• H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist

Dont chemtrail me bro!

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO, the mind controlling, zombifying shit that comes out of the television is a hell of a lot scarier than anything that comes from the sky. :\


hmmmmmm, maybe chemtrail conspiracy is a double-conspiracy aimed to get outdoors people back inside away from the nasty 'chemtrails' and onto the safe, comfortable mind-control pad, aka the sofa or lounge, in front of the tv for more brainwash?

either way, not healthy to be overly paranoid ... there a lot of other activities that are out in the open, which are irrefutably diminishing the potential of not only the human race, but the entire biosphere....

including tropical rainforest deforestation ~

take back your power !!
 
butttt... i really like this perspective

I wouldn't disregard anything. I find the best path is to neither completely disregard theories or automatically believe them. But I think that this automatic trusting that the powers that be care about us, our health, or our well being in any form is incredibly naieve...
 
Okay... look... most people disbelieve wildly implausible theories like chemtrails for the following reasons:

1) A program to cover a population area with a toxic chemical, that isn't leaked in under a month, would be a miracle of nature. Journalists, networks, media companies, all have an interest in exposing big scandals, and doing it first. But... I don't see any of those such reports.

2) Independent scientists and organizations test the atmosphere routinely. No sign of any chem trails.

3) The contrails are expected byproducts of jet exhaust at high altitude. They are what we would expect to happen.

I dismiss theories of out hand when they're simply so crazy that I find it impossible that NO ONE in the press, NO ONE in atmospheric science, NO ONE in government from the opposition party, picked up on it.

That's why I don't buy it. A website on the internet has the real story about... take your pick... 9/11, chemtrails, Kennedy assassinationi, etc.... but somehow the experts in the field don't.

Thats enough for me to dismiss it out of hand, generally.

I'm only thinking about this further because we're discussing it.
 
^^
Heueristic, we're you aware that the planets revolve around Earth on flawless crystal spheres, and that the stars are fix't in the firmament by Jove himself?


I wouldn't disregard anything.

This is a problem. This isn't like you have two people's opinions on some ultimately unknowable thing like the existance of Heaven. Here, you have one side that is pointing to physics and chemistry textbooks, and another side that is making shit up with no evidence whatsoever. Would you believe me if I told you that I'm your biological father?
 
2) Independent scientists and organizations test the atmosphere routinely. No sign of any chem trails.
i've seen some scientists reporting increased presence of certain chemicals after reporting of trails. I dont really go on prision planet believe it or not.

1) A program to cover a population area with a toxic chemical, that isn't leaked in under a month, would be a miracle of nature. Journalists, networks, media companies, all have an interest in exposing big scandals, and doing it first. But... I don't see any of those such reports.
no offense but it may show a little portion of human error. After all its not like the vast majority know USA eradication programs spray certain drug growing areas with poisona and the air pilots are instructed to leave certain other fields of the one's who've paid up to the gov. alone.


.

That's why I don't buy it. A website on the internet has the real story about... take your pick... 9/11, chemtrails, Kennedy assassinationi, etc.... but somehow the experts in the field don't.

Thats enough for me to dismiss it out of hand, generally.
NNNOOO!!!!!!!!!!! THINK FOR YOURSELF if you wanna disregard it then, fine! JFK couldnt have been shot where they say & L.H.O. was such a patsy.
 
Last edited:
Frosty,

What is prison planet?

There are the normal components of jet exhaust, though I doubt they stick closely to the contrails, which are themselves just water. I really don't know, though.

In any event, you won't find anything about planes spraying poison over populated areas. There would be an ENORMOUS outcry. And before you tell me that it's simply being suppressed, don't you find it a little strange that conspiracy theorists are entirely free to express their views even in the face of such suppression?

The best explanation here is that you are mistaken about this. And we all make mistakes. It's okay for them to happen.

The world is a lot safer than you think it is.
 
The best explanation here is that you are mistaken about this.
I am fully capable of mistaking/fucking things up i do admit but trained health care professionals have reported the exact same thing. So it's "We're" mistaken?

This letter is from Dr. J. Michael Pece who I talked to on the 8/24/02 and who is a heck of a nice guy :) The bolded test is my emphasis. These facts Dr. Mike talks about here are - please note - documented chemspray related illness and effect. Documented by a doctor and lab reports. I am in awe that Dr. Mike has the guts to come forward with this, and what impressed me was why. Not for attention. Not to sell books or some personal cure. Only because he is stunned that this is going on and that it is making people very ill. And he would like to know what the hell is going on. Imagine if more doctors had the balls to help find the facts and ask questions..and why aren't they? . 8-24-02



"I don't know what is going on, but the government has been going crazy with their aerial chemical spraying over Arizona the last few days.


I went to visit some patients yesterday in Prescott and between Phoenix and Prescott the sky was simply obliviated with chem trails. The spraying continued into the night. There were four and five parallel lines in the sky at various times which spread out into the hazy clouds with which we are all familiar. The trails criss-crossed and continued all morning and afternoon. I pointed the sky out to my patients. As a doctor, I am ensuring that I educate each of my patients about what is happening. Someone must teach the public about what appears to be happening. We've got to stop this madness. Once again, we in Arizona, missed our monsoon season. This is the two month period when we receive most of our rain. Apparently the Barium chemical removed the moisture from our atmosphere and we did not received any significant rain. Our drought continues. Those who plan these chemical activities must be proud of their accomplishments and must be high fiving each other over their "success".

