Tweaking the climate to save it: Who decides?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – Sun Apr 3, 8:21 am ET

CHICHELEY, England – To the quiet green solitude of an English country estate they retreated, to think the unthinkable.

Scientists of earth, sea and sky, scholars of law, politics and philosophy: In three intense days cloistered behind Chicheley Hall’s old brick walls, four dozen thinkers pondered the planet’s fate as it grows warmer, weighed the idea of reflecting the sun to cool the atmosphere and debated the question of who would make the decision to interfere with nature to try to save the planet.

The unknown risks of “geoengineering” — in this case, tweaking Earth’s climate by dimming the skies — left many uneasy.

“If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it’s very tempting to a scientist,” said Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo. “But I worry.”

Arrayed against that worry is the worry that global warming — in 20 years? 50 years? — may abruptly upend the world we know, by melting much of Greenland into the sea, by shifting India’s life-giving monsoon, by killing off marine life.

If climate engineering research isn’t done now, climatologists say, the world will face grim choices in an emergency. “If we don’t understand the implications and we reach a crisis point and deploy geoengineering with only a modicum of information, we really will be playing Russian roulette,” said Steven Hamburg, a U.S. Environmental Defense Fund scientist.

The question’s urgency has grown as nations have failed, in years of talks, to agree on a binding long-term deal to rein in their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N.-sponsored science network, foresees temperatures rising as much as 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, swelling the seas and disrupting the climate patterns that nurtured human civilization.

Science committees of the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress urged their governments last year to look at immediately undertaking climate engineering research — to have a “Plan B” ready, as the British panel put it, in case the diplomatic logjam persists.

Britain’s national science academy, the Royal Society, subsequently organized the Chicheley Hall conference with Hamburg’s EDF and the association of developing-world science academies. From six continents, they invited a blue-ribbon cross-section of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, environmentalists, international lawyers, psychologists, policy experts and others, to discuss how the world should oversee such unprecedented — and unsettling — research.

An Associated Press reporter was invited to sit in on their discussions, generally off the record, as they met in large and small groups in plush wood-paneled rooms, in conference halls, or outdoors among the manicured trees and formal gardens of this 300-year-old Royal Society property 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest of London, a secluded spot where Britain’s Special Operations Executive trained for secret missions in World War II.

Provoking and parrying each other over questions never before raised in human history, the conferees were sensitive to how the outside world might react.

“There’s the `slippery slope’ view that as soon as you start to do this research, you say it’s OK to think about things you shouldn’t be thinking about,” said Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University’s geoengineering program. Many geoengineering techniques they have thought about look either impractical or ineffective.

Painting rooftops white to reflect the sun’s heat is a feeble gesture. Blanketing deserts with a reflective material is logistically challenging and a likely environmental threat. Launching giant mirrors into space orbit is exorbitantly expensive.

On the other hand, fertilizing the ocean with iron to grow CO2-eating plankton has shown some workability, and Massachusetts’ prestigious Woods Hole research center is planning the biggest such experiment. Marine clouds are another route: Scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado are designing a test of brightening ocean clouds with sea-salt particles to reflect the sun.

Those techniques are necessarily limited in scale, however, and unable to alter planet-wide warming. Only one idea has emerged with that potential.

“By most accounts, the leading contender is stratospheric aerosol particles,” said climatologist John Shepherd of Britain’s Southampton University.

The particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices — much like the sulfur dioxide emitted by the eruption of the Philippines’ Mount Pinatubo in 1991, estimated to have cooled the world by 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) for a year or so.

Engineers from the University of Bristol, England, plan to test the feasibility of feeding sulfates into the atmosphere via a kilometers-long (miles-long) hose attached to a tethered balloon.

Shepherd and others stressed that any sun-blocking “SRM” technique — for solar radiation management — would have to be accompanied by sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions on the ground and some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process not yet perfected, to suck the gas out of the air and neutralize it.

Otherwise, they point out, the stratospheric sulfate layer would have to be built up indefinitely, to counter the growing greenhouse effect of accumulating carbon dioxide. And if that SRM operation shut down for any reason, temperatures on Earth would shoot upward.

The technique has other downsides: The sulfates would likely damage the ozone layer shielding Earth from damaging ultraviolet rays; they don’t stop atmospheric carbon dioxide from acidifying the oceans; and sudden cooling of the Earth would itself alter climate patterns in unknown ways.

“These scenarios create winners and losers,” said Shepherd, lead author of a pivotal 2009 Royal Society study of geoengineering. “Who is going to decide?”

Many here worried that someone, some group, some government would decide on its own to conduct large-scale atmospheric experiments, raising global concerns — and resentment if it’s the U.S. that acts, since it has done the least among industrial nations to cut greenhouse emissions. They fear some in America might push for going straight to “Plan B,” rather than doing the hard work of emissions reductions.

In addition, “one of the challenges is identifying intentions, one of which could be offensive military use,” said Indian development specialist Arunabha Ghosh.

Experts point out, for example, that cloud experimentation or localized solar “dimming” could — intentionally or unintentionally — cause droughts or floods in neighboring areas, arousing suspicions and international disputes.

“In some plausible but unfortunate future you could have shooting wars between your country and mine over proposals on what to do on climate change,’ said the University of Michigan’s Ted Parson, an environmental policy expert.

The conferees worried, too, that a “geoengineering industrial complex” might emerge, pushing to profit from deployment of its technology. And Australian economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton saw other go-it-alone threats — “cowboys” and “scientific heroes.”

“I’m queasy about some billionaire with a messiah complex having a major role in geoengineering research,” Hamilton said.

