Cloud seeding in our county? [Archive]

View Full Version : Cloud seeding in our county?

Peace Voyager

03-23-2009, 02:36 PM

:rain:

Did any of you notice the synthetic clouds overhead on Friday, 3/20? They start out as vapor trails and then rapidly expand into long clouds and do not dissipate. (I'm not looking to get into a chem trail debate; just want to see if other folks notice these ongoing anomalies.)

Do you have any information regarding this story below?

I trust the Rain Dancers more than I do questionable substances released into our atmosphere, (who "owns" the sky?).

Sure would love to see some scientific studies done to track the results of the rain dances. Would the Science Buzz Cafe folks like to take it on? Got other ideas?

Thanks,

infinite_c(at)yahoo.com

PG&E cloud-seeding plans raise flood concerns

   
By DYLAN DARLING
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

  Published: Sunday, December 28, 2008 at 4:26 a.m.

 REDDING -- A power company's plans to amplify snowstorms in Northern California have sparked a debate about cloud seeding.

   Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has installed seven propane-burning cloud seed "generators" -- collections of equipment that propel silver iodide particles into the air -- atop ridges in Siskiyou and Shasta counties.

The generators are set to go into use by the end of winter and should enhance storms over the Pit and McCloud river watersheds, said Byron Marler, a supervising meteor-ologist for the San Francisco-based company.
"It's like having a whole new Burney Falls added to those rivers," he said.
The cloud seeding, which will be done 40 to 50 times a winter, should more than match the amount of water that flows over Northern California's signature waterfall, said Paul Moreno, company spokesman.

He said it will produce 130,000 acre-feet of water per year, or 1.2 times as much as flows each year over the falls near Burney.

But the company's plans also have caused a flood of concern, especially from people in Siskiyou County, where much of the snow would fall.
Angelina Cook of Mount Shasta said she's starting to organize a group of people with questions about cloud seeding.

Most people first heard of the PG&E project in October through newspaper notifications, and Cook said she now has an e-mail list of 50 people who are actively involved.

"And that's just a fraction of the people who are concerned about it," Cook said.

Key concerns are cloud seeding's effect on overall climate, impacts to systems set to handle only the current amount of precipitation and introduction of silver iodide particles to the environment.

Among the concerned is Rene Henery of Mount Shasta, who is directing climate research at nearby Castle Lake for the University of Nevada at Reno.

He said he's worried that PG&E's cloud seeding could skew the data at the heart of his work and is concerned that there don't appear to be any regulations on seeding.
"It's kind of like anyone can just build a tower and fire stuff into the air," Henery said.

Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board, as well as with both Siskiyou and Shasta counties, said they don't regulate cloud seeding if it is done on private property.
PG&E's generators are on private land, mostly owned by Anderson-based timber giant Sierra Pacific Industries, Marler said.

Although PG&E did not have to obtain permits or complete environmental documents about the cloud-seeding operation, Marler said it's working with Siskiyou County officials so they understand what will be happening in the skies.

Lifted aloft in the exhaust of burned propane, the silver iodide particles -- which he said are harmless to plants and animals -- trigger the development of ice crystals within clouds, Marler said.

Those ice crystals fall as snow rather than blowing away as moisture in the wind, he said, increasing snow production by 5 percent to 10 percent.
"It doesn't create snowfall where there wasn't snowfall," Moreno said. "It just enhances snowfall."

Moreno said cloud seeding is used throughout the state, and PG&E has had an operation to boost the snowfall around Lake Almanor for more than 50 years.

Along with providing heavier water flows at the company's hydroelectric dams along the McCloud and Pit rivers, Marler said the cloud seeding also will provide more water for drought-stricken grazing land and forests.
"We are not the only ones who are going to benefit from this," Marler said.

Skook

03-23-2009, 04:04 PM

They are not 'ongoing anomalies', they are tiny ice crystals condensing out of below freezing air as the air is heated from jet exhaust. Yes, engine exhaust from combustion engines is very detrimental to the environment, but they are not adding chemicals specifically to poison you. This is the most idiotic of all idiocies, and a perfect conspiracy theory for paranoids.

