géo ingénierie,,danger pour les humain .pdf

Nom original: géo-ingénierie,,danger pour les humain.pdf
Titre: Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification
Auteur: J. Marvin Herndon

Ce document au format PDF 1.6 a été généré par Adobe InDesign CS6 (Windows) / Adobe PDF Library 10.0.1, et a été envoyé sur fichier-pdf.fr le 21/04/2017 à 03:25, depuis l'adresse IP 72.53.x.x. La présente page de téléchargement du fichier a été vue 426 fois.
Taille du document: 2.6 Mo (17 pages).
Confidentialité: fichier public

Aperçu du document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304619749

Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by
Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized
Particulates for Weather Modification
Article in Frontiers in Public Health · June 2016
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139





1 author:
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, California

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Marvin Herndon on 01 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Original Research
published: 30 June 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139


J. Marvin Herndon*
Transdyne Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA

Background: U.S. military perception of nuclear warfare led to countless unethical
nuclear experiments performed on unsuspecting individuals without their informed consent. As evidenced here, subsequent perception of weather warfare has led to exposing
millions of unsuspecting individuals to toxic coal fly ash with no public disclosure, no
informed consent, and no health warnings.

Edited by:
Judi Krzyzanowski,
Krzyzanowski Consulting, Canada
Reviewed by:
Otto Andersen,
Western Norway Research Institute,
Yue-Wern Huang,
Missouri University of
Science and Technology, USA
J. Marvin Herndon
Specialty section:
This article was submitted
to Environmental Health,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Public Health
Received: 05 April 2016
Accepted: 16 June 2016
Published: 30 June 2016
Herndon JM (2016) Human and
Environmental Dangers Posed by
Ongoing Global Tropospheric
Aerosolized Particulates for
Weather Modification.
Front. Public Health 4:139.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139

Methods: Three methods were used: (1) comparison of eight elements analyzed in rainwater samples, thought to have leached from aerosolized coal fly ash, with corresponding
coal fly ash laboratory leachate; (2) comparison of 14 elements analyzed in air filter dust
with corresponding elements in coal fly ash; and (3) comparison of 23 elements analyzed
in fibrous mesh found after snow melted with corresponding elements in coal fly ash.
results: The rainwater element ratios show that the aerial particulate matter has essentially the same water-leach characteristics as coal fly ash. The air filter dust element
ratios occur in the same range of compositions as coal fly ash, as do element ratios in
fibrous mesh found on grass after snow melted. The fibrous mesh provides an inferred
direct connection with the aerosolizing jet aircraft via coal fly ash association with the jet
combustion environment.
conclusion: Strong evidence for the correctness of the hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely
the aerosolized particulate emplaced in the troposphere for geoengineering, weather
modification, and/or climate alteration purposes. The documented public health associations for ≤2.5 μm particulate pollution are also applicable to aerosolized coal fly ash. The
ability of coal fly ash to release aluminum in a chemically mobile form upon exposure to
water or body moisture has potentially grave human and environmental consequences
over a broad spectrum, including implications for neurological diseases and biota debilitation. The ability of coal fly ash to release heavy metals and radioactive elements upon
exposure to body moisture has potentially grave human health implications including
cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory diseases, reduced male fertility, and
stroke. The fibrous mesh data admit the possibility of environmentally disastrous formation of methylmercury and ozone-depleting chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons in jet
exhaust. Geophysical implications include atmospheric warming and rainfall retardation.
Keywords: geoengineering, coal fly ash, aerosol particulates, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Alzheimer’s
disease, Parkinson’s disease, neurological disorders, chemically mobile aluminum