All discussions led to the central theme of how to oversee research.

Many environmentalists categorically oppose intentional fiddling with Earth’s atmosphere, or at least insist that such important decisions rest in the hands of the U.N., since every nation on Earth has a stake in the skies above.

But at the meeting in March, Chicheley Hall experts largely assumed that a coalition of scientifically capable nations, led by the U.S. and Britain, would arise to organize “sunshade” or other engineering research, perhaps inviting China, India, Brazil and others to join in a G20-style “club” of major powers.

Then, the conferees said, an independent panel of experts would have to be formed to review the risks of proposed experiments, and give go-aheads — for research, not deployment, which would be a step awaiting fateful debates down the road.

Like Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, John Shepherd is a fellow of the venerable Royal Society, but one facing a world those scientific pioneers could not have imagined.

“I am not enthusiastic about these ideas,” Shepherd told his Chicheley Hall colleagues. But like many here he felt the world has no choice but to investigate. “You would have a risk-risk calculation to make.”

Some are also making a political calculation.

If research shows the stratospheric pollutants would reverse global warming, unhappy people “would realize the alternative to reducing emissions is blocking out the sun,” Hamilton observed. “We might never see blue sky again.”

If, on the other hand, the results are negative, or the risks too high, and global warming’s impact becomes increasingly obvious, people will see “you have no Plan B,” said EDF’s Hamburg — no alternative to slashing use of fossil fuels.

Either way, popular support should grow for cutting emissions.

At least that’s the hope. But hope wasn’t the order of the day in Chicheley Hall as Shepherd wrapped up his briefing and a troubled Odingo silenced the room.

“We have a lot of thinking to do,” the Kenyan told the others. “I don’t know how many of us can sleep well tonight.”

Have scientists discovered how to create downpours in the desert?

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:22 AM on 3rd January 2011

Technology created 50 rainstorms in Abu Dhabi’s Al Ain region last year

For centuries people living in the Middle East have dreamed of turning the sandy desert into land fit for growing crops with fresh water on tap.

Now that holy grail is a step closer after scientists employed by the ruler of Abu Dhabi claim to have generated a series of downpours.

Fifty rainstorms were created last year in the state’s eastern Al Ain region using technology designed to control the weather.

Dry as dust: The sand dunes of the United Arab Emirates, which sees no rain at all for months. Now a secret project has brought storms to Abu Dhabi

Plan: Scientists are attempting to make clouds in the desert to give man control over the weather

Most of the storms were at the height of the summer in July and August when there is  no rain at all.

People living in Abu Dhabi were baffled by the rainfall which sometimes turned into hail and included gales and lightening.

HOW TECHNOLOGY IS KICKING UP A STORM

The Metro System scientists used ionisers to produce negatively charged particles called electrons.

They have a natural tendency to attach to tiny specks of dust which are ever-present in the atmosphere in the desert-regions.

These are then carried up from the emitters by convection – upward currents of air generated by the heat release from sunlight as it hits the ground.

Once the dust particles reach the right height for cloud formation, the charges will attract water molecules floating in the air which then start to condense around them.

If there is sufficient moisture in the air, it induces billions of droplets to form which finally means cloud and rain.

The scientists have been working secretly for United Arab Emirates president Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

They have been using giant ionisers, shaped like stripped down lampshades on steel poles, to generate fields of negatively charged particles.

These promote cloud formation and researchers hoped they could then produce rain.

In a confidential company video, the founder of the Swiss company in charge of the project, Metro Systems International, boasted of success.

Helmut Fluhrer said: ‘We have achieved a number of rainfalls.’

It is believed to be the first time the system has produced rain from clear skies, according to the Sunday Times.

In the past, China and other countries have used chemicals for cloud-seeding to both induce and prevent rain falling.

Last June Metro Systems built five ionising sites each with 20 emitters which can send trillions of cloud-forming ions into the atmosphere.

Over four summer months the emitters were switched on when the required atmospheric level of humidity reached 30 per cent or more.

While the country’s weather experts predicted no clouds or rain in the Al Ain region, rain fell on FIFTY-TWO occasions.

The project was monitored by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world’s major centres for atmospheric physics.

Professor Hartmut Grassl, a former institute director, said: There are many applications. One is getting water into a dry area.

‘Maybe this is a most important point for mankind.’

State visit: Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the President of the United Arab Emirates, accompanies the Queen at the Mushrif Palace in Abu Dhabi last year

Desert: Scientists created 50 rainstorms in Abu Dhabi’s Al Ain region last year

The savings using the Weathertec technology are huge with the system costing £6 million a year while desalination is £45 million.

Building an ionising system is about £7 million while a desalination plant would be £850 million and costs a lot more to run.

Some scientists are treating the results in Al Ain with caution because Abu Dhabi is a coastal state and can experience natural summer rainfall triggered by air picking up moisture from the warm ocean before dropping it on land.

But the number of times it rained in the region so soon after the ionisers were switched on has encouraged researchers.

Professor Peter Wilderer witnessed the experiments first hand and is backing the breakthrough.

The director of advanced studies on sustainability at the Technical University of Munich, said: ‘We came a big step closer to the point where we can increase the availability of fresh water to all in times of dramatic global changes.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-discovered-create-downpours-desert.html#ixzz1A5s7CrmU

Spraying the Skies: 1975 U.S. Patent for Powder Contrail Generation

December 5, 2010

Posted in this story is a very interesting PDF available for download here for a 1975 U.S. Patent issued to Donald K. Werle, Romas Kasparas, Sidney Katz, assigned through the U.S. Navy, that describes a dispersion method for a “powder contrail.”

