posted 03-15-2002 12:23 PM            

We discovered that the burning of fossil fuels in power plants releases millions of pounds of barium into the surrounding environment. So one of the questions I have is, what is the source of electrical power in Chapel Hill, NC?

posted 03-15-2002 02:32 PM            

The EPA states that 2 PPM is the highest acceptible limit for drinking water.

measured .07-.1 mg/L
acceptible limit = 2ppm

How do I convert mg per liter (mg/l) to parts per million (ppm)?
mg/l is equal to ppm; 1 mg/liter = 1 ppm

Thus, 2 mg/l is the acceptible limit, about 20x the measured amount. By the EPA definition, you could drink this stuff.

What about breathing or skin contact? I don't know. The rain and snow samples probably do not reflect the true air particle density reaching the ground. http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/hsg/hsg046.htm has good information on barium.

The UN report states the following:
The concentration in air has been estimated to be <0.05 µg/m3 and, assuming an average ventilatory rate of 20 m3/day, a daily inhalation intake of barium of approximately 1.0 µg can be derived. Occupational exposure to barium has been found to range from 0.02 to 6.1 mg/m3.

Someone needs to measure air particle density of barium compounds and/or aluminum oxide after an alleged spraying. Find out the µg/m3 of barium and/or aluminum oxide.

The barium levels in lab report are the most interesting part of the study. If you look closely on your screen, you can see the name of the lab that has been blacked out. I looked them up on the Internet and they seem very legit to me. They have been around for a long time and have many respectible clients.

Summary: This report does not really prove anything. The barium could have come from industrial sources as listed on the EPA site, or could even be natural. The report does not prove or disprove anything.

posted 03-16-2002 08:16 AM            

I would venture to say Nuclear 3t3.

(CP&L) CP&L, a subsidiary of Progress Energy, serves more than 1.2 million customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. The company is headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., and serves a territory encompassing over 33 000 square miles including the cities of Raleigh, Wilmington, Fayetteville, and Asheville in North Carolina and Florence and Sumter in South Carolina. CP&L's three nuclear power plants - the Brunswick Plant's two units located near Southport, N.C. (1,705 megawatts), the Harris Nuclear Plant located just outside of Raleigh, N.C. (860 megawatts), and the Robinson Nuclear Plant (683 megawatts) -- produce more than 40 percent of the company's electricity in any given year. http://www.cpl.com/index.cfm
(Duke Power serves the western half of NC with nuclear and coal.) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/states/maps/so_atl.html

Barium and coal? It seems that barium is released in small amounts from coal-burning power plants... http://www.powersrc.com/rightToKnow/barium.asp
(North Carolina has 14)
however... http://epw.senate.gov/stappa_nc.htm would go a long way towards emissions reductions in North Carolina.

posted 03-17-2002 12:27 AM            

Mike Blair interview on Joyce Riley, Dave vonKleist’s, The Power Hour, July 6, 2001

GOVERNMENT BARIUM SALT EXCUSE COMING !!!

“They (government) are already preparing us for the day when it’s going to become widely, universally known that barium salts are being dumped into the atmosphere, they already have an answer for that. They built up a lot of bogus material regarding emissions from coal fired power plants. Would you believe that material, and I have documents to back this up, indicates that the emission from these coal fired plants is barium salt. Could you believe that barium salts would be the largest substance that comes from this black smoke that pours out of some coal fired electrical production plants. It’s unbelievable, but already in place as an excuse! And that’s a scoop, because we haven’t said anything about that before.” — Mike Blair, July 6, 2001.

* Barium Compounds total 366,978 pounds, Oologah, Oklahoma *

* Barium Compounds total 1,153,537 pounds, Fannin, Texas *

* Barium Compounds total 427,765 pounds, Vernon, Texas *

* Barium Compounds total 941,815 pounds, Gentry, Arkansas *

* Barium Compounds total 921,867 pounds, Hallsville, Texas *

* Barium Compounds total 2,055,265 pounds, Pittsburg, Texas *

_____________________________

posted 03-25-2002 08:54 AM            

Wow, some scoop. I think Mike Blair, once again, is full of it. Obviously, he doesn't want people to know that there are actually attorneys who specialize in Environmental Law, insurance underwriters, et al and the Greens also who must be in on this aspect of "the Best Kept Secret," or that the largest releases are not in the places sited above.

http://cta.policy.net/tri/complete_report.pdf

-Electric utilities released over one billion pounds of toxic pollution in 1998, more than any other industry in the U.S. except for metal mining, which releases most of its toxics to land. (My Note - like in New Mexico) Electric utilities emit more toxic chemical air pollution than the chemical, paper, plastics and refining industries combined.

Ř Southern Company, American Electric Power (AEP), and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ranked first, second, and third for total toxic releases in 1998. In addition, these companies ranked first, second, and third for air emissions. Southern Company was responsible for over 10 percent of reported emissions from the entire utility industry.

http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/tri_faq.htm

What is the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA?
Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), Section 313, on October 17, 1986.

EPCRA is Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. This legislation is sometimes referred to as SARA Title III, but more commonly as EPCRA.

The principal reason for the existence of EPCRA is to provide citizens with information on the manufacture, use, and environmental release of potentially toxic chemicals in their communities.

Through EPCRA, Congress mandated that the TRI data be made public. EPA considers the Toxics Release Inventory a public “report card” for industrial facilities.

http://enquirer.com/editions/2000/01/12/loc_toxic_emissions_down.html

The pollution won't end until the public decides it's worth the cost — either to build better coal-burning plants or to switch to other less-polluting, but more expensive, forms of energy.

posted 04-07-2002 05:08 PM            

Take samples from aircraft following closely behind aircraft that are viewed from earth as laying down 'chemtrails'.

Have the evidence preserved, handled AS IF it was crime scene evidence in a mass murder.

Have the chain of custody documented thru five or six different reputable laboratories for analysis, not telling any of them what we were looking for.

Now, what woudl such a venture cost and how canm we get it funded?
Otherwise, the critical tool needed to bring chemtrails to national and political acknowlegement will be lacking.
Those who are concerned and have legitimate observations will be handily written off by those who MIGHT be able to mount an investigation into the truth..

posted 05-17-2002 08:02 PM            

If you collected a sample and it is positive, then, great, you have proved your hypotisis. But it is imposible to prove the negative, therefore those who believe in chemtrails will never be satisfied with any data that does not support their position, and thus will be forever chasing the will-o-wisp as it were.

BTW, Carnicom's link titled "rainwater metals" is especially hilarious from a chemist point of view. He "distills" a rainwater sample, convienently ignoing that this might change the chemical makeu up of the solution, then he takes a pH of the result, ignoring the fact that pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration which has just been changed by the distilation process!