I wanted to ask if anyone has an idea how many tons of posion are sprayed into the athmosphere compared to total aviation? Or maybe asked that way: Does anyone know or has an assumption how high the amount of flights are that spray in comparison to the total flights? I was searching already in the internet for sources, but couldnt find anything. Maybe you can help me
In "What in the World are they spraying?" there is a passage with Dane Wigington in which - during an AAAS-Meeting in San Diego - he is asking the geoengineer David Keith if these "thousands" of tons of material dumped into the atmosphere would be healthy for the public.
Maybe you ought to take a feedback with Dane Wigington about that topic.
Alan Robock ( http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html ) has made "theoretical" assumptions about what is needed to realize a geoengineering concept. He was astonished of how few airplanes are needed to realize that concept on a global scale. Therefore he knows about how much material "would" have to be dumped into the atmosphere.
With some research about him you get maybe the exact amounts of that material.
Relating to aviation there has to be differentiated between the engine exhaust http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=52#Post6859 and the materials which are allowed to be dumped into the atmosphere by local laws for specific purposes. The purpose of the latter ones are not only for weather modification but also for pesticides and similiar materials.
When we talk about Chemtrails the Geoengineering promoters generally talk about so-called SAG (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering) - with the meaning that it will be sprayed into the Stratosphere far, far away from the ground with the illusion that it is so far away that the sprayed material doesn't come down to the ground.
It is only on the one side for military purposes via changing the atmosphere into a plasma for the production of an over-the-horizon radar http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=10250#Post10250 but on the other side this same plasma is being manipulated for weather control purposes and in addition to it in other altitudes even more material is being sprayed into the atmosphere for that purpose. Also - there are projects to facilitate cell phone communication. Usually cell phone communication is disturbed by the charges of uncontrolled weather theaters within clouds. (This has to be seen separately from the weather control programs which have the object to create clouds in high pressure areas (Scott Stevens, Weatherman http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=14759#Post14759 ).) The communication traffic gets distorted and needs more space in the electromagnetic spectrum for verification of the transferred data. To ease the exploitation of a smaller range within the electromagnetic spectrum a plasma enables a more correct transfer performance. These specific spray projects are mostly occuring in population centers as I have observed it myself. As the mobile phone communication industry is a very powerful one you may not get information about the amounts being sprayed for that purpose.
And probably there are also biological projects under the aersosol-spraying umbrella. They are indicated by the findings of fall-out which consisted of bacteria and blood cells. Minute: 29 Second: 12
Biological Warfare - Experiments on the American People If this video is deleted look to http://urlbam.com/ha/Xz Also, for that spraying cause there is no official account about the amounts of that kind of toxication availabe. History and publicized documents from government archives have shown that this suspect is not far off. http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=15060#Post15060 As these experiments are justified for military purposes no one knows how many experiments are actually happening and how much material is being dispersed. As we see also in context with electromagnetic radiation, biological projects can even be more devastating than ten of thousands of material made of aluminum, barium and titane. One of the professionally better informed sources in that area is http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org (Rosalind Peterson ).
What is possible is to get the data indirectly - as Alan Robock has shown.
You may also imagine that these secretive methods try to avoid the verifybility of the materials used. Therefore these materials are in the nano spectrum below 2.5 pm. These materials can only be proven by collecting them indirectly (Rain, HEPA-Filter) and their chemical testing. As these particles are really small you have to probe even with an ULPA or SULPA-Filter which are expensive and therefore out of range from those who are occupied by this topic. (For example Clifford Carnicom http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=12019#Post12019 ) As the source remains secret to the public it can only be proven when it comes down. Regarding aluminum it can always be argued that the aluminum was dissolved from the soil as the earth crust has aluminum of about 10 percent in a bounded form.
If one knows the technology used and knows therefore also the average amount of a certain material being used in a certain space one may conclude from the pictures of the sky how much of that material is dumped into the atmosphere during a specific flight. Obviously, Alan Robock has an imagination about the probable materials being used and can therefore estimate how many planes are needed for the realization of a Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering program. But this would be only for this specific program besides other program which produce even more toxication of the atmosphere.
