|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
More Fun With Math
 Tue Jun 12, 2001 10:43 pm
|
 |
|
For a new, improved version of "More Fun With Math," scroll down to the post below Duncan Kunz's. But please note that this version is the one Duncan was responding to.
I'm posting this mainly for the benefit of the debunker board, but the reasoning is of interest for the folks here, too. (Feel free to check my arithmetic. I never was a math whiz.)
In January, 2001, BEE did some calculations to figure what the atmospheric particle density would be if 250,000 pounds of a substance were sprayed over 30 minutes at 2000 meters from a stationary KC-10 tanker. She concluded that this would give a maximum concentration of 0.76 micrograms/cubic meter at 3.5 billion meters [sic, i.e. 2 million miles] downwind. She said, "To put these concentrations into perspective, the lowest allowable exposure level for workers I could find was for strontium chromate at 0.5 micrograms/cubic meter." BEE cited factors which would cause the true concentration of sprayed material to be even lower than her calculations and concluded, "There is simply no way physically for anything sprayed at the height at which contrails (or supposed chemtrails) are observed to reach any kind of concentration on the ground which would have any affect on people whatsoever." http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000033.html
Just for fun, I asked the question, "What if the substance being sprayed is pollen, or a similar allergen?"
I found an article stating that the tree Alnos japonica, or Japanese alder, has pollen grains which have an average radius of 12 micrometers and which have a density of 1350 kilograms per cubic meter. (That's per cubic meter of pollen, not per cubic meter of air.)
Here is a text version of the study: http://www.google.com/search?q=cac he:UHwSwtthEV8:www.imamod.ru/jour/conf/ECCOMAS_2000/PDF/758.pdf+pollen+weight+-loss+-control+density&hl=en
Let's assume that the pollen grains are spherical. The volume of one grain would be 4/3 pi r-cubed, or (4/3)x(3.14)x(12 microns to the third power). That comes out to a volume of 7.23 times 10 to the -15 cubic meters per pollen grain.
The weight of one pollen grain would be the volume of the grain times the density of the grain, or 9.77 times 10 to the -9 grams.
Another reference I found says that a moderate level of an allergen will cause many individuals who are sensitive to it to experience symptoms. A moderate level of tree pollen is 15-90 grains per cubic meter of air. Let's call it 50 grains per cubic meter of air. Reference: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/weather/pollencount/
To find the weight of a moderate level of Japanese alder pollen, multiply the weight of one grain times 50. That works out to 0.145 micrograms of pollen per cubic meter of air.
Conclusion: If chemschmutz is sprayed every day, and if people are even slightly allergic to it, it seems possible that it might make some of them sick.
[Edited 5 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 06-12-2001] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Tue Jun 12, 2001 11:12 pm
|
|
|
Good work, 3T3L1.
I wonder how many of the debunkers, who completely dismiss any possibility of any effects from chemicals sprayed from flight altitudes, would feel fine about poison being sprayed over and around their city.
I can just hear 'em now: "Oh yes, feel free to spray the radioactive cyanide over my city, for hours, every week, every month. See, I don't really mind cause it can't have any effect at ground level. " 
|
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:33 am
|
|
|
Dear Dr. 3T3L1 and Mr. Thermit:
Thanks for an excellent piece of research. and the associated cogent comments. Here are my comments.
3T3L1, your volume calculation is the only questionable bit work I can find, and it's not really math question so much as a topological one. If the pollen grains are spherical, there would be 'wasted' space between them, just as there would be among a bucket of marbles. Unless you would compress the grains and deform them, a better estimation of their mass-shape would be a cube. Given this, the equation would be that the volume of the grain (and its surrounding air) would be 24*24*24 or 13,824 cubic micrometers. An even better approximation would be to think of the "mass-shape" as a dodecahedron (since it is a three-dimensional matrix), which would be somewhere between my calculation and yours of 7,234 cubic micrometers. But even this is questionable, because of the vagaries of both static attraction/repulsion of the grains and even Brownian movement! Aaugh! Maybe I'd better let this one go LOL!
But there are some other questionable assumptions at work her, the first of which is Bee's. Her assumption of a stationary KC-10 limits the dispersion regime of any sprayed particulates, since it's "wafting down in a gentle breeze", so to speak. But of course, the KC-10 is not stationary; it's plugging along at about 500 mi/hr airspeed. This means that the little thingies would, in effect be blown around by a 500-mi/hr wind as soon as they left the aircraft. Fluid dynamics was my bete noir in college, but common sense tells us that anything subjected to an acceleration of 500 mi/hr/second would blow all over the place.
The second concern I have is not with your data (Which I accept even though I haven't checked it; you know I consider you and Thermit to be honest colleagues). Instead, it is with your conclusion. Consider my recap of your argument (and if I have put the wrong words in your mouth, my apologies; please bring it to my attention):
#1. SINCE math shows that, given the overall volume of air in the "plume" area, a cubic meter of pollen, under ideal conditions, could reach the ground at a concentration of 0.145 micrograms/cubic meter of air; and
#2. SINCE 0.145 micrograms of alder pollen/cubic meter of air will result in some people displaying symptoms of allergy.
#3. THEREFORE if chemschmutz is sprayed every day, and if people are even slightly allergic to it, it seems possible that it might make some of them sick.
Here are my comments.