As other researchers have also pointed out, the Powder Contrail Generation patent document could be a useful clue into the true agenda and purpose of the “chemtrail” phenomenon, which is clearly tied to almost a century of man-made weather manipulation. Already, it is admitted that the government has experimented with geo-engineering, which is says would help reflect heat and combat phony global warming / climate change.

It also references 5 other patents that deal with aviation fuel dispersants that go back to the 1920s. It further references the “chaff” application, as to create a radar jamming reflective screen, and other potential applications, including the use of numerous other powder formulas.

• March 1, 1927 Patent #1619183 by Bradner and Olgesby for the Process of Producing Smoke Clouds from Moving Aircraft
• June 30, 1936 Patent# 2045865 by Glen H. Morey and assigned by Phillips Petroleum for Skywriting Apparatus
• April 8, 1952 Patent# 2591988 by Oswin B. Willcox and assigned to “Pont DU” (a.k.a. DuPont?) for Process for producing improved tio2 titanium pigments
•See Also: April 8, 1969 Patent# 3437502 by Alfred J. Werner and assigned to “Pont DU” for TITANIUM DIOXIDE PIGMENT COATED WITH SILICA AND ALUMINA
• September 29, 1970 Patent# 3531310 by Neil C. Goodspeed, Russell R. May Jr. and Joseph Ross assigned to PPG Industries for PRODUCTION OF IMPROVED METAL OXIDE PIGMENT
• February 1924 Patent# R15771 by Savage
• March 1966 Patent# 1022621 in United Kingdom

——–

Download PDF

S3899144: Powder contrail generation

Inventors:
Werle; Donald K. , Hillside, IL
Kasparas; Romas , Riverside, IL
Katz; Sidney , Chicago, IL

Applicants:
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC

Appplication #:
US1974000490610

Date of Issue:
Aug. 12, 1975 / July 22, 1974

Abstract:
Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material.

What claim is:

1. Contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight material, comprising: a. an aerodynamic housing;

b. a jet tube means passing through said housing, said tube means having an inlet at a forward end of said housing and an exhaust at a rearward end thereof;

c. a powder storage means in said housing;

d. a deagglomeration means also in said housing; e. means connecting said powder storage means with said deagglomeration means for feeding radiation scattering powder from said powder storage means to said deagglomeration means;

f. the output of said deagglomeration means dispensing directly into said jet tube means for exhausting deagglomerated powder particles into the atmosphere to form a contrail; and h. means for controlling the flow of said powder from said storage means to said deagglomeration means.

2. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said jet tube means is a ram air jet tube.

3. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein an upstream deflector baffle is provided at the output of said deagglomeration means into said jet tube means to produce a venturi effect for minimizing back pressure on said powder feeding means.

4. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said deagglomerator means comprises: a. means for subjecting powder particles from said powder storage means to a hammering action to aerate and precondition the powder; and b. a jet mill means to further deagglomerate the powder into separate particles.

5. Apparatus as in claim 4 wherein pressurized gas means is provided for operating said deagglomeration means.

6. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder particles are titanium dioxide pigment having a median particle size of about 0.3 microns.

7. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder particles have a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silica thereon to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.

8. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein the formulation of said powder consists of 85% by weight of TiO2 pigment of approximately 0.3 micron media particle size, 10% by weight of colloidal silica of 0.007 micron primary particle size, and 5% by weight of silica gel having an average particle size of 4.5 microns.

9. The method of producing a light radiation scattering contrail, comprising:

a. surface treating light scattering powder particles to minimize interparticle cohesive forces;

b. deagglomerating said powder particles in two stages prior to dispensing into a jet tube by subjecting said powder particles to a hammering action in the first stage to aerate and precondition the powder, and by passing said powder through a jet mill in the second stage to further deagglomerate the powder;

c. dispensing the deagglomerated powder from the jet mill directly into a jet tube for exhausting said powder into the atmosphere, thus forming a contrail.

10. A method as in claim 9 wherein said light scattering powder particles is titanium dioxide pigment.

11. A method as in claim 9 wherein said powder particles are treated with a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silica to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.

12. A method as in claim 11 wherein said treated powder particles are further protected with a silica gel powder.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The powder contail generator in pod 10, shown in FIG. 1, is provided with a powder feed hopper 12 positioned in the center section of the pod and which feeds a powder 13 to a deagglomerator 14 by means of screw conveyors 16 across the bottom of the hopper. The deagglomerator 14 produces two stages of action. In the first stage of deagglomeration, a shaft 18 having projecting radial rods 19 in compartment 20 is rotated by an air motor 21, or other suitable drive means. The shaft 18 is rotated at about 10,000 rpm, for example. As powder 13 descends through the first stage compartment 20 of the deagglomeration chamber, the hammering action of rotating rods 19 serves to aerate and precondition the powder before the second stage of deagglomeration takes place in the jet mill section 22. In the jet mill 22, a plurality of radial jets 24 (e.g., six 0.050 inch diamter radial jets) direct nitrogen gas (at e.g., 120 psig) inward to provide energy for further deagglomeration of the powder. The N2, or other suitable gas, is provided from storage tanks 25 and 26, for example, in the pod.

The jet mill 22 operates in a similar manner to commercial fluid energy mills except that there is no provision for recirculation of oversize particles. Tests with the deagglomerator show that at a feed rate of approximately 11/2 lb/min, treated titanium dioxide powder pigment is effectively dispersed as single particles with very few agglomerates evident.