I am noticing my patients are coming in with frequent headaches, sinus congestion, asthma and ear infections in recent days/weeks. I attribute this to the allergic reactions to the chemicals which our government is spraying in OUR air! I have noticed that the "hair analysis" labs which I run on some of my patients all are indicating HIGH levels of Barium. My own hair analysis indicated high Barium levels. I am pretty familiar with diet and nutrition and quite honestly cannot think of any food that contain significant levels of Barium...Barium is not known to be absorbable in any significant degree. For this reason radiologists use barium for colonoscopy's and other GI scans. Yet, we seem to have high levels of barium in our hair which means either barium is being stored from digestion or the hair is being contaminated by an outside source. I am quite concerned with this violation of our environment by a government that denies it is occurring, yet a person can step outside and watch our tax dollars at work.

I am also angry that our Senators have no concern for us. I called Senator John McCain and Sen Jon Kyl to discuss this. Sen. McCain's office did not have the decency to even return my call; Sen Kyle had an assistant call me and he spouted the party line that all I was experiencing was CON-TRAILS. Sorry, guys these are NOT contrails.

I haven't seen many articles on chemtrails lately and I am hoping those that are aware do not let this poisoning of our sky, and control of our weather be forgotten. I feel this is what the government wants. If they ignore those of us who are trying to raise awareness of this activity long enough, our citizens-with our general attention span of approximately 15 minutes- will forget about chemtrails and the government/military can continue with their experiments on us.

Please keep up the publicizing. Somehow, we must wake the public up, get them to look up in the sky and realize these are NOT contrails!!!"

(Thanks, Doc!)
FruitLoops, now with extra barium?



Now you too can do the testing for yourself & then tell me if the best explanation is "im mistaken"(??) http://www.carnicom.com/precip1.htm



Barium compounds are one of the key components of chemtrails as revealed by independent researchers using laboratory analysis. The following toxicity summary for barium was funded by U.S. taxpayers, who are daily being poisoned with barium from chemtrails. It is time to hold the U.S. military, President and Congress accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment.

The toxicity information included in this summary was researched and compiled by A. A. Francis, M.S., D.A.B.T., and Carol S. Forsyth, Ph.D., who are members of the Chemical Hazard Evaluation Group in the Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis Section, Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The soluble salts of barium, an alkaline earth metal, are toxic in mammalian systems. They are absorbed rapidly from the gastrointestinal tract and are deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. Barium is excreted primarily in the feces.

At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant and at higher doses affects the nervous system eventually leading to paralysis. Acute and subchronic oral doses of barium cause vomiting and diarrhea, followed by decreased heart rate and elevated blood pressure. Higher doses result in cardiac irregularities, weakness, tremors, anxiety, and dyspnea. A drop in serum potassium may account for some of the symptoms. Death can occur from cardiac and respiratory failure. Acute doses around 0.8 grams can be fatal to humans.

Subchronic and chronic oral or inhalation exposure primarily affects the cardiovascular system resulting in elevated blood pressure. A lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) of 0.51 mg barium/kg/day based on increased blood pressure was observed in chronic oral rat studies (Perry et al. 1983), whereas human studies identified a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 0.21 mg barium/kg/day (Wones et al. 1990, Brenniman and Levy 1984). The human data were used by the EPA to calculate a chronic and subchronic oral reference dose (RfD) of 0.07 mg/kg/day (EPA 1995a,b). In the Wones et al. study, human volunteers were given barium up to 10 mg/L in drinking water for 10 weeks. No clinically significant effects were observed. An epidemiological study was conducted by Brenniman and Levy in which human populations ingesting 2 to 10 mg/L of barium in drinking water were compared to a population ingesting 0 to 0.2 mg/L. No significant individual differences were seen; however, a significantly higher mortality rate from all combined cardiopni.spoololife.nfovascular diseases was observed with the higher barium level in the 65+ age group. The average barium concentration was 7.3 mg/L, which corresponds to a dose of 0.20 mg/kg/day. Confidence in the oral RfD is rated medium by the EPA.

Subchronic and chronic inhalation exposure of human populations to barium-containing dust can result in a benign pneumoconiosis called “baritosis.” This condition is often accompanied by an elevated blood pressure but does not result in a change in pulmonary function. Exposure to an air concentration of 5.2 mg barium carbonate/m3 for 4 hours/day for 6 months has been reported to result in elevated blood pressure and decreased body weight gain in rats (Tarasenko et al. 1977). Reproduction and developmental effects were also observed. Increased fetal mortality was seen after untreated females were mated with males exposed to 5.2 mg/m3 of barium carbonate. Similar results were obtained with female rats treated with 13.4 mg barium carbonate/m3. The NOAEL for developmental effects was 1.15 mg/m3 (equivalent to 0.8 mg barium/m3). An inhalation reference concentration (RfC) of 0.005 mg/m3 for subchronic and 0.0005 mg/m3 for chronic exposure was calculated by the EPA based on the NOAEL for developmental effects (EPA 1995a). These effects have not been substantiated in humans or other animal systems.

Barium has not been evaluated by the EPA for evidence of human carcinogenic potential (EPA 1995b).

