Jim Lee runs Climateviewer.com and covers the stratospheric aerosol geoengineering and climate change story with a strong technical and data-gathering interest. He plans to deliver a text Tuesday (Aug. 11, 2015) to the federal environmental protection agency at a hearing in Washington, D.C. The hearing focuses on a finding July 1 that “greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” The agency proposes regulation of the airline industry’s pollutants. Intersecting (or colliding) with that goal is the U.S. program to dim sunlight across the country by the injection of aerosolized metals, including aluminum, strontium and barium. This program ostensibly is sold to its enablers as a war on climate change and it takes place under wraps — secretly, as part of national security, despite a vast literature about how weather management works. The question for us: Are jet plumes over Chattanooga and Hamilton County against public policy (as pollutants) or do they serve the interest of the deep state under the guise of military interests? And a followup query: Do sky stripes contribute to declining public health? — DJT

By Jim Lee / Climateviewer.com

Why is the EPA claiming that six greenhouse gases emitted from jet planes are a “threat to human health” under the Clean Air Act [1] while doing nothing to address ongoing lawsuits over leaded aviation gasoline [2] or the real health concerns of stakeholders worldwide: cancer-causing, heavy metals in fuels and their additives, [2][3][4][5][6] and aviation-induced cloudiness (AIC)?

You (The EPA) claim the authority to regulate aviation emissions under the Clean Air Act 231(a)(2)(A), a law that should protect us from the aforementioned poisonous pollution. However, the definition of “pollution” is being perverted to mean “climate change gases” in what can only be called a violation of the spirit of the law. Quote:

Air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. [7]

As you can see by the wording in the Clean Air Act, lead, barium, aluminum, and trade-secret, toxic chemicals clearly present a greater danger to public health than greenhouse gases, no matter how much climate science you pile up. Furthermore, Material Safety Data Sheets of aviation fuel and their additives almost always contain the same warning: “DO NOT DUMP IN WATER.” Yet raw fuel-dumping [8][9] or burning these dangerous chemicals and then dumping them in water is somehow safe? Finally, despite great efforts to find bio-accumulation or bio-magnification studies on precipitated aviation pollutants, none seem to exist.

The EPA and Obama administration are ignoring the global outrage over the most visible climate change concern from airplanes: CLOUD CREATION.

Do a search for the word “chemtrails” and you will see millions of concerned citizens who “Look Up” and wonder “What in the World Are They Spraying?” [10] Despite what you may think of the myriad of maladies attributed to these clouds, the global outrage is nonetheless clear.  They are right to be worried and we should all be concerned.

The EPA’s claim that CO2 is a greater threat to human health than contrails is based on erroneous IPCC data that downplays the effects of contrails on our climate. The IPCC’s last assessment of contrail radiative forcing only accounted for “linear contrails,” meaning that any contrail that spreads out and turns into cirrus clouds was not accounted for.

How significant is the heat-trapping contrail conundrum? Quote:

Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation. [11]

Another researcher stated:

A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet. [12]

Scientific understanding of how contrails transition to cirrus clouds is severely lacking but rapidly evolving with the latest research showing that cirrus clouds are filled with metal aerosols from human sources.

The big one that we’ve found is lead. … comes from things like tetraethtyl lead in fuels … still used in some light aviation. [1]  So that’s probably the biggest metal that we find, or the most frequent metal that we find. But we find a whole host of different metals, actually. [13][14]

Apparently, small amounts of metal particles have major effects on cirrus clouds:

It would seem that you would have to change all of the aerosol in the atmosphere very radically to get a big effect on the clouds. But because mineral dust and metallic particles are such a small amount of the particulate matter – just a percent or two – it means that you only have change about a percent or two of the particles to get a big effect on these clouds. [13][14]

Please read the rest of Mr. Lee’s presentation.

REFERENCES

[1] Page 37763, Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 “Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Proposed Rule” – http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-01/html/2015-15192.htm

[2] Friends of the Earth, April 21, 2014 – EPA report shows violation of federal airborne lead standards at two California airports, yet it continues to delay action – http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2013-06-epa-report-shows-violation-of-federal-airborne-lead-standards

[3] Octel America Inc. – Stadis 450 Barium Salt (DINNSA) Material Safety Data Sheet: http://hazard.com/msds/files/cjn/cjnmq.html  –http://msdsreport.com/msds/CLNRZ  – NOTES: TRIMETHYLBENZENE (SARA 313), 10 – 30% TRADE SECRET POLYMER CONTAINING SULPHUR, 5 – 10% TRADE SECRET POLYMER CONTAINING NITROGEN,
NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313)

[4] Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, December 2000 – Trace Element and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analyses of Jet Engine Fuels: Jet A, JP5, and JP8 – http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA396143

[5] U.S. Department of Health hand Human Services – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry – Toxicological Profile for JP-5 and JP-8 – http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=773&tid=150

[6] GE Water – SPEC-Aid 8Q462 turbine fuel stabilizer and detergent (HiTTS, JP8+100) additive MSDS – http://www.hazard.com/msds/f2/cdg/cdgcf.html – http://www.scribd.com/doc/236182788/SPEC-Aid-8Q462-turbine-fuel-stabilizer-and-detergent-additive-by-GE-Power-Water – NOTES: TRIMETHYLBENZENE (SARA 313) CAS:95-63-6, TRADE SECRET INGRED 561, TSRN 125438-5273P, TRADE SECRET INGRED 428, TSRN 125438-5266P, NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313) (CERCLA) CAS:91-20-3

[7] Clean Air Act 231(a)(2)(A), 42 U.S. Code § 7571 – Establishment of standards https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7571

[8] “Six thousand feet was the DOD standard until the introduction of JP8 jet fuel. JP8 did not disseminate as well as the JP4 and JP5 that were previously used by the Navy. The Navy and the Air Force were investigating a higher dump altitude. He affirmed that any fuel that did not dissipate in the air would do so on the ground within 18 to 20 hours.” CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA CLUSTERS, IN FALLON, NEVADA – FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, UNITED STATES SENATE, ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION ON RESPONSES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ‘‘DISEASE CLUSTERS’’ RESULTING FROM POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS – APRIL 12, 2001 — FALLON, NV http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg78069/pdf/CHRG-107shrg78069.pdf

[9] High Country News, March 9, 2014. “Fallon, Nevada’s deadly legacy.”https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.4/fallon-nevadas-deadly-legacy

[10] “Chemtrails” Google Search – 5,560,000 results – July 25, 2015.https://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails

[11] Boucher, O. Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1078.html

[12]  Haywood, J. M., R. P. Allan, J. Bornemann, P. Forster, P. N. Francis, S. Milton, G. Rädel, A. Rap, K. P. Shine, and R. Thorpe (2009), A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail-induced cirrus, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D24201, doi:10.1029/2009JD012650. – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012650/abstract

[13] Science Magazine Podcast, Transcript, 10 May 2013,http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_130510.mp3  –http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6133/766.2.full

[14] Science 14 June 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6138 pp. 1320-1324 DOI: 10.1126/science.1234145 “Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1320.abstract