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification


Nevertheless, through application of forensic-science methodologies and with sound observations and scientific reasoning,
crucial aspects of the covert tropospheric spraying activities can
be discerned. For humanity’s sake, the public health and environmental implications of the current on-going, global-scale,
covert tropospheric spraying are herewith disclosed for public
discussion, research, and verification.
A profound dichotomy exists between the technology,
practice, terminology, and public disclosure of geoengineering
so that public discussion of its implications for public health is
minimized. The academic community describes geoengineering as a possible future intervention in the upper atmosphere
(stratosphere) to counteract anthropogenic global warming.
The stratosphere is the region where volcanic eruption gases
have been observed to cause global cooling. There is relatively
little convection in the stratosphere so volcanic ejecta can stay
suspended in the stratosphere for a year or more (16). Academic
scientists postulate future geoengineering in which substances
such as sulfuric acid or titanium dioxide are sprayed into the
stratosphere in order to block a portion of incident sunlight
(17). Various methods have been proposed for emplacing geoengineering substances into the stratosphere including shooting
the substances from guns or releasing them from balloons or
high-altitude jets (18). The stratosphere is the region harboring
the ozone-layer that protects us from the ultraviolet component
of sunlight (19). Within the academic perception of hypothetical
geoengineering, public health concerns arising from geoengineering are also hypothetical, something that may become
important in the future if and when stratospheric geoengineering is put into practice.
In contrast to the presumption of academic geoengineers, covert
government/military geoengineering activity has occurred over the
past 70 years and has intensified since the end of the Cold War and
the discovery of global warming as a national security issue (20).
Currently, geoengineering is taking place in the troposphere (lower
atmosphere) over a large number of countries, including the United
States, Canada, the European Union countries, England, Australia,
and New Zealand (14). The academic community has been hesitant
to publically acknowledge military geoengineering activity even
though there is abundant observational evidence for its existence (8,
14). Since the mid-1990s, there have been numerous observations
of aerial spraying of particulate matter in the troposphere. Figure 2
shows some recent examples of the particulate trails; however, this
is a minuscule sampling. There are numerous websites devoted to
exposing aerial spraying to the uninformed public.2–14

In a civilized, humanitarian society, public health responsibilities
include revealing threats that arise from both biological and anthropogenic causes. Global-scale naturally caused public health threats
have long existed, are generally well known, and have been the subject
of scholarly research. Far-reaching human-caused threats to public
health, on the other hand, have mainly occurred since World War II
and are typically the result of deliberate military activities conducted
secretly. Public disclosure of military-originated public health dangers by scientists has galvanized public outrage against such activities
in the past. The Manhattan Project gave rise to the nuclear arms race.
Unethical nuclear experiments were performed involving unsuspecting individuals, sometimes numbering in the thousands, without
informed consent. For example, pregnant women, told they were
receiving vitamins, were instead given radioactive iron; newborn
infants were injected with radioactive iodine-131 (1–4). Atmospheric
detonations of nuclear devices were generally undertaken without
regard for the health of unsuspecting residents downwind (5).
Atmospheric nuclear testing in the United States ended as a consequence of the public outcry over civilian public health disclosure of
the risks associated with strontium-90 uptake by children (6).
Modern commercial weather modification technology began
with the 1946 discovery that clouds, seeded with silver iodide or dry
ice, could be caused in many instances to yield rain or snow (7). That
weather modification method is widely used for agricultural and
other commercial purposes. Ski resorts frequently use it to increase
the likelihood of snow. Insurance companies use it to cut their risks
when guaranteeing certain weather conditions for commercial
projects or to minimize potential losses caused by hail storms.
The military has long dreamed of controlling the weather for
strategic purposes (8). The early military applications of weather
modification were aimed at deliberately causing rainfall at a
specific time and place by cloud seeding with substances such
as silver iodide or dry ice. Reportedly, the U.S. seeded clouds to
squeeze rain out before they reached Cuba in order to ruin the
Cuban sugar cane harvest (9). From 1967 to 1972, Operation
Popeye involved cloud seeding with the intention of extending
the monsoon season over the Ho Chi Minh Trail to impede transport of troops and supplies during the Vietnam War (8, 10). The
success of these weather modification activities provided impetus
for the subsequent government/military technological interests,
expressed in a 1978 U.S. Senate document (11) and described in
the 1996 U.S. Air Force document: “Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025 (12).”
After the Vietnam War, military weather modification became a
secret global-scale activity buttressed by a campaign of disinformation. Like its nuclear-warfare predecessor, weather modification or
geoengineering continued to be covertly developed and practiced,
especially over the past two decades (13). That geoengineering activity poses global-scale public-health dangers due to the nature of the
principal substance being sprayed into the lower atmosphere, troposphere (14), where it mixes with the air we all breathe (15) (Figure 1).
The government not only hides the known (and unknown) health
risks but also misleads the public about its geoengineering program
and the nature of the aerosol substances it employs.1




Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

FIGURE 1 | Schematic representation of atmosphere layers at mid-latitudes showing typical regions of cloud formations and passenger jet traffic.

