I believe solar geoengineering activity is a source of air pollution/fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
Long-term PM2.5 exposure is a public health issue.
Is the public just poorly (dis)informed about the harmful effects of air pollution?

What exactly is solar geoengineering?

What exactly is solar geoengineering?

 

I'm glad you asked.

 

Solar geoengineering is the deliberate injection of aerosols (metal oxide nanoparticles) into the troposphere to reflect solar radiation back into space.

 

See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study

I'm glad you asked.

 

Solar geoengineering is the deliberate injection of aerosols (metal oxide nanoparticles) into the troposphere to reflect solar radiation back into space.

 

See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study

You linked to a study which starts with water vapor and then moves on to calcium carbonate, neither of which is a metal oxide and 2.5 microns means it's not a nanoparticle. Most details are missing, e.g the amount and extent of the release.

 

The OP asks about long-term exposure, and a one-off release is not that. If I had to guess, this is a small perturbation in comparison to existing pollution, and being 20km up, is not a direct threat.

 

Future tests could involve seeding the sky with aluminium oxide – or even diamonds.

 

I'm guessing metal oxides could be a very toxic cocktail and a source of ambient particulate matter.

 

Furthermore, I find it hypocrite to pretend to "test" a technology which is already used covertly under our noses, over our heads, and hidden

in plain sight.

 

In other words, they are probably planning to further develop solar geoengineering while ignoring the risks of this technology for us

and the environment.

Furthermore, I find it hypocrite to pretend to "test" a technology which is already used covertly under our noses, over our heads, and hidden

in plain sight.

 

 

Citation? This is not a conspiracy site.

 

 

Citation? This is not a conspiracy site.

 

http://nuclearplanet.com/mw1.pdf

 

 

We disclose a fourth independent line of evidence, based on the co-precipitation technique,

pointing to coal fly ash as the material utilized in tropospheric geoengineering, and describe some

of the adverse environmental and public health risks associated with its persistent application.

During a snow storm, the fluffy snow traps geoengineering-aerosol-particulates and brings them

down with the snow. The results of the ICP-MS analytical measurements of the snow-melt

particulates we tested are consistent with three independent lines of evidence that coal fly ash is

the main aerosolized particulate used for tropospheric geoengineering. Coal fly ash tropospheric

geoengineering inhibits rainfall to change weather/climate which disrupts habitats, including arable

habitats. Long periods of artificially induced drought can wreak economic disaster on farmers, and

shift the delicate balance in nature, weakening natural defenses and giving a boost to aggressive

pathogens. Coal fly ash when exposed to water or body fluids can release a host of toxic chemicals

including neuro-toxic aluminum in a chemically mobile form and carcinogens such as arsenic,

hexavalent chromium, and the radioactive elements, uranium, thorium and their daughter products.

The only safe geoengineering is no geoengineering at all

Edited March 27, 20178 yr by tkadm30

 

http://nuclearplanet.com/mw1.pdf

 

 

 

I don't think that citing a paper from a conspiracy-theory site is a good way to counter charges of it being a conspiracy-theory. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

Unfortunately, the list of predatory journals has been taken off line, but I am pretty confident the source of that paper would have been on the list.

He's basically talking about chemtrails. I've skimmed through the document, and there are only references to how it could be used to intoxicate the air, but no evidence whatsoever that it is used.

There is no doubt that the air is polluted in certain areas, but there is no reason to believe it's being polluted on purpose, i.e. with the specific purpose of poisoning people as this suggests.

 

It's just a baseless conspiracy, so I found your comment on hypocrisy hypocritical.

 

 

I don't think that citing a paper from a conspiracy-theory site is a good way to counter charges of it being a conspiracy-theory. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

Unfortunately, the list of predatory journals has been taken off line, but I am pretty confident the source of that paper would have been on the list.

 

Do you have a PhD ? I suspect this guy is more qualified than you and me to counter the government-sponsored disinformation on covert

solar geoengineering activity.

And there are many, many more PhDs who think this is a load of crap, so what's your point?

He's basically talking about chemtrails. I've skimmed through the document, and there are only references to how it could be used to intoxicate the air, but no evidence whatsoever that it is used.

There is no doubt that the air is polluted in certain areas, but there is no reason to believe it's being polluted on purpose, i.e. with the specific purpose of poisoning people as this suggests.

 

It's just a baseless conspiracy, so I found your comment on hypocrisy hypocritical.

 

There's sufficient photographic reports and testimonials on the internet to assert that solar geoengineering is really a illicit/clandestine activity occuring.

Are they just a bunch of hypocrites to you?

 

There's sufficient photographic reports and testimonials on the internet to assert that solar geoengineering is really a illicit/clandestine activity occuring.

Are they just a bunch of hypocrites to you?

 

 

No, they're just conspiracy cranks to me.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

And you have been told not to reintroduce chemtrail nonsense

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102196-under-our-noses-over-our-heads-and-in-our-faces/?p=965637

 

Locked, pending review