Are any environmentalists here concerned about the possible health effects (& on the climate) of "chemtrails"?

Question

Whether it's "chaff" the news/military says, or chemtrails, it's still hazardous to our health to breathe in aluminium being dropped from these planes!

News on "chaff":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc0TWVtozio

Answer 1

Two key points suggest "chemtrails" are a paranoid fantasy:

1.  There is little exchange between the troposphere and the stratosphere.  If you are trying to spread something to the ground, the worst place to put it is in the stratosphere.  Google "troposphere-stratosphere exchange" for more information.

2.  The chemical environment in the stratosphere is incredibly harsh containing ozone and lots of UV radiation.  Nothing organic would survive very long sprayed into the stratosphere (and it would have to in order to overcome the mass transfer limitations).  

These are hard facts about atmospheric physics and chemistry.  You need to explain, without resorting to bizarre hypotheses, how an effective chemical delivery system is going to overcome these effects.  That chemtrail enthusiasts just walk away when I mention these issues doesn't leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling they have thought through the science.  

But hey, we all get scared of bogeymen, if you want to panic every time you see a persistent contrail (there are lateral variations in RH the stratosphere, persistent contrails are nothing more than ice crystals in an air mass where the local RH is relatively high, so sublimation is suppressed), knock yourself out.

DumDum:  One thing from the clip, "low flying airplane" they didn't spray stuff into the stratosphere, they probably weren't even flying in  the free troposphere.  Low altitude?  Get it?  Low.  Lots of vertical exchange and no UV/ozone to degrade things.  

I know you want to believe there are such things as chemtrails, but the idea is laughable in terms of the science.  If you want me to believe the government research effective ways to disperse biological agents from low-flying aircraft, no problem.  If you want to maintain a shred of scientific credibility, find some books on stratospheric chemistry and troposphere/stratosphere exchange.  Everything I said is rock-solid and accurate.  Then, if you really still believe people are spraying things into the stratosphere as a local delivery system, come up with some plausible ways to overcome chemical degradation and the low vertical exchange.  Based on what I know about the chemistry and physics, spraying stuff into the stratosphere as a delivery mechanism is simply not going to work.

This picture *you* linked to:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/vi...

is of stratospheric contrails.  You were the one who called them chemtrails.  Do you have a picture of tropospheric chemtrails?  

As for aluminum, I ignored it because I think the link between aluminum and alzheimers is dubious at best:

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/script...

Final comment on 2nd video:  DumDum, presenting that video as evidence of anything explains perfectly why you are a climate skeptic.

Answer 2

I may not be an environmentalist, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they can't be healthy if they mess with the environment like that!  I wonder what other chemicals are in those things.

Answer 3

Chemtrails contribute to "global dimming" and counteract global warming.

Answer 4

Jerry is sort of right, but the word for the cloud normally left behind an airplane is a "contrail" or condensation trail

Chemtrails are a theory that the goverment uses a different fuel in some planes that contains harmful chemicals. The United States Airforce denies such allegations.

Answer 5

Ah, chemtrails, the conspiracy that wouldn't die.  It's on a par with UFOs, 9/11 and Kennedy assassination theories.  The chronically paranoid have been cooking up these tales ever since the first vapour trails were observed in the early days of powered flight.

Answer 6

There is no such thing as "chemtrails" , they are called con-trails and are harmless to us because it is nothing more than moisture made visible in the air from cold air passing through      

a hot engine. As far as Chaff goes, it is a necessary defense deployment for all military aircraft and harmless to people . When was the last time an aircraft deployed Chaff over your house anyway??? I bet you are wearing a tinfoil hat rite now , aren't you .

Answer 7

riiight.. so unless we go along with your conspiracy theory, we are 'fake' environmentalists?



i think you have spent too long on the politics board dear. you'll fit right in here  ;-)

ok serious answer. ordinary contrails persist for hours or days in certain atmospheric conditions; the combustion products from the engines as well as the tiny ice particles act as nucleating particles, so thin cirrus type cloud forms.

i can often see dozens at a time above here, sometimes spreading out to cause almost continuous cloud cover.

and 'shard', yes i do remember them from when i was a kid, in the 70s. there just werent anywhere near so many planes about then.

while this stratospheric cloud contributes to warming, especially at night, i dont think its too much of a health hazard compared to the huge amounts of pollution spewed out by vehicles etc at ground level, although the venting of fuel on landing approach has caused problems around airports.

i have no idea what this 'chemtrail' thing is about, so i cant comment. i do agree prolonged exposure to aluminium has health effects, as does lead, in particular in brain development in children .

Answer 8

Many people never give much notice to the sky, and don't have much long-term memory about it either.  Say, past 10 or so years ago.  The first time you look up and see these planes flying back and forth, you will be shocked when you realize that you never noticed this before.

No,  these long streaks of "something", laid out in a cross hatch pattern are not normal.  For any of you over 20 years old -- can you honestly recall seeing these "contrails" as a child?  I mean, come on ... across the entire sky?  Ten, fifteen, twenty of them?  Spreading out into a smeary sun-smothering haze?

Like I say, when you first look up and notice this, and remember not noticing it, you are going to be shocked.

ps to littlerobbergirl:  I was alive in the 70's too, and I remember the skies very well.  What you quoted: "ordinary contrails persist for hours or days in certain atmospheric conditions; the combustion products from the engines as well as the tiny ice particles act as nucleating particles, so thin cirrus type cloud forms" sounds ok except that if you actually observe the resulting "cloud cover" -- that ain't no thin cirrus up there.  Simple visual observation, but you have to stand and watch for an hour or two to see the whole thing unfold.  Then compare that sky to a natural sky of thin cirrus composed of water vapor (no matter how it got condensed, for instance naturally around dust particles).  The difference is quite visually obvious.