I was talking to my husband about the question of weather modification, and he turned around and asked, "Why are we calling this geo-ENGINEERING? This is not engineering." Engineers design useful things and processes. All these f***tards are doing is HACKING the weather.
Retraction: Herndon J.M. Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9375–9390.
It was brought to my attention that there are problems related to the recently published article “Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health” [1].
Together with the Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Franck Vazquez, and the Editorial office, we re-evaluated the paper, re-assessed the comments made by the three reviewers and note the following crucial concerns:
The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 and used by the author to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is incorrect. The author uses 70,000 µg/kg, while the correct value resulting from the un-leached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by Moreno et al. [2]) is 140,000,000 µg/kg. This error invalidates the conclusions of the article.
The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments [2]. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources. Thus, at this stage, the work is preliminary since it is not clear what the source of these chemicals is.
The language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically objective for a research article.
Consequently, we have decided to retract the article. This paper is thus declared retracted and shall be marked accordingly for the scientific record.
MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce strict ethical policies and standards very seriously. We aim to ensure the publication of only truly original and scientific works. MDPI would like to apologize to the readers of IJERPH that this article was published with the errors mentioned above. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who bring aspects of scientific error to our attention in an effort to maintain scientific integrity.
Interesting - I’ve encountered similar retractions by editors early in the vax rollout, all sounded like a fair call, until I talked to one of the authors who said it was all political and the basis for retraction was bogus at best and that the journal just wanted to distance themselves from any controversy about the mRNA technology.
No idea what the behind the scenes story is here but I’ve learned not to take anything on face value.
These days retraction is often a useful red flag marking what we should seriously pay attention to. If it's uncomfortable for those with enough power, out it goes:
Spike in the nucleus making carcinogenic changes to the genome -- retracted:
Not retracted: article showing that HIV gp120-binding protein (other name DC Sign) binds Spike: doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.0c01537
Article showing that Spike binds to CD147, a receptor on erythrocytes, published by a military medical university in China:
doi:10.1038/s41392-020-00426-x
Response from NIH and Oxford (where Astra Zeneca vaccine is from) saying that Spike does not target CD147 and therefore therapies targeting CD147 won't work -- which therapies do they mean? Hydroxychloroquine, against malarial infection of erythrocytes via CD147. : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34378982/
Sure and there are others like Surgisphere, and then there was the Corman-Drosten Paper in Eurosurveillance 2020 that was shown by peer review that is was full of errors and was never retracted.
Another aspect which I found interesting is that the fly ash is extremely abrasive and in coal Power Station's it is never blown, but is captured using cyclones and electrostatic precipitators and transported as a slurry with water as the carrier. It is not conveyed by belt conveyors as it is extremely light like cement is. It would be blown and scattered everywhere.
There is no discussion on how it was aerosolized and sprayed which would be quite telling IMO.
The electrostatics in the troposphere would most probably be problematic to this type of spraying if it was true. It is not discussed how it is overcome, we know that the fly ash is sensitive to electrostatic charges which occur in that area of weather manufacture, i.e., lightning. We don't even want to discuss humidity. The author mentions that air is dry. "The dry warm air above San Diego is not conducive to the formation of jet contrails, which are ice condensate. Contra electrostatics would be a problem then? So, in atmospheres which have high humidity this would not work I assume.
Next would be that depending on the coal source the fly ash compositions would be very different. "Fly ash is formed from combustion of coal for electric power generation and its composition and morphology are largely products of the parent coal and the operating conditions of the boiler (McCarthy etal., 1989)."
I've never understood who is doing this. Is it military? How is this stuff transported, loaded onto planes and then dispersed? Who owns the planes? Who pays the pilots? Maintenance workers? What airports do they fly in and out of? There are so many moving parts you'd think someone working these jobs would talk about it.
I was talking to my husband about the question of weather modification, and he turned around and asked, "Why are we calling this geo-ENGINEERING? This is not engineering." Engineers design useful things and processes. All these f***tards are doing is HACKING the weather.
This is nutty.
Did you notice it was retracted?
Retraction: Herndon J.M. Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9375–9390.