The physical basis for particulate aerial spraying is to control
weather and climate by inhibiting rain. The idea behind cloud
seeding is to aid the nucleation of rain, ice, or snow whereas the
idea behind aerosolized particulate spraying to inhibit rainfall is to
interfere with the nucleation process. The methodology is known
from pollution studies (21) and is described by NASA15: “Normal
rainfall droplet creation involves water vapor condensing on particles in clouds. The droplets eventually coalesce together to form
drops large enough to fall to Earth. However, as more and more
pollution particles (aerosols) enter a rain cloud, the same amount
of water becomes spread out. These smaller water droplets float
with the air and are prevented from coalescing and growing large

enough for a raindrop. Thus, the cloud yields less rainfall over the
course of its lifetime compared to a clean (non-polluted) cloud of
the same size.”
The government/military solution to inhibit the fall of rain
is to deliberately add an aerosolized pollutant to the region
where clouds form to interfere with raindrop nucleation. The
intentional addition of particulate pollution not only inhibits the
fall of rain but also warms the atmosphere (by absorbing solar
energy) and limits loss of heat radiated by Earth. Consequently,
the particulate pollution creates an artificial increase in air pressure, which can block the movement of an oncoming weather
front thus further keeping the sprayed area from experiencing
rainfall (22, 23). Subsequent settling of the pollutant matter on
ice sheets may serve as solar heat collectors and aid in melting



Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

FIGURE 2 | Images of deliberately produced particulate pollution trails. Photographs by Patrick Roddie, with permission.

the ice (24). The harm to citizens, plants, and other biota comes
not only from decreased precipitation but also from the toxic
content of the pollutant substance widely utilized to retard the
fall of rain (25).
The composition of the aerosolized particulate matter, often
referred to as “chemtrails,” to distinguish them from contrails,
has been a closely guarded secret, and accompanied by a disinformation campaign. For example, in 2005, the U.S. Air Force
distributed a document entitled “Contrails Facts”, which asserted
in part: “The ‘Chemtrail’ hoax has been investigated and refuted
by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications. There is no such thing as
a ‘Chemtrail.’ Contrails are safe and are a natural phenomenon.
They pose no health hazard of any kind.”
But as Abraham Lincoln famously said, “You can fool all the
people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org

you cannot fool all the people all the time.” On February 11, 2016,
a bill was introduced into the General Assembly of the State of
Rhode Island (USA) that would demand public disclosure and
health and safety evaluations of any geoengineering activities
(26). On March 11, 2016, a mass-tort environmental proposed
Class Proceeding (“Proceeding”) was brought in the Federal
Court of Canada on behalf of all affected Canadians in respect
of Aerial Discharges performed directly or indirectly by Her
Majesty the Queen and/or her instrumentalities, in Canadian air
space, and which Aerial Discharges are alleged to compromise
cognitive function, contribute to other neurological disorders,
damage property and the environment, among many other heads
of damage (27).
The aerial graffiti superficially resembles contrails, which are
ice crystals formed from aircraft exhaust, but there are profound
differences. Contrails only form in very humid environments,