1. INTRODUCTION

Barium (CAS registry number 7440-39-3) is a divalent alkaline-earth metal found only in combination with other elements in nature. The most important of these combinations are the peroxide, chloride, sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, and chlorate. The pure metal oxidizes readily and reacts with water emitting hydrogen; it is chemically similar to calcium (Weast et al. 1987). The most likely source of barium in the atmosphere is from industrial emissions. Since it is usually present as a particulate form, it can be removed from the atmosphere by wet precipitation and deposition. Due to the element's tendency to form salts with limited solubility in soil and water, it is expected to have a residence time of hundreds of years and is not expected to be very mobile. Acidic conditions, however, will increase the solubility of some barium compounds facilitating their movement from the soil to the groundwater (EPA 1984). Trace amounts of barium were found in more than 99% of the surface waters and finished drinking water samples (average values of 43 μg/L, and 28.6 μg/L, respecpni.spoololife.nfotively) across the United States (National Academy of Sciences 1977).

2. METABOLISM AND DISPOSITION

2.1 ABSORPTION

The soluble forms of barium salts are rapidly absorbed into the blood from the intestinal tract. The rates of absorption of a number of barium salts have been measured in rats following oral exposure to small quantities (30 mg/kg body weight). The relative absorption rates were found to be: barium chloride > barium sulfate > barium carbonate. Large doses of barium sulfate do not increase the uptake of this salt because of its low solubility (McCauley and Washington 1983, EPA 1984).

Systemic toxic effects have been observed following both oral and inhalation exposure. No absorption kinetics are available following inhalation exposure, although it is obvious that absorption does occur (EPA 1984).

2.2 DISTRIBUTION

Barium absorbed into the bloodstream disappears in about 24 hours; however, it is deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. Very little is stored in the kidneys, liver, spleen, brain, heart, or hair. It remains in the muscles about 30 hours after which the concentration decreases slowly. The deposition of barium into bone is similar to calcium but occurs at a faster rate (Beliles 1994). The half life of barium in bone is estimated to be about 50 days (Machata 1988).

2.3 METABOLISM

About 54% of the barium dose is protein bound. Barium is known to activate the secretion of catecholamines from the adrenal medulla without prior calcium deprivation. It may displace calcium from the cell membranes, thereby increasing permeability and providing stimulation to muscles. Eventual paralysis of the central nervous system can occur (Beliles 1994).

2.4 EXCRETION

A tracer study in rats using 140Ba demonstrated that 7% and 20% of the barium dose was excreted in 24 hours in the urine and feces, respectively. In contrast, calcium is primarily excreted in the urine. The clearance of barium is enhanced with saline infusion (Beliles 1994). Following intravenous injection of barium into six healthy men, excretion was mainly fecal with the total relative fecal:urinary clearance for 14 days ranging from 6 to 15 (Newton et al. 1991).

3. NONCARCINOGENIC HEALTH EFFECTS

3.1 ORAL EXPOSURES

3.1.1 Acute Toxicity

3.1.1.1 Human

A number of accidental barium poisonings have occurred following the ingestion of barium salts. The estimated fatal dose of barium carbonate, a rodenticide, is about 5 grams for a 70 kg human (Arena 1979). The LD50 for barium chloride is estimated at about 1 gram for a 70 kg human (Machata 1988), and the LDLo (lowest published lethal dose) is reported to be about 0.8 grams (Lewis and Sweet 1984). The acute symptoms include excess salivation, vomiting, diarrhea, increased blood pressure, muscular tremors, weakness, paresis, anxiety, dyspnea, and cardiac irregularities. A severe loss of potassium can account for some of the symptoms. Convulsions and death from cardiac and respiratory failure can occur. Magnesium and sodium sulfate are antidotal if taken soon after ingestion since either salt will result in the formation of insoluble barium sulfate and prevent further absorption. Survival for more than 24 hours is usually followed by complete recovery (Arena 1979).

Complications occurred in a woman following a barium swallow investigation for severe dysphagia. Direct aspiration of a large amount of barium into the right main bronchus resulted in tachycardia, tachypnoea, fever, and an oxygen saturation of 82%; two weeks later the woman still had a moist cough with widespread rales but continued to recover (Penington 1993).

A family was accidentally poisoned with barium from eating their evening meal. The mother had fried fish breaded with a flour-like substance that turned out to be rat poison containing barium carbonate. All seven family members, aged 2 to 48 years, developed nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and crampy abdominal pain within minutes of consuming the meal; the parents also developed ventricular tachypni.spoololife.nfocardia, flaccid paralysis of the extremities, shortness of breath (mother), and respiratory failure (father). Patients were treated symptomatically and all fully recovered (Johnson and VanTassell 1991).

3.1.1.2 Animal

Similar acute symptoms occur in animals; however, higher doses are usually involved. The LD50 for rats is listed as 630 mg/kg for barium carbonate, 118 mg/kg for barium chloride, and 921 mg/kg for barium acetate (Lewis and Sweet 1984).

3.1.2 Subchronic Toxicity

3.1.2.1 Human

An experiment testing the subchronic toxicity of barium chloride on human volunteers was conducted by Wones et al. (1990). The diets of 11 male subjects were controlled. They were given 1.5 L/day of distilled and charcoal-filtered drinking water that contained 0 mg/L barium for weeks 1 and 2, 5 mg/L for weeks 3 to 6, and 10 mg/L for weeks 7 to 10. No clinically significant effects were observed in blood pressures, serum chemistry, urinalysis, or electrocardiograms. The 10 mg/L (0.21 mg/kg/day) dose was identified as a NOAEL.