The nitrogen gas stored in cylinder tanks 25 and 26 is charged to 1800 psig, for example. Two stages of pressure reduction, for example, by pressure reduction valves 28 and 29, bring the final delivery pressure at the radial jets 24 and to the air motor 21 to approximately 120 psig. A solenoid valve 30 on the 120 psig line is connected in parallel with the electric motor 32 which operates the powder feeder screws 16 for simultaneous starting and running of the powder feed, the air motor and the jet mill deagglomerator.

Air enters ram air tube 34 at its entrance 35 and the exhaust from the jet mill deagglomerator passes directly into the ram air tube. At the deagglomerator exhaust 36 into ram air tube 34, an upstream deflector baffle 38 produces a venturi effect which minimizes back pressure on the powder feed system. The powder is then jetted from the exhaust end 40 of the ram air tube to produce a contrail. A pressure equalization tube, not shown, can be used to connect the top of the closed hopper 12 to the deagglomeration chamber 14. A butterfly valve could be provided at the powder hopper outlet 39 to completely isolate and seal off the powder supply when not in use. Powder 13 could then be stored in hopper 12 for several weeks, without danger of picking up excessive moisture, and still be adequately dispensed.

Preparation of the light scatter powder 13 is of a critical importance to production of a powder “contrail” having maximum visibility for a given weight of material. It is essential that the pigment powder particles be dispensed as separate single particles rather than as agglomerates of two or more particles. The powder treatment produces the most easily dispersed powder through the use of surface treatments which minimize interparticle cohesive forces.

Titanium dioxide pigment was selected as the primary light scattering material because of its highly efficient light scattering ability and commercially available pigment grades. Titanium dioxide pigment (e.g., DuPont R–931) with a median particle size of about 0.3u has a high bulk density and is not readily aerosolizable as a submicron cloud without the consumption of a large amount of deagglomeration energy. In order to reduce the energy requirement for deagglomeration, the TiO2 powder is specially treated with a hydrophobic colloidal silica which coats and separates the individual TiO2 pigment particles. The extremely fine particulate nature (0.007u primary particle size) of Cobot S–101 Silanox grade, for example, of colloidal silica minimizes the amount needed to coat and separate the TiO2 particles, and the hydrophobic surface minimizes the affinity of the powder for absorbtion of moisture from the atmosphere. Adsorbed moisture in powders causes liquid bridges at interparticle contacts and it then becomes necessary to overcome the adsorbed-liquid surface tension forces as well as the weaker Van der Waals’ forces before the particles can be separated.

The Silanox treated titanium dioxide pigment is further protected from the deleterious effects of adsorbed moisture by incorporation of silica gel. The silica gel preferentially adsorbs water vapor that the powder may be exposed to after drying and before use. The silica gel used is a powder product, such as Syloid 65 from the W. R Grace and Co., Davison Chemical Division, and has an average particle size about 4.5u and a large capacity for moisture at low humidities.

A typical powder composition used is shown in Table 1. This formulation was blended intimately with a Patterson-Kelley Co. twin shell dry LB-model LB–2161 with intensifier. Batches of 1500 g were blended for 15 min. each and packaged in 5-lb cans. The bulk density of the blended powder is 0.22 g/cc. Since deagglomeration is facilitated by having the powder bone dry, the powder should be predried before sealing the cans. In view of long periods (e.g., about 4 months) between powder preparation and use it is found preferable to spread the powder in a thin layer in an open container and place in a 400*F over two days before planned usage. The powder is removed and placed in the hopper about 2 hours before use.

Table 1 ______________________________________ CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION Ingredient % by Weight ______________________________________ TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931) 85 median particle size 0.3u Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox) 10 primary particle size 0.007u Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65) 5 average particle size 4.5u ______________________________________ Other type powder compositions can also be used with the apparatus described herein. For example, various powder particles which reflect electromagnetic radiation can be dispensed as a chaff or the like from the contrail generator.

Obviously many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described.

BACKGROUND

The present invention relates to method and apparatus for contrail generation and the like.

An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly.

SUMMARY

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a “contrail” with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term “contrail” was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.

The powder contail generator is normally carried on an aircraft in a pod containing a ram air tube and powder feed hopper. Powder particles, surface treated to minimize interparticle cohesive forces are fed from the hopper to a deagglomerator and then to the ram air tube for dispensing as separate single particles to produce a contrail having maximum visibility for a given weight material.

Other object, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawing.

———————–
Chemtrails: The List of Patents For Stratospheric Aerial Spraying Programs

Here is a long list of other patents related to atmospheric or weather manipulation posted by Neil Foster of the Sovereign Independent:

