Chemtrail Non-science
I’m very interested in contrails, but when you look for information about them on the internet, half the sites that turn up are about a conspiracy theory which claims that any trail that last more than a few minutes is actually a “chemtrail”, comprised of dangerous chemicals, particularly barium.
There are even web sites, where people who are convinced this theory is correct are taking the highly laudable step of attempting to verify their hypotheses with scientific experiments.
Unfortunately, they get the science terribly and inexcusably wrong. Take, for example, this graph found on the Arizona Skywatch site:
In particular, look at the first column. It shows a concentration of barium in the air of 556,000 ppb (parts per billion), vs. a “Toxic Limit” of 2,000 ppb. Clearly something is terribly wrong, we’ve got nearly 600 times the toxic limit of Barium in the air. Why are people not dropping dead all over Phoenix?
The first mistake is the value used for “Toxic Limit”. 2000 ppb is actually the EPS’s limit for barium in water, not in air. The limit for barium in air is 5 mg/m3 according to the OSHA. What’s that in ppb? Well, one m3 (cubic meter) of air weighs 1.2 kg, so that’s about 4000 ppb. Not significantly different from 2000 ppb, but as we’ll see. The fact that we are measuring the concentration in air is very important.
Still, 300 times over the toxic limit? And these limits were actually set for people who worked in barium plants. How much barium would you expect to find in the air in a normal city? The CDC’s has done some research:
Background levels of barium in the environment are very low. The air that most people breathe contains about 0.0015 parts of barium per billion parts of air (ppb). The air around factories that release barium compounds into the air has about 0.33 ppb or less of barium. Most surface water and public water supplies contain on average 30 parts of barium per billion parts of water (ppb) or less, but can average as high as 300 ppb in some regions of the United States. In some areas that have underground water wells, drinking water may contain more barium than the 2000 ppb limit set by EPA. The highest amount measured from these water wells has been 10,000 ppb. The amount of barium found in soil ranges from about 15,000 to 3,500,000 ppb.
The above paragraph has been modified to convert all the units to ppb. The original mixed ppm and ppb, which can be confusing.
But there’s a scary thing: the air that most people breath is 0.0015 ppb barium. That means the level found in Phoenix (556,000 ppb) is 370,000,000 times the normal amount!
So what’s going on here? What’s up with these crazy figures?
It turns out the answer is quite simple: they did not actually measure the concentration of barium in the air, they measured the concentration of barium in the airborne particulates.
That’s right, they measured how much barium there is in outdoor dust and smog. In the countryside the airborne dust has a lot of soil in it (especially with the noted “strong Arizona winds and dust storms), and in the city it also has industrial emissions. The amount of barium found is right in the normal range for soil (15,000 - 3,500,000 ppb), and being from a city, you’d also expect some barium emissions in there to bump up the figure. In short, these results are well within the normal (and safe) ranges.
But how did this mistake come about?
To measure the concentration of a particulate substance in air, you can do just what SkyWatch did - you run a vacuum cleaner for a while with a clean air filter, and then you collect the particulate matter from the filter and analyse it’s composition. You then do the one thing missing here: you multiply the result by the weight of the particulate sample divided by the weight of the air the sample was extracted from.
Air weighs 1.2Kg per cubic meter a cubic meter is 1000 liters. A vacuum cleaner can pull through
80 liters per minute, meaning we would get 1kg or air in about ten minutes, or 6 kg in an hour. But how exactly was the sample collected? See here:
http://d1027732.mydomainwebhost.com/charts/our%20charts/index.html
We also took air samples in Phoenix, on non-windy days, using a HEPA filter, then vacuuming the particulates from that filter into another pristine HEPA filter, which we then emptied into a sterile container.
Unfortunately they neglect to say how long they vacuumed for, but it must have been long enough to get some measurable amount of particulates on the filter. So let’s say an hour, and they got one gram (a pinch of salt worth).
So that would be 6Kg of air, meaning, with a 1g sample, we need to adjust our figures by a factor or 1/6000, which bring the claimed 556,000 ppb to 92 ppb, much closer to our normal range, and much lower than the OSHA limit of 4000 ppb.
So, bravo to Arizona Skywatch for trying to put some science behind their claims. But unfortunately they were not measuring what they though they were, and unless they can better describe their collection method, including how long they ran the vacuum for, and how much the submitted sample weighed, then their results are essentially meaningless, and show nothing more than normal air particulates.
So, how long will it take them to correct their site?
[UPDATE]
From here:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=380613&postcount=55
This is the final Lab Report RE: air material analysis. This was a 28 day collection via HEPA filter, 8 hours per day collection. Please note the extremely high Aluminum reading 12,800,000 ppb.
The actual lab report is below.
Please let us know if you have research material surrounding this ‘report’. All ideas are encouraged. Previous analysis records are rain, surface water and soil.
Bridget Conroy
ArizonaSkyWatch.com
6-8-8
So that’s 28×8x6= 1,344 Kg of air (for an average vacuum cleaner). Now the only missing information was the weight of the particulates were in the hepa filter.
Friday 06 Jun 2008 | Uncinus | contrails

Dear Unicus,
I recently stumbled upon this site (this may deserve its own topic):
http://www.watchthesky.org/chems/chemdata.htm
It is basically about radar returns showing “artificial clouds”
Lets look more closely at the images.
http://www.watchthesky.org/chems/flg020306.jpg
This picture is told to show clouds with an unmistakable cirrus shape. Cirrus does not show up on radar so they must be chemtrails.
To quote the site: “How else can you form linear clouds ??”
My first remarks:
- There is quite a lot of ground clutter in the image, ut it should be no problem for someone who is trained to handle these charts.
- Linear clouds are not exlusively cirrus clouds, and cirrus is often not linear.