3.1.2.2 Animal

Groups of 30 male and 30 female Charles River rats were exposed to barium chloride at 0, 10, 50, or 250 ppm in drinking water for 90 days (Tardiff et al. 1980). The highest average dose in this study was calculated to be 45.7 mg/kg/day for female rats. No significant clinical signs of toxicity were observed. Blood pressure was not measured.

McCauley et al. (1985) conducted drinking water studies in which six male Sprague-Dawley rats/group were given water containing 0, 10, 100, or 250 mg/L barium for 36 weeks, or 1, 10, 100, or 1000 mg/L barium for 16 weeks. Female rats were given 0 or 250 mg/L for 46 weeks. Animals receiving the 1000 mg/L dose developed ultrastructural changes in the kidney glomeruli. No other effects were reported.

Tardiff et al. (1980) exposed groups of 30 male and 30 female Charles River rats to 0, 10, 50, or 250 ppm barium (given as barium chloride) in drinking water for 90 days. A slight reduction in adrenal weights was seen in female rats with the 250 ppm (45.7 mg/kg/day) dose at 13 weeks, and no other adverse effects were observed in male rats with the 50 ppm (8.1 mg/kg/day) and the 250 ppm (38.1 mg/kg/day) doses at 8 weeks. No clear dose effect or dose duration effect was seen with the adrenal weight decrease; therefore, the clinical significance is uncertain.

3.1.3 Chronic Toxicity

3.1.3.1 Human

An epidemiology study conducted by Brenniman and Levy (1984) compared a human populapni.spoololife.nfotion ingesting barium levels of 2 to 10 mg/L in their drinking water to a population ingesting 0 to 0.2 mg/L. Although significantly higher mortality rates from all cardiovascular diseases were observed with the higher barium level in the 65 and over age group, there were no significant individual difpni.spoololife.nfoferences in blood pressures, strokes, or heart and renal diseases within the two groups. The average barium concentration for the mortality study was 7.3 mg/L, which corresponds to a dose of 0.20 mg/kpni.spoololife.nfog/day assuming drinking water consumption of 2 L/day for a 70 kg human.

3.1.3.2 Animal

A series of experiments were performed in which groups of 52 male and female Long-Evans rats and 42 male and female Swiss mice were exposed to 5 mg barium/L (given as barium acetate) in drinking water for their lifetime (Schroeder and Mitchener 1975a,b). The barium doses were about 0.25 and 0.825 mg/kg/day for rats and mice, respectively. No adverse clinical effects were observed; however, blood pressure was not measured. A slight but significant reduction in longevity of treated male mice was noted when measured as the mean age at death of the last surviving 10% of animals. The overall average life span of the group, however, was about the same as the control group (EPA 1984, 1989).

Perry et al. (1983) exposed 12 to 13 female weanling rats/group to 0, 1, 10, or 100 ppm barium (given as barium chloride) for up to 16 months. Average doses were calculated to be 0, 0.051, 0.51, and 5.1 mg/kg/day (EPA 1985). A clinically significant increase in average blood pressure was observed in the highest dose group; a slight but statistically significant increase was seen in the 10 ppm (0.51 mg/kg/day) dose group. The controlled diet, which restricted the intake of trace metals, calcium, and potassium, may have contributed to the effect.

3.1.4 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity

Information on developmental and reproductive toxicity in humans or animals following oral exposure was unavailable.

3.1.5 Reference Dose

3.1.5.1 Subchronic

ORAL RfDs: 0.07 mg/kg/day (EPA 1995a)

UNCERTAINTY FACTOR: 3

NOAEL: 0.21 mg/kg/day

PRINCIPAL STUDIES:The same studies and comments apply to both the subchronic and chronic RfD derivations. See Sect. 3.1.5.2.

3.1.5.2 Chronic

ORAL RfDc: 0.07 mg/kg/day (EPA 1995b)

UNCERTAINTY FACTOR: 3

MODIFYING FACTOR: 1

NOAEL: 0.21 mg/kg/day

CONFIDENCE:

Study: Medium

Data Base: Medium

RfD: Medium

VERIFICATION DATE: 06/21/90

PRINCIPAL STUDIES: Wones et al. (1990); Brenniman and Levy (1984).

COMMENTS: The RfD values are based on a weight-of-evidence approach using subchronic to chronic human drinking water studies. The uncertainty factor accounts for protecting sensitive individuals and is reduced from the usual factor of 10 because the selected studies examined the population judged most at risk.

3.2 INHALATION EXPOSURES

3.2.1 Acute Toxicity

3.2.1.1 Human

Barium carbonate dust has been reported to be a bronchial irritant. Barium oxide dust is considered a dermal and nasal irritant (Beliles 1994). The effect of barium dusts on welders was investigated under simulated working conditions over a one-week time period (Zschiesche et al. 1992). Barium fume concentrations were 4.4 and 2.0 mg/m3 during welding with stick electrodes and flux cored wires, respectively. No adverse health effects on the welders were attributable to barium exposure, but there was a slight decrease in plasma potassium levels at the end of the work shift.

3.2.1.2 Animal

Information on the acute inhalation toxicity of barium in animals was not available.