United States Patent and Trademark Office
1338343 – April 27, 1920 – Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
1619183 – March 1, 1927 – Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
1631753 – June 7, 1927 – Electric Heater – Referenced in 3990987
1665267 – April 10, 1928 – Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
1892132 – December 27, 1932 – Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
1928963 – October 3, 1933 – Electrical System And Method
1957075 – May 1, 1934 – Airplane Spray Equipment
2097581 – November 2, 1937 – Electric Stream Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2409201 – October 15, 1946 – Smoke Producing Mixture
2476171 – July 18, 1945 – Smoke Screen Generator
2480967 – September 6, 1949 – Aerial Discharge Device
2550324 – April 24, 1951 – Process For Controlling Weather
2510867 – October 9, 1951 – Method of Crystal Formation and Precipitation
2582678 – June 15, 1952 – Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2591988 – April 8, 1952 – Production of TiO2 Pigments – Referenced in 3899144
2614083 – October 14, 1952 – Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
2633455 – March 31, 1953 – Smoke Generator
2688069 – August 31, 1954 – Steam Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2721495 – October 25, 1955 – Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 – January 10, 1956 – Controllable Dispersal Device
2801322 – July 30, 1957 – Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel – Referenced in 3990987
2881335 – April 7, 1959 – Generation of Electrical Fields
2908442 – October 13, 1959 – Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
2986360 – May 30, 1962 – Aerial Insecticide Dusting Device
2963975 – December 13, 1960 – Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
3126155 – March 24, 1964 – Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator – Referenced in 3990987
3127107 – March 31, 1964 – Generation of Ice-Nucleating Crystals
3131131 – April 28, 1964 – Electrostatic Mixing in Microbial Conversions
3174150 – March 16, 1965 – Self-Focusing Antenna System
3234357 – February 8, 1966 – Electrically Heated Smoke Producing Device
3274035 – September 20, 1966 – Metallic Composition For Production of Hydroscopic Smoke
3300721 – January 24, 1967 – Means For Communication Through a Layer of Ionized Gases
3313487 – April 11, 1967 – Cloud Seeding Apparatus
3338476 – August 29, 1967 – Heating Device For Use With Aerosol Containers – Referenced in 3990987
3410489 – November 12, 1968 – Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump
3429507 – February 25, 1969 – Rainmaker
3432208 – November 7, 1967 – Fluidized Particle Dispenser
3441214 – April 29, 1969 – Method And Apparatus For Seeding Clouds
3445844 – May 20, 1969 – Trapped Electromagnetic Radiation Communications System
3456880 – July 22, 1969 – Method Of Producing Precipitation From The Atmosphere
3518670 June 30, 1970 – Artificial Ion Cloud
3534906 – October 20, 1970 – Control of Atmospheric Particles
3545677 – December 8, 1970 – Method of Cloud Seeding
3564253 – February 16, 1971 – System And Method For Irradiation Of Planet Surface Areas
3587966 – June 28, 1971 – Freezing Nucleation
3601312 – August 24, 1971 – Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipatation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
3608810 – September 28, 1971 – Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions
3608820 – September 20, 1971 – Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein
3613992 – October 19, 1971 – Weather Modification Method
3630950 – December 28, 1971 – Combustible Compositions For Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable For Cloud Modification And Weather Control And Aerosolization Process
USRE29142 – This patent is a reissue of patent US3630950 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
3659785 – December 8, 1971 – Weather Modification Utilizing Microencapsulated Material
3666176 – March 3, 1972 – Solar Temperature Inversion Device
3677840 – July 18, 1972 – Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of Silver For Weather Modification Use
3722183 – March 27, 1973 – Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere
3769107 – October 30, 1973 – Pyrotechnic Composition For Generating Lead Based Smoke
3784099 – January 8, 1974 – Air Pollution Control Method
3785557 – January 15, 1974 – Cloud Seeding System
3795626 – March 5, 1974 – Weather Modification Process
3808595 – April 30, 1974 – Chaff Dispensing System
3813875 – June 4, 1974 – Rocket Having Barium Release System to Create Ion Clouds In The Upper Atmopsphere
3835059 – September 10, 1974 – Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles For Weather Modification And Apparatus Therefore
3835293 – September 10, 1974 – Electrical Heating Aparatus For Generating Super Heated Vapors – Referenced in 3990987
3877642 – April 15, 1975 – Freezing Nucleant
3882393 – May 6, 1975 – Communications System Utilizing Modulation of The Characteristic Polarization of The Ionosphere
3896993 – July 29, 1975 – Process For Local Modification of Fog And Clouds For Triggering Their Precipitation And For Hindering The Development of Hail Producing Clouds
3899129 – August 12, 1975 – Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification
3899144 – August 12, 1975 – Powder contrail generation
3940059 – February 24, 1976 – Method For Fog Dispersion
3940060 – February 24, 1976 – Vortex Ring Generator
3990987 – November 9, 1976 – Smoke generator
3992628 – November 16, 1976 – Countermeasure system for laser radiation
3994437 – November 30, 1976 – Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
4042196 – August 16, 1977 – Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes
RE29,142 – February 22, 1977 – Reissue of: 03630950 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
4035726 – July 12, 1977 – Method of controlling and/or improving high-latitude and other communications or radio wave surveillance systems by partial control of radio wave et al
4096005 – June 20, 1978 – Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition
4129252 – December 12, 1978 – Method and apparatus for production of seeding materials
4141274 – February 27, 1979 – Weather modification automatic cartridge dispenser
4167008 – September 4, 1979 – Fluid bed chaff dispenser
4347284 – August 31, 1982 – White cover sheet material capable of reflecting ultraviolet rays
4362271 – December 7, 1982 – Procedure for the artificial modification of atmospheric precipitation as well as compounds with a dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure
4402480 – September 6, 1983 – Atmosphere modification satellite
4412654 – November 1, 1983 – Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
4415265 – November 15, 1983 – Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
4470544 – September 11, 1984 – Method of and Means for weather modification
4475927 – October 9, 1984 – Bipolar Fog Abatement System
4600147 – July 15, 1986 – Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
4633714 – January 6, 1987 – Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
4643355 – February 17, 1987 – Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions
4653690 – March 31, 1987 – Method of producing cumulus clouds
4684063 – August 4, 1987 – Particulates generation and removal
4686605 – August 11, 1987 – Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 – November 10, 1987 – Charged Aerosol
4712155 – December 8, 1987 – Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 – May 17, 1988 – Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 – August 30, 1988 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 – May 16, 1989 – Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4836086 – June 6, 1989 – Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
4948257 – August 14, 1990 – Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
48050 – August 14, 1990 – Liquid atomizing a94pparatus for aerial spraying
4999637 – March 12, 1991 – Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
5003186 – March 26, 1991 – Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
5005355 – April 9, 1991 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5038664 – August 13, 1991 – Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitude above the earths surface
5041760 – August 20, 1991 – Method and apparatus for generating and utilizing a compound plasma configuration
5041834 – August 20, 1991 – Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted
5056357 – October 15, 1991- Acoustic method for measuring properties of a mobile medium
5059909 – October 22, 1991 – Determination of particle size and electrical charge
5104069 – April 14, 1992 – Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft
5110502 – May 5, 1992 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5156802 – October 20, 1992 – Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics
5174498 – December 29, 1992 – Cloud Seeding
5148173 – September 15, 1992 – Millimeter wave screening cloud and method
5245290 – September 14, 1993 – Device for determining the size and charge of colloidal particles by measuring electroacoustic effect
5286979 – February 15, 1994 – Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
5296910 – March 22, 1994 – Method and apparatus for particle analysis
5327222 – July 5, 1994 – Displacement information detecting apparatus
5357865 – October 25, 1994 – Method of cloud seeding
5360162 – November 1, 1994 – Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water
5383024 – January 17, 1995 – Optical wet steam monitor
5425413 – June 20, 1995 – Method to hinder the formation and to break-up overhead atmospheric inversions, enhance ground level air circulation and improve urban air quality
5434667 – July 18, 1995 – Characterization of particles by modulated dynamic light scattering
5441200 – August 15, 1995 – Tropical cyclone disruption
5486900 – January 23, 1996 – Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device
5556029 – September 17, 1996 – Method of hydrometeor dissipation (clouds)
5628455 – May 13, 1997 – Method and apparatus for modification of supercooled fog
5631414 – May 20, 1997 – Method and device for remote diagnostics of ocean-atmosphere system state
5639441 – June 17, 1997 – Methods for fine particle formation
5762298 – June 9, 1998 – Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth’s weather
5912396 – June 15, 1999 – System and method for remediation of selected atmospheric conditions
5922976 – July 13, 1999 – Method of measuring aerosol particles using automated mobility-classified aerosol detector
5949001 – September 7, 1999 – Method for aerodynamic particle size analysis
5984239 – November 16, 1999 – Weather modification by artificial satellite
6025402 – February 15, 2000 – Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
6030506 – February 29, 2000 – Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
6034073 – March 7, 2000 – Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
6045089 – April 4, 2000 – Solar-powered airplane
6056203 – May 2, 2000 – Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
6110590 – August 29, 2000 – Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
6263744 – July 24, 2001 – Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
6281972 – August 28, 2001 – Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
6315213 – November 13, 2001 – Method of modifying weather
6382526 – May 7, 2002 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6408704 – June 25, 2002 – Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
6412416 – July 2, 2002 – Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
6520425 – February 18, 2003 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6539812 – April 1, 2003 – System for measuring the flow-rate of a gas by means of ultrasound
6553849 – April 29, 2003 – Electrodynamic particle size analyzer
6569393 – May 27, 2003 – Method and device for cleaning the atmosphere