A Nimbostratus is mostly seen as a line on weather radar.
My first guess is that this is an image of a cold front because of some characteristics, but more data is needed to draw a conclusion.
Below is the weather data of the same day:
TIME T TD RH DIR SPD ALT COV
2351 72 25 17 280 10 986 FEW
0051 70 28 21 260 8 986 BKN
0151 68 28 23 180 3 988 SCT
0251 66 28 24 100 4 989 SCT
0351 64 30 28 80 4 990 SCT
Some notes on this data:
1) The wind is backing
2) The wind is reducing in strength
3) The QNH is rising
4) The temperature is dropping
5) The cloud coverage reduces slowly
This data combined is characteristic for a passing cold front. I have to draw the conclusion that these “chemtrails” on radar are in fact nimbostratus associated with a cold front.
If you watch the data closely you will see that the times do not match. That is because the data is collected in Phoenix from 23:51 to 03:51 UTC. The radar image is from 20:31 UTC.
But on the image you can see that the front has already passed Phoenix.
does anyone have the actual collections from the trails and know what exactly is in them?
Lots of tests have been done on contrails, and we know what is in them (mostly water).
Nobody has ever shown that a “chemtrail” is anything different from a contrail.
For details of the composition of contrails, see:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
There are some reasons to worry….
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16528
That’s a photo of the SE US on a day where there were a lot of contrails. That photo gets shown a lot because there are so many contrails in it. But in reality it’s very rare to have the weather like that. Just have a look at current satellite photos of the same region:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2008191.terra.1km
Click on the “PREV” button at the top to go back a day. You’ll see that images like the one above are very rare.
I live in AZ and theres no way that the chemtrail or long last contrails are a result of a perfect condition of weather that allows the trails to last hours while expanding into huge clous that eventually cover the entire sky through a series of checker board patterns..
last summer they sprayed us almost every day .and I took video of them and dated them for documentation…
so when this summer was approaching .. I predicted the date 5-31 as the start up date for the summer spraying because that was the date of my first day of recorded spraying from last summer …
and what happened …like clock work they sprayed us really bad that day….
all day …
but that was it …they haven’t done one day of spraying since 5-31-08 thank goodness..
hopefully they ran out of funding but I bet they just moved to another state as colorado has been getting chemtrails like we got in Arizona last summer..
also google indirect aerosol campaign …tons of government website will come up admitting they are doing this as part of a plan to combat global warming…
Shawn, what do you mean “there’s no way” - what about all the similar days in the past, dating back to 1944?
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
And the contrails seem to behave exactly as you would expect. And have a look at this:
http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/Winds/Aloft.cgi?location=PRC&Submit=Get+Forecast&hour=06&course=azimuth
Right now it’s -40 at 34,000 feet above Arizona. All it take for some moist air to blow in at high altitude from the ocean, and you’ve got long-lasting contrails.
The fact that images exist of similar-looking trails taken in the forties does not disprove the theory that toxic chemicals are being carried in aircraft contrails.
Elsewhere on this site you posted a link to an article detailing tests carried out by the UK Ministry of Defence between 1940 and 1979 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html - for those who have not seen it.
If chemical spraying was carried out in the forties, what’s to say it’s not happening now?
Last winter, I observed an aircraft (or possibly several aircraft) over an hour or so criss-cross back and forth over an area near Reading in the UK leaving trails in regular parallel lines, between about 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning.
I will accept that many of the trails we see in our skies are simply condensation, however a deliberate back-and-forth over a specific area seems unusual - can you offer any explanation for why this might be?
Most people who believe in the “chemtrail” theory think that it started in the late 1990s, specifically because they don’t remember seeing persistent contrails before then. So that’s what a lot of the posts here focus on, showing that there WERE persistent contrails all the way back to the 1940s (and even before, back to 1921).
But if you are saying that “chemtrails” actually date back to the 1940s, then how on ear can you tell what is a contrail and what is a chemtrail?
As for your back-and-forth trails, you were just seeing planes flying in opposite directions. It was not the same plane coming back.
Note that nobody has EVER shown a video or a photo of a plane turning around and flying back. In every single case the planes fly off over the horizon. The most obvious explanation is that the planes are no actually trning around and flying in grid patterns, but are just normal planes on commercial routes between airports.
How do you explain away the fact that on the exact same, day at the same time, - (Burbank CA. airport right here) There will be a plane leaving a regular contrail (ice quickly dissipating from the jets trail) and at the same day, same time, another supposed passenger plane is leaving a long lasting chemtrail - that will linger for hours - same sky -same temperature, same ‘conditions’ -
how is that possible ?
the public can only trust an unbias study of this phenomenon
More than likely the truth is stranger than fiction - whose to say that studies with pollution busting technology isnt already being tested in our skies without public consent? Some private contracted company probably already got the government contract to start doing this
martianboy, there are two likely explanations:
1) The planes are at different altitudes. A plane at 30,000 might leave a trail, but one at 31,000 might not. It depends on the conditions at that altitude.
2) The planes are different type. Newer jets produce more water vapor than older jets, and so leave a longer lasting contrail.
Germany has admitted that their ‘contrails’ are chemical and linked to weather manipulation. China has guaranteed they will not have rain at the Olympics. It’s unlikely that the US would allow other nations to get ahead in such an implication laden ability.
Germany admitted no such thing, they “admitted” that their air-force sometimes uses anti-radar chaff, as have ALL air-forces since WWII. You were probably taken in by this hoax translation:
http://contrailscience.com/germans-admit-they-used-duppel/
The Chinese are simply going to use normal cloud seeding techniques to try to create rain before the Olympics. That technology has been around since BEFORE WWII,a nd there is nothing secret about it. Lots of American companies are using it, and trying to improve it.
None of this has anything to do with persistent contrails.