3.2.2 Subchronic Toxicity

3.2.2.1 Human

Industrial workers exposed to barium dust, usually in the form of barium sulfate or carbonate, often develop a benign pneumoconiosis referred to as “baritosis.” Because of the radiopacity of barium compounds, this condition can be specifically diagnosed radiologically. After removal from the sources of exposure, baritosis is reversible in most cases. Baritosis results in a significantly higher incidence of hypertension, but no changes are usually seen in pulmonary function (Stokinger 1981, EPA 1995b).

3.2.2.2 Animal

Male rats were exposed to 1.15 and 5.2 mg/m3 of barium carbonate dust for 4 hours/day for 6 months. The high dose animals developed increased arterial pressure; decreased body weight gain; decreased blood levels of hemoglobin, sugar, protein, cholinesterase and thrombocytes; increased blood levels of leukocytes, phosphorous and alkaline phosphatase; increased urine calcium; and peripni.spoololife.nfovascular and peribronchial sclerosis in the lungs. (EPA 1984, Tarasenko et al. 1977).

3.2.3 Chronic Toxicity

3.2.3.1 Human

Baritosis and bronchial irritation have been reported in workers chronically exposed to barium containing dust (Beliles 1994).

3.2.3.2 Animal

Information on the chronic inhalation toxicity of barium in animals was not available.

3.2.4 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity

Tarasenko et al. (1977) performed a series of experiments in rats designed to test for possible reproductive and developmental effects. Increased fetal mortality was observed following the mating of males exposed to barium carbonate (5.2 mg/m3 air) with untreated females. Decreased sperm motility was observed in males treated with 22.6 mg/m3. The mating of females exposed to 13.4 mg/m3 for 4 months also resulted in increased fetal mortality and a general under developpni.spoololife.nfoment of the newpni.spoololife.nfoborn pups. Ovarian follicle atresia was seen in female rats exposed to 3.1 mg/m3. No significant adverse effects were noted with the 1.15 mg/m3 concentration (EPA 1984).

3.2.5 Reference Concentration/Dose

3.2.5.1 Subchronic

INHALATION RfCs: 0.005 mg/m3; 0.001 mg/kg/day (EPA 1995a)

UNCERTAINTY FACTOR: 100

NOEL: 0.8 mg Ba/m3 given 4 hr/day (EPA 1995a)

PRINCIPAL STUDY:The same study and comments apply to the subchronic and chronic ...................... RfC. The study is described in Sect. 3.2.4.

3.2.5.2 Chronic

INHALATION RfCc: 0.0005 mg/m3; 0.0001 mg/kg/day (EPA 1995a)

UNCERTAINTY FACTOR: 1000

NOEL: 0.8 mg Ba/m3 given 4 hr/day (EPA 1995a)

PRINCIPAL STUDY: Tarasenko et al. 1977

COMMENTS: The dose of 1.15 mg BaCO3/m3 was given as the NOEL in the principal study, which is equivalent to 0.8 mg barium/m3 used as the basis for the RfC calculations. An inhalation risk assessment for barium is under review by an EPA work group (EPA, 1995b).

3.3 OTHER ROUTES OF EXPOSURE

3.3.1 Acute Toxicity

3.3.1.1 Human

Barium oxide dust is considered to be a dermal and nasal irritant (Beliles 1994).

3.3.1.2 Animal

A number of experiments have used intravenous and subcutaneous injections to measure lethal levels of soluble barium compounds. LD50 values for barium chloride, nitrate, and acetate were determined in two strains of mice by intravenous injection (Syed and Hosain 1972). The affected animals either died within one hour or survived the treatment. The LD50 values obtained were 8.12, 8.49, and 11.32 mg barium/kg for the chloride, nitrate, and acetate, respectively, in Swiss-Webster mice, and 19.20, 20.10, and 23.31 mg barium/kg for the chloride, nitrate, and acetate, respectively, in ICR mice. Although the relative toxicity of the barium salts remained the same, there was an unexplained two-fold difference in the LD50 values between the two mice strains.

The LDLo has been determined by subcutaneous injection in mice to be 10 mg/kg for the barium nitrate and chloride salts. The LDLo in rabbits was 55 mg/kg for the chloride and 96 mg/kg for the acetate salts. The LDLo values vary widely with the route and test animal. For example, with barium chloride the LDLo value for oral administration to rabbits is 170 mg/kg, whereas the value for subcutaneous injection is 55 mg/kg. Subcutaneous injection in mice results in a value of 10 mg/kg, which is higher than the LD50 value for intravenous injection in the Swiss-Webster strain (Lewis and Sweet 1984).

3.3.2 Subchronic Toxicity

Information on the subchronic toxicity of barium in humans and animals was not available.

3.3.3 Chronic Toxicity

Information on the chronic toxicity of barium in humans and animals was not available.

3.3.4 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity

Information on the developmental and reproductive toxicity of barium in humans and animals was not available.

3.4 TARGET ORGANS/CRITICAL EFFECTS

3.4.1 Oral Exposures

3.4.1.1 Primary target(s)

1.Cardiovascular system: Subchronic to chronic symptoms include increased blood pressure and increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in humans. An acute overdose can result in cardiac irregularities. Convulsions and death from cardiac and respiratory failure can occur.