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

with temperatures low enough for the saturation vapor pressure
with respect to ice, and with sufficient moisture content in the
exhaust gases. Moreover, the ice crystals that form contrails
sublimate, disappearing by evaporation to form invisible gas on
a time scale ranging from seconds to minutes (typical) to a few
hours (extremes of cold and humidity) (28, 29).
The author has lived in San Diego, California (USA) for more
than 40 years and as a trained scientist keenly observes the sky.
For many years before the near-daily particulate spraying, the sky
overhead was a rich azure blue color, frequently without clouds.
In the warm dry air above San Diego, jet contrails are a rare sight
that disappear in a matter of seconds to minutes, becoming invisible gas. Figure 3 shows six images of the San Diego sky that not
only illustrate the nature of the now-pervasive particulate spraying but clearly provide the basis to refute the Air Force’s published

statement. Videos of aircraft spraying particulate matter into the
San Diego sky are referenced here.16–20
All of the photographs that comprise Figure 3 were taken on
days with no natural clouds in the San Diego sky. The top left
image of Figure 3 shows a section of rich azure blue San Diego
sky with little evidence of particulate spraying. The top right
image shows two trails crossing in the same region of sky, hence
in similar environments, but one abruptly ceases, while the other
does not. That is not the behavior of contrails, which would

FIGURE 3 | Photographs of the sky above San Diego, California (USA) taken in 2014–2015. Top left: note the mainly blue sky, with a just small amount of
white haze. Top right: spray stopped in mid-flight, which is uncharacteristic of jet contrails. Middle left: heavy spraying produced artificial overcast of an otherwise
cloudless blue sky. Middle right: heavy spraying changed the blue sky to overcast with a brownish hue. Bottom left: numerous particulate trails unlike paths of
normal air traffic. Bottom right: note the white haze caused by micron and sub-micron size particulates, which is uncharacteristic of jet contrails, ice crystals that
rapidly disappear by evaporation. The blue stripe copied from the top left image shows the contrast. Before the heavy aerial spraying began, San Diego skies were
usually the color of the blue stripe and often without cloud cover. The warm dry climate above San Diego prevents the formation of persistent jet contrails, which are
ice crystals.

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

have behaved similarly, but rather the operation of particulate
sprays where one was shut off or ran out of feedstock. Note
the wispy cirrus-like “clouds” in the background. Soon after
the particulate trail is laid, it begins to diffuse initially forming
cirrus-like artificial clouds, which then further diffuses to form
a white haze in the sky. The middle left photograph was taken
after heavy spraying throughout the day produced an artificial
overcast. The middle right photograph shows even heavier
spraying that produced artificial overcast with a brownish hue.
The lower left shows multiple particulate trails over a recognizable location in San Diego that is uncharacteristic of normal jet
traffic patterns. The lower right image shows the typical white
haze produced by the particulate sprays. The blue strip at the
top of the image, from the top left photo, shows for comparison
natural un-polluted San Diego sky. Jet contrails do not produce
white haze in San Diego skies.
Even without knowing the identity of the specific particulate
matter being sprayed into the air we breathe, we may infer the
potential of major adverse health risks from aerosolized particulates because they are similar in size to air pollution particles the
health effects of which have been extensively studied (30). For
aerosolized particulates to remain suspended for some period
of time before settling, the particles must be micron (μm) or
submicron in size (31). As known from epidemiological studies,
pollution particles with similar diameters, ≤2.5  μm, referred
to as PM2.5, have been found to be associated with increased
hospital admissions (32), morbidity and premature mortality
(33–35), risk for cardiovascular disease (36) and lung cancer
(37), lung inflammation and diabetes (38), risk for stroke (39),
Alzheimer’s disease (40, 41), onset of asthma (42), renal function in older men (43), low birth weight (44), and reduced male
fertility (45).
The author published the first paper in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature that provided initial evidence that the main
substance being aerosolized for military tropospheric geoengineering is coal combustion fly ash (14). The purpose of the present
paper is to provide considerably more scientific evidence that the
aerosolized particulate matter is coal fly ash, and offer considerably greater insight to the public health risks and environment
impact of this multi-component aerial pollutant.
Industrial coal burning produces four kinds of waste products:
(1) heavy bottom ash that settles out; (2) micron and sub-micron
size particles, called coal fly ash that would go up the smokestack
unless electrostatically captured and stored as is presently mandated in Western nations (46, 47); (3) boiler slag; and (4) flue
gas desulfurization product (gypsum). Of these, coal fly ash is
by far the most toxic substance. When coal formed it trapped a
great variety of toxic elements. Much of coal’s toxic component is
released upon burning and incorporated in coal fly ash, making
coal fly ash a toxic nightmare capable of releasing many toxins
upon exposure to water (48). These toxins include aluminum
in a chemically mobile form, which is implicated in human
neurological diseases (49–51) and biota distress (52, 53). “Forest
die-offs and reduced survivorship or impaired reproduction of
aquatic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians have been directly
connected to Al toxicity. Indirect effects on birds and mammals
also have been identified (54).”