Think about it, if the government wanted to poison the population, they'd do it with much more effective delivery systems like the water or food supply.

:rain:

Did any of you notice the synthetic clouds overhead on Friday, 3/20? They start out as vapor trails and then rapidly expand into long clouds and do not dissipate. (I'm not looking to get into a chem trail debate; just want to see if other folks notice these ongoing anomalies.)

Do you have any information regarding this story below?

I trust the Rain Dancers more than I do questionable substances released into our atmosphere, (who "owns" the sky?).

Sure would love to see some scientific studies done to track the results of the rain dances. Would the Science Buzz Cafe folks like to take it on? Got other ideas?

Thanks,

infinite_c(at)yahoo.com

PG&E cloud-seeding plans raise flood concerns

   
By DYLAN DARLING
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

  Published: Sunday, December 28, 2008 at 4:26 a.m.

 REDDING -- A power company's plans to amplify snowstorms in Northern California have sparked a debate about cloud seeding.
...

sharingwisdom

03-23-2009, 11:30 PM

I always think it's a good idea not to place judgemental labels on things that we might not have researched thoroughly. For me, I put things I'm unaware of on a mind shelf as a possibility that something might exist and then do research and use my intuition.

What better way to harm a population than using food or water. It's been done before in this country. jd

HISTORY OF SECRET EXPERIMENTATION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS (https://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/health_risks/HISTORY.htm)
1950<X-TAB> </X-TAB>In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951<X-TAB> </X-TAB>Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed. Also in San Francisco, the army sprayed Serratia marcescens, a bacteria, over the population that sent 11 people to Stanford and with one dying

Years Ago, The Military Sprayed Germs on U.S. Cities (https://www.apfn.org/APFN/germs.htm)
YouTube - Army Tested Biological Weapons On U.S. Citizens part 1 of 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySw-0uY4CUA)

1953<X-TAB> </X-TAB>U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.

1953<X-TAB> </X-TAB>Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii. Thirty similar trials were used across the country.

NBC January 2009 chemtrail report
YouTube - NBC Chemtrail Report - January 2009 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyFuV_-dnRs)

They are not 'ongoing anomalies', they are tiny ice crystals condensing out of below freezing air as the air is heated from jet exhaust. Yes, engine exhaust from combustion engines is very detrimental to the environment, but they are not adding chemicals specifically to poison you. This is the most idiotic of all idiocies, and a perfect conspiracy theory for paranoids.

Think about it, if the government wanted to poison the population, they'd do it with much more effective delivery systems like the water or food supply.

Skook

03-23-2009, 11:40 PM

What you don't seem to understand is that ALL aircraft, or even lawnmowers or hairdryers will create the vapor trails you see at 30,000 feet. They are not proof of anything, except that when you defrost frozen air, it condenses.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the 55 year old atrocities you cite, do you have anything more recent?

And again, WHY would they spray from 6 to 8 miles high when they could administer whatever you think they're spraying us with in our food or water? It's hard to imagine a more inefficient (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=GYL&ei=YYTISdPMHJGksQOhseiUCA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=inefficient+definition&spell=1) method of delivery.

I always think it's a good idea not to place judgemental labels on things that we might not have researched thoroughly. For me, I put things I'm unaware of on a mind shelf as a possibility that something might exist and then do research and use my intuition.

What better way to harm a population than using food or water. It's been done before in this country. jd

HISTORY OF SECRET EXPERIMENTATION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS (https://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/health_risks/HISTORY.htm)
1950<x-tab> </x-tab>In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951<x-tab> </x-tab>Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed. Also in San Francisco, the army sprayed Serratia marcescens, a bacteria, over the population that sent 11 people to Stanford and with one dying

Years Ago, The Military Sprayed Germs on U.S. Cities (https://www.apfn.org/APFN/germs.htm)
YouTube - Army Tested Biological Weapons On U.S. Citizens part 1 of 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySw-0uY4CUA)

1953<x-tab> </x-tab>U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.

1953<x-tab> </x-tab>Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii. Thirty similar trials were used across the country.