2.Nervous system: Acute to subchronic symptoms include weakpni.spoololife.nfoness, tremors, anxiety, and dyspnea. An acute overpni.spoololife.nfodose can result in convulsions and death from cardiac and respiratory failure.

3.4.1.2 Other targets

Gastrointestinal system: Acute to subchronic symptoms include excess salivation, vomiting, and diarrhea in humans.

3.4.2 Inhalation Exposures

3.4.2.1 Primary target(s)

1. Cardiovascular system: Symptoms include increased blood pressure in humans.

2. Reproduction and development: Subchronic exposure of rats resulted in decreased sperm motility and ovarian follicle atresia. Increased fetal mortality and underdevelopment of newborn pups were also reported.

3.4.2.2 Other target(s)

Lungs: Subchronic to chronic exposure in humans results in a pneumoconiosis known as “baritosis” that usually does not adversely affect pulmonary function.

4. CARCINOGENICITY

4.1 ORAL EXPOSURES

4.1.1 Human

Information on the carcinogenicity of barium in humans was not available.

4.1.2 Animal

No significant differences in tumor incidence were found in either rats or mice in the lifetime exposure experiments of Schroeder and Mitchener (1975a,b), as described in Sect. 3.1.3.2.

4.2 INHALATION EXPOSURES

Information on the carcinogenicity of barium in humans and animals was not available.

4.3 OTHER ROUTES OF EXPOSURE

Information on the carcinogenicity of barium in humans and animals was not available.

4.4 EPA WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATION

Barium has not been evaluated by the EPA for evidence of human carcinogenic potential (EPA 1995b).

4.5 CARCINOGENICITY SLOPE FACTORS

Data are insufficient to calculate a slope factor for barium.

5. REFERENCES

Arena, J. M. 1979. Poisoning - Toxicology - Symptoms - Treatments. Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Ill. pp. 173–179.

Beliles, R. P. 1994. The Metals. In: Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 4th ed., G.D. Clayton and F. E. Clayton, eds. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 1925–1929.

Brenniman, G. R. and P. S. Levy. 1984. High barium levels in public drinking water and its association with elevated blood pressure. In: Advances in Modern Toxicology IX, E. J. Calabrese, Ed. Princeton Scientific Publications, Princeton, NJ. pp. 231–249.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1984. Health Effects Assessment for Barium. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 1985. Drinking Water Health Effects Criteria Document on Barium. NTIS PB 86-118031. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria And Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH for the Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 1989. Reportable Quantity Document for Barium and Compounds. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 1995a. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Annual FY-95. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C.

EPA. 1995b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Health Risk Assessment for Barium. On line. (Verification date 6/21/90.) Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. Retrieved 4/5/95.

Johnson, C. H. and V. J. VanTassell. 1991. Acute barium poisoning with respiratory failure and rhabdomyolysis. Ann. Emer. Med. 20:1138–1142.

Lewis, R. J. and D. V. Sweet, eds. 1984. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, Vol. 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.

Machata, G. 1988. Barium. In: Handbook on Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds, H. G. Seiler and H. Sigel, eds., Marcel Dekker, Inc. pp. 97–101.

McCauley, P. T. and I. S. Washington. 1983. Barium bioavailability as the chloride, sulfate or carpni.spoololife.nfobonate salt in the rat. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 6(2):209–217.

McCauley, P. T., B. H. Douglas, R. D. Laurie, and R. J. Bull. 1985. Investigations into the effect of drinking water barium on rats. Environ. Health Perspect. Vol. IX, E. J. Calabrese, ed. Princeton Scienpni.spoololife.nfotific Publications, Princeton, NJ. pp.197–210.

National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health. Safe Drinking Water Committee, Advisory Center on Toxicology, Assembly of Life Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, D.C. pp 211–212.

Newton, D., G. E. Harrison, C. Kang, and A. J. Warner. 1991. Metabolism of injected barium in sex healthy men. Health Physics 61:191–201.

Penington, G. R. 1993. Severe complications following a “barium swallow” investigation for dysphagia. Med. J. Aust. 159:764–765.

Perry, H. M., S. J. Kopp, M. W. Erlanger, and E. F. Perry. 1983. Cardiovascular effects of chronic barium ingestion. In: Trace Substances in Environmental Health, XVII, D. D. Hemphill, ed. Proc. Univ. Missouri's 17th Ann. Conf. on Trace Substances in Environmental Health. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, MO. pp. 155–164.

Schroeder, H. and M. Mitchener. 1975a. Life-term studies in rats: Effects of aluminum, barium, berylpni.spoololife.nfolium and tungsten. J. Nutr. 105:421–427.

Schroeder, H. and M. Mitchener. 1975b. Life-term effects of mercury, methyl mercury and nine other trace metals on mice. J. Nutr. 105: 452–458.

Stokinger, H. E. 1981. The Metals. In: Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 3rd ed., G.D. Clayton and F.E. Clayton, eds. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 1531–1537.

Syed, I. B. and F. Hosain. 1972. Determination of LD50 of Barium Chloride and Allied Agents. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 22:150–152.

Tarasenko, M, O. Promin, and A. Silayev. 1977. Barium compounds as industrial poisons (an experipni.spoololife.nfomental study). J. Hyg. Epidem. Microbiol. Immunol. 21:361–373.

Tardiff, R. G., M. Robinson, and N. S. Ulmer. 1980. Subchronic oral toxicity of barium chloride in rats. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 4(5-6):267–276.