Playing God with Planet Earth

Thursday November 25, 2010 at 9 pm on CBC-TV

Repeating: Friday November 26, 2010 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC News Network

Related Video

 

Playing God with Planet Earth

Watch the film online.

45:08 minutes

 

Playing God with Planet Earth

Watch the trailer online.

3:27 minutes

Imagine a time in the not too distant future when scientists try to mimic the effects of a volcanic explosion in a desperate bid to reverse global warming. Consider a climate emergency so severe that engineers create a sulphuric sunscreen, hoping to stop the melting of polar ice, turn back the rising sea and prevent the horrific storms that would send environmental refugees running for their lives.

Playing God With Planet Earth explores the last ditch efforts of scientists and engineers trying to avert a planetary meltdown.

Rising sea levels in Saint Louis lead to the geo-engineering experiment with fatal consequences. Photo credit: John CollinsAs the threat of climate change grows more urgent, scientists are considering radical and controversial schemes to rehabilitate the climate. Since none of these wild—and possibly dangerous—ideas have ever been tried before, the filmmakers used a distinctive “painted animation” technique (like a “graphic novel”) to explore these futuristic scenarios.

“Human ingenuity could temporarily roll back the effects of global warming. At the same time, it could cause catastrophic damage and spark deadly political conflict,” says director Jerry Thompson.  “We’ve interviewed some of the world’s leading scientists, engineers, environmentalists, lawyers, and disaster-relief workers about the possible consequences of intentionally manipulating the climate—versus the risk of doing nothing.”

Salting the ocean with iron dust to trigger plankton blooms, shooting salt crystals into clouds to make them brighter, genetically-engineering “robo trees” to hoover carbon from the air — these are just a few of the big ideas under consideration.

Scientists hope to mimic the effects of a volcano by spraying sulphuric acid to reverse global warming. Photo credit: John CollinsBut the one form of “solar radiation management” likely to work fastest in a climate emergency would be to mimic the effects of a huge volcano by spraying clouds of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere. Jet drones or high-altitude balloons could do the job. Quick and cheap compared to breaking our addiction to carbon and retooling the industrial revolution.

Cheap and easy enough that any country feeling threatened by horrific storms or a rapidly rising sea level could decide to go it alone and launch one of these climate rehabilitation campaigns unilaterally. The problem? They might save themselves but cause unintended consequences for others by reducing rainfall, causing drought and mass starvation. Climate change and geoengineering could even lead to war.

Director Jerry Thompson with editor, Carmen Pollard. Photo credit: Rosamond NorburyTinkering with the atmosphere: will it save the day—or trigger disaster on a planetary scale?