It was brought to my attention that there are problems related to the recently published article “Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health” [1].
Together with the Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Franck Vazquez, and the Editorial office, we re-evaluated the paper, re-assessed the comments made by the three reviewers and note the following crucial concerns:
The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 and used by the author to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is incorrect. The author uses 70,000 µg/kg, while the correct value resulting from the un-leached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by Moreno et al. [2]) is 140,000,000 µg/kg. This error invalidates the conclusions of the article.
The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments [2]. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources. Thus, at this stage, the work is preliminary since it is not clear what the source of these chemicals is.
The language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically objective for a research article.
Consequently, we have decided to retract the article. This paper is thus declared retracted and shall be marked accordingly for the scientific record.
MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce strict ethical policies and standards very seriously. We aim to ensure the publication of only truly original and scientific works. MDPI would like to apologize to the readers of IJERPH that this article was published with the errors mentioned above. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who bring aspects of scientific error to our attention in an effort to maintain scientific integrity.
Interesting - I’ve encountered similar retractions by editors early in the vax rollout, all sounded like a fair call, until I talked to one of the authors who said it was all political and the basis for retraction was bogus at best and that the journal just wanted to distance themselves from any controversy about the mRNA technology.
No idea what the behind the scenes story is here but I’ve learned not to take anything on face value.
These days retraction is often a useful red flag marking what we should seriously pay attention to. If it's uncomfortable for those with enough power, out it goes:
Spike in the nucleus making carcinogenic changes to the genome -- retracted:
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/welcome-to-gilead
Spike having HIV inserts that have no natural way of getting there, including HIV gp120 -- retracted: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1
Not retracted: article showing that HIV gp120-binding protein (other name DC Sign) binds Spike: doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.0c01537
Article showing that Spike binds to CD147, a receptor on erythrocytes, published by a military medical university in China:
doi:10.1038/s41392-020-00426-x
Response from NIH and Oxford (where Astra Zeneca vaccine is from) saying that Spike does not target CD147 and therefore therapies targeting CD147 won't work -- which therapies do they mean? Hydroxychloroquine, against malarial infection of erythrocytes via CD147. : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34378982/
Sure and there are others like Surgisphere, and then there was the Corman-Drosten Paper in Eurosurveillance 2020 that was shown by peer review that is was full of errors and was never retracted.
Another aspect which I found interesting is that the fly ash is extremely abrasive and in coal Power Station's it is never blown, but is captured using cyclones and electrostatic precipitators and transported as a slurry with water as the carrier. It is not conveyed by belt conveyors as it is extremely light like cement is. It would be blown and scattered everywhere.
There is no discussion on how it was aerosolized and sprayed which would be quite telling IMO.
The electrostatics in the troposphere would most probably be problematic to this type of spraying if it was true. It is not discussed how it is overcome, we know that the fly ash is sensitive to electrostatic charges which occur in that area of weather manufacture, i.e., lightning. We don't even want to discuss humidity. The author mentions that air is dry. "The dry warm air above San Diego is not conducive to the formation of jet contrails, which are ice condensate. Contra electrostatics would be a problem then? So, in atmospheres which have high humidity this would not work I assume.
Next would be that depending on the coal source the fly ash compositions would be very different. "Fly ash is formed from combustion of coal for electric power generation and its composition and morphology are largely products of the parent coal and the operating conditions of the boiler (McCarthy etal., 1989)."
Sorry too many holes.
Oh! I found this . https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-rogue-scientist-j-marvin-herndon-disproved-the-last-resort-of-the-chemtrail-theory.6734/
updated with your comments - thanks for the input!!
Thanks for the deeper dive and the link - I’ll put it in as an update to the post.
I've never understood who is doing this. Is it military? How is this stuff transported, loaded onto planes and then dispersed? Who owns the planes? Who pays the pilots? Maintenance workers? What airports do they fly in and out of? There are so many moving parts you'd think someone working these jobs would talk about it.
Yes I’ve thought the same - it’s a big operation, I would think, that requires a lot of support staff.
So the chem-trail believers do not sport tin-foil hats? One more conspiracy theory bites the dust!