Weast, R. C., J. A. Melvin, and W. H. Beyer (ed). 1987. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, pp. B-9.

Wones, R. G., B. L. Stadler, and L. A. Frohman. 1990. Lack of effect of drinking water barium on cardiovascular risk factor. Environ. Health Perspect. 85:1–13.

Zschiesche, W., K.-H. Schaller, and D. Weltle. 1992. Exposure to soluble barium compounds: an interventional study in arc welders. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 64:13–23.

http://www.HealthFreedom.info

Dear Jeff,

I must express my respect and appreciation for Therese Aigner. To my knowlege, she is the first professional, accredited environmental expert/engineer to stand up and formally and emphatically connect unusual water test results with the unusual aerial activity.

That the rainwater barium and aluminum chem-bliz 'pollution' is directly from chemtrails is clearly stated in her cover letter of the lab test results:

Dear Ms. Miller:

1.0 Per your three (3) samples submitted to the writer (Project No.SMS 514); attached please find the Analytical Results Summary for samples number (s) 514-1, 514-2 and 514-3 This summary also includes the proper and completed Chain of Custody.

1.1 There is also a copy of your original sample labels which have been "G" 'd in with the above samples.

2.0 If you look at the "Results" of each one of the "Parameters" ; there is consistancy here. This would indicate a very controlled delivery (dispersion) of Chemtrails by aircraft in your area.

2.1 The "Results" would also indicate that the contaminants would have had to be delivered in large amounts (pounds per min.) and in concentrated form.

2.2 In addition to the above; we would not expect to find the above "Parameters" under normal circumstances (regardless of quantity) in your area.


Also: the Government Directorates that are operating the Chemtrails delivery (dispersion) aircraft should be subject to the following Title 40 (ENVIRONMENTAL) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's):

3.1 40 CFR 1 to 86; [Air Programs ].

3.2 40 CFR 87 to 149: [Water Programs].

3.3 40 CFR 150 to 189; [FIFRA-Pesticide Programs].

3.4 40 CFR 190 to 299; [RCRA-Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste].

3.5 40 CFR 300 to 399; [CERCLA Sect. 312 & 313 (Community Right to
Know)/Superfund/SARA Title 111].

3.6 40 CFR 400 to 899; [Water Effluent Guideline & Standards].

3.7 40 CFR 700 to 790; [Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)].

4.0 Under normal circumstances these Directorates would be required to comply to ALL registration, notification, and permitting reequirements as mandated by the CFR's called out in the above section 3.0

4.1 In short: "THEY" have placed themselves above the LAW.


In closing; if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely, Ms. Therese Aigner, CES Consultant

cc to Clifford Carnicom and David Peterson

___

The sample data ("Results") is available in the original form at www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm Click on 'Lab Tests Are Positive', then on Page 3.

Ms. Aigner is willing to test other samples if they are collected and forwarded properly. You would have to pay the testing expenses.

Contact her for information @ 1-814-628-2032

It would be very useful for concerned citizens to amass a national database of rainwater testing results with results from every state. (Assuming that there IS any rain...)

"Looookinup"

Topic Thread--* BARIUM, Aluminum, Titanium CONFIRMED in Rainwater.-- is at Carnicom's Chemtrail Board: http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=5946.topic

-----


The presence of Aluminum, Barium, Calcium, Magnesium, and Titanium in the air over a part of the United States is now formally documented, in as reliable a way as is available to an ordinary American citizen.

Over three months, three separate rainwater and snow samples from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have been collected and submitted for formal 'double-blind' laboratory analysis. Tests were ordered for several elements that should NOT be present in normal rain/snow. The results should have come back marked 'N/D' ('None Detected') for all tests...

But, that hope was smashed.

The substances that many of us who have been researching the chemtrail issue suspect are in the air --- ARE IN THE AIR.

And coming down in rain and snow.

Especially BARIUM.

This devastating data points to a deliberate atmospheric release of massive quantities of material containing Aluminum, Barium, Calcium, Magnesium, Calcium, and Titanium.

These bleak figures also point to the possibility of a grim outlook for the humans (and animals) under this chem-bliz 'fallout', as well as the entire physical ecosystem.

We were not designed to breathe these materials. Especially at the tiny particulate size, which has over and over been proven to cause increased death rates. (Most recently by the Journal of American Medical Association, 3/6/2002, 'Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution')

More testing is urgently called for.

Other substances may be present -- these five were the only tests ordered, based on information collected from the Carnicom Chemtrail Site and Discussion Board. The form in which these documented five exist -- carbonates, hydrates, stearates (?) etc.-- is still unknown.

As chemtrails -- the postulated release method for these materials -- have been continually observed and documented over the United States and most of the world, more testing in other areas must be done to confirm that this is not simply a localized, temporary phenomena. The health and ecologic effects of these materials entering the groundwater, oceans, agriculture/food supply, and food chains must be considered and studied.

The health, climactic, and planetary effects of the massive quantities that must exist in the upper atmosphere to reach the ground in detectable levels must be studied.

The importance of these issues cannot be understated. Clifford Carnicom, Lorie Kramer, Kim Weber, Teresa S., David Peterson, and Terese Aigner have provided the information and encouragement for this direction. Deep gratitude is extended to them.