NBC January 2009 chemtrail report
YouTube - NBC Chemtrail Report - January 2009 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyFuV_-dnRs)

Peace Voyager

03-24-2009, 12:01 AM

They are not 'ongoing anomalies', they are tiny ice crystals condensing out of below freezing air as the air is heated from jet exhaust. Yes, engine exhaust from combustion engines is very detrimental to the environment, but they are not adding chemicals specifically to poison you. This is the most idiotic of all idiocies, and a perfect conspiracy theory for paranoids.

Maybe you did not read through the article or my post.

I do know what a vapor trail is, and how it is made. Vapor trails do not normally expand into large clouds and remain.

This post was not about pollution specifically, or government conspiracies. It's about weather manipulation taking place without much oversight.

PG& E needs rain/snow for hydropower plants to run at full speed.:stormcloud:

>Although PG&E did not have to obtain permits or complete environmental documents about the cloud-seeding operation...

"The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or "unintended." Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it..."

Quote & lots more on topic from:
Do you like breathing and drinking Silver Iodide?
Do you like breathing and drinking Silver Iodide?, page 1 (https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread316081/pg1)

Peace Voyager

03-24-2009, 12:10 AM

:waccosmile:

Skook

03-24-2009, 12:13 AM

Yes, that's exactly what vapor trails often do, and they don't 'remain' any longer than they should depending on current conditions.

There are plenty of real and awful conspiracies that we need to be contending with, it's a shame you're wasting your energy on this.

Maybe you did not read through the article or my post.

I do know what a vapor trail is, and how it is made. Vapor trails do not normally expand into large clouds and remain.

Peace Voyager

03-24-2009, 12:14 AM

Yubajeff

03-25-2009, 04:24 AM

And again, WHY would they spray from 6 to 8 miles high when they could administer whatever you think they're spraying us with in our food or water? It's hard to imagine a more inefficient (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=GYL&ei=YYTISdPMHJGksQOhseiUCA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=inefficient+definition&spell=1) method of delivery.[/quote]

One reason might be: timing.
Atmospheric delivery provides immediate results.
When the Russians needed to rescue a large number of children being held for ransom by terrorists a few years ago, they sprayed Fentanyl into the air, thus immediately rendering the terrorists incapacitated. Unfortunately several children were also killed, demonstrating the danger inherent in this method: no control over dosage. They may have had Narcan on hand for rescue, but apparently it was not given in time.

Skook

03-25-2009, 05:20 AM

They sprayed fentanyl INTO a building, not into the jet stream miles above the ground.

Imagine trying to put out a fire by spraying water from 8 miles high. Can you imagine how much water you'd need to even get a cupful to the ground within miles of your target?

And again, WHY would they spray from 6 to 8 miles high when they could administer whatever you think they're spraying us with in our food or water? It's hard to imagine a more inefficient (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=GYL&ei=YYTISdPMHJGksQOhseiUCA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=inefficient+definition&spell=1) method of delivery.

One reason might be: timing.
Atmospheric delivery provides immediate results.
When the Russians needed to rescue a large number of children being held for ransom by terrorists a few years ago, they sprayed Fentanyl into the air, thus immediately rendering the terrorists incapacitated. Unfortunately several children were also killed, demonstrating the danger inherent in this method: no control over dosage. They may have had Narcan on hand for rescue, but apparently it was not given in time.

Yubajeff

03-26-2009, 07:51 AM

A cupful Dude? Get real. We are talkin' molecules here, NOT ounces! And gases/aerosol systems have more in common with each other than liquid or solid systems. Relax, open your mind just a crack. Do you really believe what goes into the clouds doesn't go to your lungs, and then nearly instantaneously into your brain?
I didn't realize we were discussing quelching wildfires! That's a pretty gross analogy.

They sprayed fentanyl INTO a building, not into the jet stream miles above the ground.

Imagine trying to put out a fire by spraying water from 8 miles high. Can you imagine how much water you'd need to even get a cupful to the ground within miles of your target?