#1: Given the turbulence inherent in aircraft dispersal, the unpredictable variations is wind velocity (in all three axes, given thermals, etc.), and the fact that, as many chemtrail believers say that much of the sprayed material is over either uninhabited land-masses or the ocean, my belief is that the amount that actually reaches populated areas with the potential for sickening people is diminished by about a factor of five. If true, this would reduce the predicted concentration below the threshold you quote.
#2(a): Since most of the chemicals suspected by the chemtrail community are not pollen, they would fall into Bee's category of things that are allowable in larger concentrations, e.g., SrCrO3, and the amount reaching the inhabited area is way below the amount allowable.
#2(b): If the particulates are pollen (which fit into the low-concentration regime), then the reports of chemtrail-induced symptoms would match that of allergies. But such is not the case, at least not in any of the reports I've seen from the chemtrail-sites.
But the most telling comment I have (at least in my own mind) is that, even under ideal circumstances, aerial dispersal over uninhabited land, oceans, etc. would only provide a marginal methodology for impacting people. If the assumption is made (which I reject) that the powers-that-be are trying to do something to us, I would think that, out of many different approaches, they would not use the most difficult and ineffective approach.
And that is my problem with the entire chemtrail hypothesis.
Regards,
Duncan Kunz
Duncan.kunz@prodigy.net
Mesa, AZ
480-891-2525
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Duncan Kunz on 06-12-2001] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:50 am
|
|
|
Thanks, Duncan! That was quick! (I asked him to critique my work.) Just a quick correction, although I may have misunderstood you: I'm assuming that the plane has sprayed 250,000 pounds of pollen, not a cubic meter of pollen.
***************************************
In response to Duncan's comments, I have revised "More Fun With Math" to make some of my statements clearer. (Any misunderstandings were my fault, not Duncan's.)
New and Improved Version:
In January, 2001, BEE did some calculations to figure what the atmospheric particle density would be if 250,000 pounds of a substance were sprayed over 30 minutes at 2000 meters from one stationary KC-10 tanker. She concluded that this would give a maximum concentration of 0.76 micrograms/cubic meter of air at 3.5 billion meters downwind. [My comment: This length of plume seems a little odd. Perhaps it implies uniform mixing throughout the atmosphere.]
BEE said, "To put these concentrations into perspective, the lowest allowable exposure level for workers I could find was for strontium chromate at 0.5 micrograms/cubic meter." BEE cited factors which would cause the true concentration of sprayed material to be even lower than her calculations and concluded, "There is simply no way physically for anything sprayed at the height at which contrails (or supposed chemtrails) are observed to reach any kind of concentration on the ground which would have any affect on people whatsoever." http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000033.html
Just for fun, I asked the question, "What if the substance being sprayed is 250,000 pounds of pollen, or a similar allergen?"
I found an article stating that the tree Alnos japonica, or Japanese alder, has pollen grains which have an average radius of 12 micrometers and which have a density of 1.350 grams per cubic micrometer. (That's the density of an actual pollen grain, which was of interest for the study in question.) Here's a text file of the study:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cac he:UHwSwtthEV8:www.imamod.ru/jour/conf/ECCOMAS_2000/PDF/758.pdf+pollen+weight+-loss+-control+density&hl=en
Let's assume that the pollen grains are spherical. The volume of one grain would be 4/3 pi r-cubed, or (4/3)x(3.14)x(12 microns to the third power). That comes out to a volume of 7.23 times 10 to the -15 cubic meters per pollen grain.
The weight of one pollen grain would be the volume of the pollen grain times the density of the pollen grain. So a single grain of Japanese alder pollen would weigh 9.77 times 10 to the -9 grams.
Another reference I found says that a moderate level of an allergen will cause many individuals who are sensitive to it to experience symptoms. A moderate level of tree pollen is 15-90 grains per cubic meter of air. Let's call it 50 pollen grains per cubic meter of air. Reference: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/weather/pollencount/
To find the weight of a moderate level of Japanese alder pollen in a cubic meter of air, multiply the weight of one grain times 50. Therefore, the amount of Japanese alder pollen necessary to produce symptoms in moderately allergic people would be 0.145 micrograms of pollen/cubic meter of air. If 250,000 pounds of Japanese alder pollen were sprayed over 30 minutes at 2000 meters from one stationary KC-10 tanker, it would produce five times the level of allergen necessary to produce allergies in moderately allergic people. In other words, it would be theoretically possible for a single tanker to disburse enough of an allergen to make moderately allergic people notice symptoms at ground level. These calculations do not prove that the purpose of the putative spraying is to make people sick, but they do show that spraying large quantities of particulate matter could make susceptible people sick as an unintended consequence.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 07-11-2001] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:15 am
|
|
|
Duncan,
A few notes on your points...
#1: ... and the fact that, as many chemtrail believers say that much of the sprayed material is over either uninhabited land-masses or the ocean ...
Although it is widely acknowledged by the Chemtrail community that some spraying does occur over the ocean in cases where this is occuring just off the coast and winds are blowing toward the coast, I'm not sure that all would agree with that point. My personal impression is the opposite, that there is targeting of population centers.
#2(a): Since most of the chemicals suspected by the chemtrail community are not pollen, they would fall into Bee's category of things that are allowable in larger concentrations, e.g., SrCrO3, and the amount reaching the inhabited area is way below the amount allowable.
Again, I personally feel quite the opposite, and am sure many agree, that there are components of the Chemtrails that would not be allowable in any concentration. And if this stuff was something to inoculate people against biowarfare agents, for example, even more reason it might adversely affect the biochemistry of some extra-sensitive people. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed May 23, 2012 1:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