I am proud to be American, and standing in the Lord,

Sue Miller (aka 'Looookinup') [email protected]

Links -

The official laboratory tests: Click on 'Lab Tests Are Positive' http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

Clifford Carnicom's Chemtrail Board: http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails

Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n9/abs/joc11435.html
Vol. 287 No. 9, March 6, 2002

ChemtrailTrackingUSA- A group for reporting chemtrail sightings, and research http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa



Comment

From Clifford E Carnicom
[email protected]
3-19-2


Folks may wish to become familiar with a couple of additions that have made to http://www.carnicom.com/lab1.htm in light of some recently distributed false information on this matter.

Additional notes by CE Carnicom, Mar 18 2002:

Citizens may wish to begin investigating the role of the MDL in trace metal analysis per EPA 200.7 and ICP-MS methods as provided by various commercial testing labs, such as:

http://www.rpc.ca/icpms.html

where the following statements are made regarding detection capabilities beneath the MDL:

"Please note that the limits included in the table are "reporting limits" (for waters) and may be higher than the actual instrument detection limit. In many cases, it is possible to report elements to substantially lower levels."

"The Reporting Limit is essentially a practical method detection limit (MDL). The reporting limit is the concentration of a parameter that can be reliably reported in the presence of a moderate amount of sample-based interferences. In many cases, lowe [incomplete sentence listed - apparently to read lower levels may be able to be reported - CEC]"
So tell me did i get that one from Ms.Cleo as well? We need to honestly evaluate opposed to denying evidence because it scares us.
 
Wouldnt be a first time thing
Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

* Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
* The Observer, Sunday 21 April 2002 10.23 BST
* Article history

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.

One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.

While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship, the Icewhale, anchored off the Dorset coast, which sprayed the micro-organisms in a five to 10-mile radius.

The report also reveals details of the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975. These involved US and UK military scientists spraying into the air massive quantities of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.

Similar bacteria were released in 'The Sabotage Trials' between 1952 and 1964. These were tests to determine the vulnerability of large government buildings and public transport to attack. In 1956 bacteria were released on the London Underground at lunchtime along the Northern Line between Colliers Wood and Tooting Broadway. The results show that the organism dispersed about 10 miles. Similar tests were conducted in tunnels running under government buildings in Whitehall.

Experiments conducted between 1964 and 1973 involved attaching germs to the threads of spiders' webs in boxes to test how the germs would survive in different environments. These tests were carried out in a dozen locations across the country, including London's West End, Southampton and Swindon. The report also gives details of more than a dozen smaller field trials between 1968 and 1977.

In recent years, the MoD has commissioned two scientists to review the safety of these tests. Both reported that there was no risk to public health, although one suggested the elderly or people suffering from breathing illnesses may have been seriously harmed if they inhaled sufficient quantities of micro-organisms.

However, some families in areas which bore the brunt of the secret tests are convinced the experiments have led to their children suffering birth defects, physical handicaps and learning difficulties.

David Orman, an army officer from Bournemouth, is demanding a public inquiry. His wife, Janette, was born in East Lulworth in Dorset, close to where many of the trials took place. She had a miscarriage, then gave birth to a son with cerebral palsy. Janette's three sisters, also born in the village while the tests were being carried out, have also given birth to children with unexplained problems, as have a number of their neighbours.

The local health authority has denied there is a cluster, but Orman believes otherwise. He said: 'I am convinced something terrible has happened. The village was a close-knit community and to have so many birth defects over such a short space of time has to be more than coincidence.'

Successive governments have tried to keep details of the germ warfare tests secret. While reports of a number of the trials have emerged over the years through the Public Records Office, this latest MoD document - which was released to Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker - gives the fullest official version of the biological warfare trials yet.

Baker said: 'I welcome the fact that the Government has finally released this information, but question why it has taken so long. It is unacceptable that the public were treated as guinea pigs without their knowledge, and I want to be sure that the Ministry of Defence's claims that these chemicals and bacteria used were safe is true.'

The MoD report traces the history of the UK's research into germ warfare since the Second World War when Porton Down produced five million cattle cakes filled with deadly anthrax spores which would have been dropped in Germany to kill their livestock. It also gives details of the infamous anthrax experiments on Gruinard on the Scottish coast which left the island so contaminated it could not be inhabited until the late 1980s.

The report also confirms the use of anthrax and other deadly germs on tests aboard ships in the Caribbean and off the Scottish coast during the 1950s. The document states: 'Tacit approval for simulant trials where the public might be exposed was strongly influenced by defence security considerations aimed obviously at restricting public knowledge. An important corollary to this was the need to avoid public alarm and disquiet about the vulnerability of the civil population to BW [biological warfare] attack.'

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

'The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.'

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
 
Frosty, I search in vain for a single study linking the "trails" the doctor observed in the sky to what he thinks were increased barium levels in his patients' hair. That's because there is no such study. That someone with "Dr." or "M.D." after his name makes a claim does not make that claim true. If you think it does, then the number of products out there that "really do" increase the size of your penis is truly remarkable.

I also note that claims that the US government is spraying chemtrails across the US are supported by, apparently, testing of three water samples from North Carolina. Needless to say, even assuming that such testing is accurate (and I doubt it), that's not sufficient to support the idea of a vast conspiracy.

Regarding the presence of barium in any groundwater, I refer you to this EPA notice on the matter: http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/contaminants/dw_contamfs/barium.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top