Skook

03-26-2009, 08:20 AM

No 'dude' we weren't discussing quelching wildfires, we were discussing how ridiculously ineffecient it would be to spray from eight miles high. Use any analogy you want, there's FAR more effective ways to deliver chemicals to people.

Real conspiracies exist, but this paranoid delusion is not one of them. One thing conspirators have in common is the goal of benefiting from their conspiracy while protecting themselves from it's detrimental effects. It's absurd to think that tens of thousands of people all over the world are involved in a conspiracy to spray their own families and communities without someone blowing the whistle.

A cupful Dude? Get real. We are talkin' molecules here, NOT ounces! And gases/aerosol systems have more in common with each other than liquid or solid systems. Relax, open your mind just a crack. Do you really believe what goes into the clouds doesn't go to your lungs, and then nearly instantaneously into your brain?
I didn't realize we were discuss quelching wildfires! That's a pretty gross analogy.

pbrinton

03-27-2009, 11:36 AM

One thing conspirators have in common is the goal of benefiting from their conspiracy while protecting themselves from it's detrimental effects.

Are you not making the unwarranted assumption that all conspirators are smart? What you describe may well be their goal, but whether that goal is achieved is a much more dubious matter.

I have to say that labeling those who suspect that something underhand is going on as "conspiracy theorists" seems like an attempt to trivialize their arguments. Better surely to answer the substance of what they say than to characterize them personally. I have talked with quite rational and intelligent people who believe that what have come to be called "chemtrails" are something other than what we used to call "contrails". I have to admit that when I observe the length of time they seem to persist in the sky, they do seem to behave differently. As I recall contrails tended to disappear quickly, whereas these phenomena hang around a long time.

This does not necessarily mean that we are being deliberately poisoned; I have heard theories that the object is to provide an artificial cloud cover to counteract global warming, for instance. I am not endorsing this or any other view, but pointing out that not everyone suspicious of "chemtrails" falls into the category you dismiss.

Of course even if there is some relatively benign explanation, this does not preclude the possibility that we are being poisoned as a side-effect.

Patrick

Skook

03-27-2009, 11:52 AM

Are you not making the unwarranted assumption that all conspirators are smart? What you describe may well be their goal, but whether that goal is achieved is a much more dubious matter.

No, I'm only assuming they hope to benefit from the conspiracy while not being harmed by it.

I'm also assuming that it's extremely unlikely that the huge number of people all over the world involved in supporting and flying aircraft at altitudes that create contrails could keep such a secret.

And yes, we are being slowly poisoned by exhaust from combustion engines, and it may even be changing the weather, but as you say, that's a side effect, not a goal. If there's any conspiracy, it involves minimizing the public's perception of the effects on the environment to maximize profits.

pbrinton

03-27-2009, 01:07 PM

I'm also assuming that it's extremely unlikely that the huge number of people all over the world involved in supporting and flying aircraft at altitudes that create contrails could keep such a secret.

This is another frequently encountered argument against so-called "conspiracy theories", and is also in my opinion, a weak one. It rests on two assumptions: first, that a large number of people are aware of the conspiracy, and second that all it takes to blow the lid is some of them talking.

First, I am not convinced that a huge number of people need to be involved, or rather "in the know." One airplane can cover a lot of sky, and the crew need not necessarily know the purpose of what they are doing. Same for the ground crew. And if they work for the government, or as subcontractors to the government, they are used to keeping quiet about their jobs.

On the second point, the relatively few who do speak out have the same credibility problem in the face of a "Big Lie" as anyone else; witness the NYC firefighters that have spoken publicly about their experiences on 9/11. I would say that if you have the resources of a government or a large corporation it is quite easy to keep secrets, even when large numbers of people are involved.

You are on much stronger ground when you make fact-based arguments about the specific allegations than with this kind of categorical dismissal.

Patrick

Skook

03-27-2009, 01:15 PM

With respect Patrick, I think you have it backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I have seen no proof at all that contrails, which are created by airplanes in every country on the planet that has aircraft, are so-called chemtrails. If there's a conspiracy among at least 100 countries, it's unprecedented.

