

BEE
Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23

Fun with Math
Thu Jan 04, 2001 8:01 pm



Let's do some calculations for the fun of it.
First, some facts.
The KC10 aircraft can offload 250,000 pounds of fuel. (Source: AF News)
Second, anything released into the atmosphere will disperse. It does not stay concentrated where it was released. Concentrations downwind from a source of release can be calculated based on welldeveloped equations. (Source: Any atmospheric chemistry textbook, industrial hygiene text, or spill response guidance books. I used a calculator at http://www.industrialhygiene.com/calc/model.html for this purpose.)
OK, now let's make some assumptions to simplify the calculations.
1) Let's assume a KC10 is carrying 250,000 pounds of some chemical instead of fuel. Let's further assume that somehow this KC10 is going to spray this chemical. In order to provide a source rate for our calculations, we'll also assume that the entire load is sprayed in 30 minutes. (I know this isn't consistent with the chemtrail sightings reports which claim these aircraft fly around for hours spraying, but it gives a worst case kind of value.) This gives a source rate of 63 billion micrograms/second.
2) Now, let's further assume that our KC10 has the amazing capability to hover. Therefore, all of the material is sprayed in one spot.
3) Let's further assume extreme stability of the atmosphere to limit the dispersion and provide maximum concentrations. We'll also assume a very low windspeed of 0.1 meter/second. (Again, this limits the amount of dispersion.)
OK, now some results. If this KC10 was hovering and spraying right over your head (approximately 2 m high), the maximum concentration you would see on the ground would be 19.3 billion micrograms/cubic meter at 60 meters downwind.
If we take the KC10 up to 10 meters, the maximum concentration on the ground is 80 million micrograms/cubic meter at 400 meters downwind.
Spraying at 100 meters, gives a maximum concentration of 1.7 million micrograms/cubic meter at 15,000 meters downwind.
Spraying at 1000 meters gives a maximum concentration of 37.6 micrograms/cubic meter at 80 million meters downwind.
Spraying at 2000 meters gives a maximum concentration of 0.76 micrograms/cubic meter at 3.5 billion meters downwind.
(For those who may not understand why the maximum concentration is shown at a distance downwind, think of watching the smoke for a smokestack. The smoke does not reach the ground (if at all) until some distance from the smokestack, depending upon weather conditions.)
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. This is the level workers are allowed to be exposed to 40 hours per week over a working life without significant risk of adverse affects. Another allowable exposure level for workers which may have more meaning to people is the allowable exposure level for strychnine is 150 micrograms/cubic meter. So, even at 2000 meters assuming everything above brings you down to a very low exposure level.
Now, let's add reality in.
1) The most stable atmosphere occurs on cloudy nights. "Chemtrails" are reported as occurring during bright, sunny days. This significantly reduces the stability factor which would reduce the calculated concentrations.
2) KC10s and the aircraft supposedly sighted laying down "chemtrails" can't hover. Their movement across the sky creates an additional significant dispersion in and of itself. This again would significantly reduce the calculated concentrations.
3) The concentration downwind assumes that the source rate continues to feed the plume in order for it to reach the distance downwind for the maximum. However, any plane has a limited capacity of what it can carry and there's no way to support this kind of source rate. So, any reduction in source rate would result in reduced concentation on the ground.
4) These "chemtrails" are supposedly from spraying at much higher altitudes than 2000 m. (Sorry, I got tired of playing with the numbers and didn't go any further.) And every doubling of the height does not simply cut the concentration in half. It's a much greater reduction. (I didn't figure it out, but it's probably closer to dividing by the increase cubed, since it's dispersing in 3 directions.)
Conclusion: 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. 



Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas 
Fri Jan 12, 2001 6:57 pm



Wow, just saw this thread.
Thanks for the effort here Bee, it is appreciated. Will definately be studying this in conjunction with the other calculations in the Chemical Rain thread.
Random, or anybody, is there an easy way to convert expressions of this form "concentration of 0.76 micrograms/cubic meter" to parts per billion?
Bee, also it would helpful if you could supply the exact values you used in filling out the Industrial Hygiene Calculator for at least one of your examples, I haven't spent much time on it yet, but was having trouble getting any concentration result values.
Thanks. 



BEE
Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23

Wed Jan 17, 2001 7:08 pm



The conversion from micrograms/cubic meter to parts per billion depends upon the density of the material you are doing the conversion for and the temperature and pressure. For simplicities sake, the conversion for water is 1 microgram/cubic meter is 0.001 ppb (if I did the conversion correctly. Somebody check my math, please.)
For the calculator, try putting in the windspeed of 0.1, atmospheric stability factor of E, x value 15,000, y value 0, z value 100. The z value is the height of the release in meters (height at which spraying occurs). The x value is how far downwind you want to look for a concentration (also in meters.) Keeping y at 0 just means you are looking at the line directly downwind. If you put in a y value, this is the distand off to the side of a line running directly downwind from the source. The way I did the values was by trial and error. I started at a low height and entered different x values until I saw the concentrations start to drop. I then narrowed it down to about the maximum by varying the x values. Once you start getting a very large height, you really have to start increasing the x values to be able to see any concentration at all. When you don't get an answer for the concentration, that means it's negligible. 



3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas 
Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:49 pm



Here's my take on it. 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 KC10 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 rcubed, 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 1590 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 KC10 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 4 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 07112001] 



rabbler0user
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 4

Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:07 am



this whole argument can be DEDEBUNKED with one statement:
you are talking about ONE PLANE spraying for 30 minutes!!!
... we're talking about hundreds a day ... 



rabbler0user
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 4

Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:41 pm



and don't u think the trails are most often noticed on clear days because you can't see airplanes above cloudy skies?
your math skills are obviously strong, but your entire argument lacks any logic.
keep lookin up!! 



Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands 
Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:20 pm



Welcome to CTC rabbler0user,
Those people are no longer posting here, and CTC is a debunkerfree zone. One may sneak in for a little remote spitting, but believe me, they don't last long.
Please enjoy your stay, and yes, we "Watch the Skies"...Always have. _________________ Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! 





All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:09 am