Playing God With Planet Earth was developed and produced by Lightship Entertainment Inc. in association with CBC Television, with the participation of The Canada Media Fund, The Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit and The Province of British Columbia Film Incentive BC. The documentary was directed and produced by Jerry and Bette Thompson, and executive produced by Terence McKeown

Gulf oil spill: Did Coast Guard allow excessive toxic dispersants?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/07/gulf-oil-spill-chemical-dispersants-coast-guard.html#more

July 31, 2010 |  8:40 pm

Documents released by a congressional committee Saturday show that the U.S. Coast Guard appeared to flout a May 25 Obama administration directive that sought to limit the use of chemical dispersants on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to “rare cases.”

“BP carpet-bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House energy and environment subcommittee. “After we discovered how toxic these chemicals really are, they had no business being spread across the gulf in this manner.”

Dispersants were authorized by federal officials despite their toxicity because the ecological damage from oil was deemed to be worse.  But scientists say that the chemicals, which break up the oil into tiny droplets, have contributed to large plumes of hydrocarbons below the ocean’s surface. And it is unclear whether the danger to marine organisms may be higher from toxic dispersants or from oil.

Markey, who has been investigating massive use of toxic chemicals to disperse oil from the BP spill for several months, released the Coast Guard documents along with a stern nine-page letter to retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen, the national incident commander. The letter described, based on the documents, a chaotic and indiscriminate decision-making process in allowing BP daily exemptions from the May 25 directive.

The documents show that from May 26 to mid-July, when the runaway oil well was plugged, more than 74 exemption requests from BP to spray surface dispersants were granted by the Coast Guard, usually within the same day.  On five occasions BP requested advance approval to apply 6,000 gallons of dispersant each day to the ocean surface for an entire week, amounting to 35 days of pre-approved continuous use. Every request was approved.

The Environmental Protection Agency, although a party to the original directive, was virtually excluded from the daily decisions on chemical dispersants until June 22, almost a month after the directive, according to the documents. In early June, an EPA official complained that “the approval process appears to be somewhat pro forma, and not as rigorous as EPA desires,” according to one memorandum.

The documents also reveal contradictions in accounts of how much chemical dispersant was being used. According to DeepwaterHorizonResponse.com, the government’s official website, 1.8 million gallons of dispersants have been sprayed on the surface of the gulf and beneath the water since the April 20 rig explosion. ”The validity of those numbers are now in question,” Markey said, citing “huge discrepancies” that raise questions as to whether the Coast Guard “exercised appropriate oversight.”

The EPA calculates that the total use of dispersants underwater and on the surface declined about 72% from its peak after the May 26 order. But it is unclear whether most of the reduction came from underwater dispersants, as opposed to the surface dispersants permitted by the exemptions.

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said in an e-mail, “The use of dispersant is always a difficult decision, with environmental trade-offs that must be taken seriously into consideration. As a result, its use in response to the BP spill was subject to numerous strict conditions once it quickly became apparent that BP wanted to use it in unprecedented quantities and in novel ways.

“Specifically, EPA approved subsea dispersant use only after requiring multiple tests to confirm its use would be effective 5,000 feet below the surface and only after BP was directed to put in place a comprehensive monitoring program that ensured close observation of the ecological impact.



“Soon after, following two days of skyrocketing dispersant usage by BP, which peaked at 70,000 gallons on May 24, mainly on the surface of the water, Administrator Lisa Jackson worked with then-Federal On-Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral Mary Landry to put in place a directive making dispersant use a last resort and capping its use both on the surface and sub sea.

“Administrator Jackson and Rear Admiral Landry also ordered BP to implement a 75 percent overall reduction of dispersant use from that peak usage.”

The Coast Guard was authorized to grant waivers to increase dispersants, and “initally EPA was not involved in day-to-day decisions about granting such waivers, and EPA staff were notified after waivers were granted,” he acknowledged.

“

While EPA may not have concurred with every individual waiver granted by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, the Agency believes dispersant use has been an essential tool in mitigating this spill’s impact, preventing millions of gallons of oil from doing even more damage to sensitive marshes, wetlands and beaches and the economy of the Gulf coast,” Gilfillan wrote.

Responding to the Markey investigation, BP spokesman Steve Rinehart wrote in an e-mail, “We were in regular communication with EPA on the topic of dispersant use and we followed the direction of the Unified Command,” the federal agency in charge of spill response. He added that “dispersant use was pre-approved as a response tool, and approved during the response, because it is effective and, on balance, less harmful” than undispersed oil.

Coast Guard spokesman Mike Lutz said Saturday that he was unaware of the Markey documents, but would request official response.

–Margot Roosevelt

7 Secret Ways We Are Being Poisoned

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/07/7-secret-ways-we-are-being-poisoned.html

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The objectivism of the scientific method seems to have been hijacked by corporations who often pay for scientists to support their products, as well as politicians who move through the revolving door between the private and public sector.  Even worse is that sometimes the consumer protection agencies themselves are complicit.

Monsanto started as a chemical company that brought the world poisons like Agent Orange and Roundup.

The trust placed by consumers in scientific studies and Federal oversight committees has been violated in service to profit so that products are allowed to enter the marketplace with reduced safety standards.   The synthetic chemicals we encounter on a daily basis in our food, water, and environment are increasingly shown to be disastrous to our physical and mental well-being.  Volumes can be written — indeed have been written — by experts in both mainstream and alternative medicine who have documented the sleight of hand used to hoodwink consumers and threaten our health.  The categories below are worth deeper investigation as prime examples of what we might face as a species if this chemical bombardment continues.