This is another frequently encountered argument against so-called "conspiracy theories", and is also in my opinion, a weak one. It rests on two assumptions: first, that a large number of people are aware of the conspiracy, and second that all it takes to blow the lid is some of them talking.

First, I am not convinced that a huge number of people need to be involved, or rather "in the know." One airplane can cover a lot of sky, and the crew need not necessarily know the purpose of what they are doing. Same for the ground crew. And if they work for the government, or as subcontractors to the government, they are used to keeping quiet about their jobs.

On the second point, the relatively few who do speak out have the same credibility problem in the face of a "Big Lie" as anyone else; witness the NYC firefighters that have spoken publicly about their experiences on 9/11. I would say that if you have the resources of a government or a large corporation it is quite easy to keep secrets, even when large numbers of people are involved.

You are on much stronger ground when you make fact-based arguments about the specific allegations than with this kind of categorical dismissal.

Patrick

phooph

03-28-2009, 12:34 AM

The charge has been made elsewhere that all jet fuel contrails could be called chemtrails because they contain fuel additives that are in some cases toxic. There is quite a long list of additives from degunking agents and anti-static and anti-freezing agents to combustion enhancers to boost performance, etc, etc, etc, and who knows how toxic the stuff may be.

But back to the question of whether chemicals would be added to fuel to do such things as modify climate, all I know is that it is a topic of discussion among those concerned with climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20invent-t.html
Supervillainy: Astroengineering Global Warming || kuro5hin.org (https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/7/41932/19363)
Solar radiation management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management)
Solar shade: Encyclopedia of chemistry, analytics & pharmaceutics with 64,557 entries. (https://www.chemie.de/lexikon/e/Solar_shade/)

With respect Patrick, I think you have it backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I have seen no proof at all that contrails, which are created by airplanes in every country on the planet that has aircraft, are so-called chemtrails. If there's a conspiracy among at least 100 countries, it's unprecedented.

Skook

03-28-2009, 01:08 AM

By that definition, ALL combustion engines, including your car and lawnmower are producing 'chemtrails'.

The charge has been made elsewhere that all jet fuel contrails could be called chemtrails because they contain fuel additives that are in some cases toxic. There is quite a long list of additives from degunking agents and anti-static and anti-freezing agents to combustion enhancers to boost performance, etc, etc, etc, and who knows how toxic the stuff may be.

But back to the question of whether chemicals would be added to fuel to do such things as modify climate, all I know is that it is a topic of discussion among those concerned with climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20invent-t.html
Supervillainy: Astroengineering Global Warming || kuro5hin.org (https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/7/41932/19363)
Solar radiation management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management)
Solar shade: Encyclopedia of chemistry, analytics & pharmaceutics with 64,557 entries. (https://www.chemie.de/lexikon/e/Solar_shade/)

phooph

03-28-2009, 10:39 PM

Automotive Exhaust Chemicals: disease causing effects (https://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm)

Tox Town - Gasoline - Toxic chemicals and environmental health risks where you live and work - Text Version (https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=15)

By that definition, ALL combustion engines, including your car and lawnmower are producing 'chemtrails'.

Skook

03-28-2009, 10:55 PM

As I said earlier in this thread, "Yes, engine exhaust from combustion engines is very detrimental to the environment, but they are not intentionally adding chemicals to poison you."

Automotive Exhaust Chemicals: disease causing effects (https://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm)

Tox Town - Gasoline - Toxic chemicals and environmental health risks where you live and work - Text Version (https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=15)

pnicholson

04-06-2009, 11:22 AM

Yes, that's exactly what vapor trails often do, and they don't 'remain' any longer than they should depending on current conditions.

There are plenty of real and awful conspiracies that we need to be contending with, it's a shame you're wasting your energy on this.

why are you wasting your time by continued response?

Skook

04-06-2009, 11:55 AM

Obviously, I don't consider it a waste of time. In my opinion, we're entering a new dark age, and widespread tolerance of ignorance, superstition and paranoid fantasy is a major contributor.

Add to that a growing lack of critical thinking skills and we're in serious trouble, because we can't distinguish the real threats that need addressing from the noise.

why are you wasting your time by continued response?