345 Main Street
Red Bluff, CA 96080

Telephone/Fax Numbers
Phone: 530 527-2667, x106
FAX: 530 527 6836

Email Address
James.Komar@ca.usda.gov
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ca/about/?cid=nrcs144p2_064095

Attachments
1404465435202.png nrcs144p2_001385.jpg v4n2-p4.jpg
Last edited by Denglisch; 07/04/14 11:38 AM.
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,874
D
Master Elite Member

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,874
D
Master Elite Member
"ph-Soil test 7,4 "

instead of suggested
5,5 (Mr. Bailey, Komar, and Owens, USDA Soil Conservation Department)

"(...) This is contrary to everything I learned in college and the Soil Conservation Service for 35 years. The old data sheets say these soils should be running a pH of 5-6.(...)
Francis Mangels
736 Pine Ridge Avenue
Mount Shasta, CA 96067
ph 530-926-0311"
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/assets/lab-tests/california-lab-tests.zip
Dezipping by http://www.7-zip.org/

Source: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/water-tests/

Attachments
Attached PDF document
Chemtrail pH reportshasta.pdf (56.84 KB, 330 downloads)

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.1