GMO foods – Monsanto started as a chemical company that brought the world poisons like Agent Orange and Roundup.  Now they are more well known for their domination of Genetically Modified agriculture, owning nearly 90% of staple GMO crops such as corn, soy, and cotton. In independent studies GMO “frankenfood” has been linked to organ failure, and a recent Russian study has concluded near-total sterility in GMO-soy-fed hamsters by the third generation.  Despite these and many other legitimate health concerns, it is unlikely that the Monsanto-controlled FDA will curb the growth of GMO foods, while the USDA’s biotechnology risk assessment research arm has a paltry $3 million at its disposal.  Of course the industry-funded studies show that the effects GMO on human health are “negligible.”

Food additives – When most of us think of harmful food additives we think of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) which is still in many processed foods, but unfortunately MSG appears to be the least of the poisons now found in our food.  In 2008 Melamine was found in infant formula and some food products from China; the FDA went on record to say it was OK, despite sickening tens of thousands.  Dangerous food additives appear in nearly all processed foods with even the most common food dyes Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 being linked to cancer.  Most recently 92,000 pounds of frozen chicken was recalled because it contained “blue plastic pieces,” while McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets have been found to have “silly putty” chemicals in them.  In fact, some researchers estimate that today’s chicken is so full of chemicals that it only contains 51% actual meat.
 

Fluoride — Not all fluoride is bad; only the type promoted by dentistry and added to our water and food supply.  Calcium fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral, while its synthetic counterpart, sodium fluoride (silicofluoride), is an industrial-grade hazardous waste material made during the production of fertilizer.  It’s past history includes patented use as rat poison and insecticide.   There are many blind- and double-blind studies that show sodium fluoride has a cumulative effect on the human body leading to allergies, gastrointestinal disorders, bone weakening, cancer, and neurological problems.  In this case, the EPA’s Union of scientists issued a white paper condemning fluoridation of drinking water.  However, as a hazardous waste, it is extremely expensive to dispose of as such.  And here might be a clue as to why this chemical, more toxic than lead and almost on par with arsenic, has been disposed of for our consumption.

Mercury — A dangerous heavy metal in its natural quicksilver form, but more so as the neurotoxin, methylmercury, released into the environment by human activity.  In both organic and inorganic form, mercury wreaks havoc with the nervous system — especially the developing nervous system of a fetus.  It penetrates all living cells of the human body, and has been documented most as increasing the risk for autism.  This calls into question mercury’s use in dental fillings, vaccines, and just about anything containing high fructose corn syrup — a near staple in the American diet . . . including baby food.  But the Corn Refiners Association naturally supports this chemical that is “dangerous at any level.”

Aspartame – The king of artificial sweeteners was allowed to the market in 1981 when the U.S. Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Arthur Hull Hayes, overruled FDA panel suggestions, as well as consumer concerns.  Aspartame is a neurotoxin that interacts with natural organisms, as well as synthetic medications, producing a wide range of proven disorders and syndromes.  So who installed this commissioner that would rule against scientists and the public?  Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G.D. Searle; the maker of Aspartame.  Rumsfeld was on Reagan’s transition team, and the day after Reagan took office he appointed the new FDA Commissioner in order to “call in his markers” with one of the most egregious cases of profit-over-safety ever recorded.  Aspartame is now nearly ubiquitous, moving beyond sugarless products and into general foods, beverages, pharmaceuticals, and even products for children.  It recently has been renamed to the more pleasant sounding AminoSweet.

Personal care and cleaning products — Everyday household items and cosmetic products are applied directly to the skin, absorbed through the scalp, and inhaled.  The Story of Cosmetics uses an animated video to tell a haunting tale of industrial violations and complicit “public safety” groups . . . and still only tells half of that story.   The list of common products and their chemical components is encyclopedic.  The sum total of the overwhelming presence of these chemicals has been linked to nearly every allergy, chronic affliction, and disease known to man.  Most recently, household cleaning products have been linked to breast cancer and ADHD in children.

Airborne pollutants – In a NASA article titled “Airborne Pollutants Know No Borders” they stated that, “Any substance introduced into the atmosphere has the potential to circle the Earth.” The jet stream indeed connects all of us. There is one category of airborne pollution that has been conspiracy theory despite a voluminous number of unclassified documents from 1977 Senate hearings:  chemical spraying (chemtrails) by both private and commercial aircraft.  Recent admissions by public officials strengthen the case.  Fallout from these chemical trails has been tested and shows very high levels of barium and aluminum.  Interesting to note that Monsanto announced that they recently developed an aluminum-resistant gene to be introduced.  Chemtrails might seem like abject paranoia, but there is a current example of chemical spraying that is undeniable: the spraying of Corexit oil dispersant over the Gulf.  This process of aerial application can be likened to crop-dusting, which we know has been going on for nearly 100 years.  Wars abroad even seem to be affecting global air quality, as military munitions such as depleted uranium have entered the upper atmosphere, spreading around the planet.  The observable effects of depleted uranium are not pleasant.  Airborne pollutants have been linked to allergies, genetic mutations, and infertility.
This is all leading to scientific, governmental, and medical management of the health and rights of the individual. It is ironic (or coincidental) that when one becomes sick due to the unnatural products listed above, the mainstream medical establishment aims to treat the afflictions with more unnatural chemicals.  Furthermore, some of the people at high levels of American government and academia such as John P. Holdren, the current White House Science Czar, have advocated population control via “pollution particles” as far back as 1977 in books such as Ecoscience.  Holdren’s views of humanity could make one question the intentionality of the poisons in our environment.