You should not forget that beside the chemical toxication there is also non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation which is enabled by exactly the same materials. Chemical toxication is bad, electromagnetic toxication is worse http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=15321#Post15321 as the magnetic part of the electromagnetic radiation has efficacy on molecular compounds. It disrupts the chemical bounds of these molecular compounds. In detail: the DNA is disrupted that way. As radiation is intense it overloads the human DNA cell repair system. As the DNA can not be fixed as fast as it is being damaged this way the development of cancer is enhanced. http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=15299#Post15299
If you have the amount of material you will have only a small insight of what is actually happening. The materials are only a trigger of a specific purpose. If you achieved to estimate the amount of material then you will have the amount of chemical poison which threatens the bioability of the soil. And the soil is only a part of the biosphere.
As the military already has not even a congruent accounting system to the financial budget and in addition is protected by military laws it is not possible to verify the amounts of material dispersed by the military. The data is not only not for the public but also you can not transfer one context of one part of the military to another context of another part of the military. The military is governed by compartmentalization with values which are not controlled by the public. http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=15191#Post15191
Minute: 1 Second: 26
First Journalist EVER to Ask Donald Rumsfeld about the Missing $2.3 Trillion
If you want to compare the amount of material dispersed by the secretive aerosol operations with the usual aviation you have to take into account that also in aviation there are problems with clean air in the cabins. http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8449#Post8449 Maybe it is because the aviation is using the air corridors of the chemtrailer maybe the toxication comes from the own engines.
Modern engines don't have much soot in the exhaust. At the most they have CO² in the exhaust. Therefore, the exhaust is negligible regarding soot. Soot has to be considered as a possible cause of condensation for the eventual surrounding air huminidity. The IPCC has even a report https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/av-en.pdf on that topic. Unfortunately, the IPCC does not explain why aviation is producing such high numbers of stripes in the sky as they can only be created at - in the air space of flight altitudes - rare temperatures warmer than -40 degrees Celsius at an air humidity of higher than 70 percent. http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=11522#Post11522 Therefore the IPCC does not help with any kinds of estimates about toxication.
Neben den Studien von CSEPP (1992) und Robock et al. (2009), ist insbesondere die aktuelle Studie von McClellan et al. (2010) hervorzuheben. Für die Ausbringung mit Flugsystemen wird angenommen, dass das Material mit einer Rate von 0,03 kg/m freigesetzt wird. Es werden Ausbringungshöhen von 13 bis 30 km untersucht. http://www.weather-modification-journal.de/chemtrails-ägypten/
English: "Dispersal options
In addition to the studies of CSEPP (1992) and Robock et al. ( 2009) , in particular the recent study by McClellan et al . ( 2010) emphasized . For the application with aircraft systems , it is assumed that the material at a rate of 0.03 kg / m is released. There are examined spreading heights 13-30 km away."
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) (1992): http://orise.orau.gov/national-security-emergency-management/capabilities/training/csepp.aspx "Warning messages transmitted to populations at risk from an accidental release of chemical agent must be carefully designed to maximize appropriate responses from affected publics. This guide develops an approach for preparing Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) messages for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP). Sample messages illustrate the application of this approach. While the sample messages do not cover every emergency situation, the texts are generic in that accident and location specific factors can be incorporated into the final message developed by local emergency planners. Thus they provide a starting point, not an end product, for emergency planners." Vogt, B.M., Sorensen, J.H.; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (United States); Oak Ridge National Laboratory.; United States. Department of Energy. Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Oak Ridge, Tenn. : Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ; Oak Ridge, Tenn. : Distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1992. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/727237523
Robock A, Marquardt AB, Kravitz B, Stenchikov G. 2009. The benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letter 36: L19703, DOI: 10.1029/2009GL039209. CrossRef,Web of Science® Times Cited: 10,ADS http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039209/full