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org

Coal fly ash is a major industrial waste stream for Western
nations’ coal-fired electric utilities. Notably, coal fly ash has the
appropriate grain-size distribution for aerosolized tropospheric
spraying or else it is relatively simple to further separate an extrafine component using cyclone classifiers (separators). Huge quantities of coal fly ash are readily available worldwide at extremely
low cost. Moreover, electrostatic trapping and processing facilities, as well as transport infrastructure, are in place and generally
out of public view. The author submits the following hypothesis:
coal fly ash is likely the principal aerosolized particulate sprayed
in the troposphere by jets for geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate alteration purposes.
The objectives of the author’s research are fourfold: (1) to provide further scientific evidence as to the correctness of the hypothesis that coal fly ash is likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed
in the troposphere for geoengineering, weather-modification,
and/or climate-modification purposes; (2) to reveal some of the
adverse human public health consequences and the antagonistic
consequences on Earth’s environment and biota; (3) to provide
evidence that, in addition to being directly discharged into the
atmosphere, coal fly ash may be exposed to jet fuel combustion
environment prior to being dispersed; and, (4) to suggest that
ozone-destructive chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons and
toxic methylmercury (CH3Hg) may be produced when coal fly
ash is exposed to the jet fuel combustion environment.

The methodology is threefold: (1) compare the element ratios
analyzed in rainwater with corresponding element ratios
analyzed in the leachate of coal fly ash laboratory leach experiments (48, 55); (2) compare the element ratios analyzed in dust
collected outdoors by high-efficiency particulate arresting
(HEPA) air filters with corresponding element ratios analyzed
in samples of coal fly ash; and (3) compare the element ratios
analyzed in fibrous matter collected on grass after snow melted
away with corresponding element ratios analyzed in samples of
coal fly ash.
Since at least 2002, individuals have collected post-spraying
rainwater for chemical analysis (see footnote text 2–5). Usually
only aluminum analyses were requested, but sometimes also barium, and more rarely strontium were also included in the analysis
request. In 2015, the author published the first paper showing that
for those three-element rainwater analyses, the ratios Al/Ba and
Sr/Ba compare favorably with similar ratios from analyses of the
leachate from laboratory coal fly ash leaching experiments (14).
Here, the author compares three separate San Diego (USA) postspraying rainwater analyses for Al/Ba, Sr/Ba, Fe/Ba, Ca/Br, S/Br,
Mg/Br, and B/Br with corresponding coal fly ash leachate ratios.
Since at least 2008, a few individuals have trapped air-borne
particles on HEPA filters and had the dust analyzed. Here,
the author compares the analytical results from four samples,
expressed as element ratios relative to barium, with corresponding ratios from analyses of coal fly ash.
Occasionally fibers, sometimes referred to as “spider webs,”
are observed descending from above, swept along by the wind,


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification


trapped on vegetation, and on the ground;21–24 some observers have
speculated that these originated from aerial spraying. Recently,
such fibers were found on grass as snow was melting away and
were collected and analyzed. Here, the author compares those
analytical results, expressed as ratios relative to barium, with
corresponding ratios from analyses of coal fly ash.

Before the near-daily aerial spraying in San Diego, California
(USA), where the author has resided for more than 40 years, on
many days of the year the skies were blue, cloudless and without
the white haze that is the consequence of the aerial spraying; now,
the visual effects of the spraying are clearly evident (Figure 3).
The author collected San Diego rainwater samples in February,
May, and December 2015 for analysis. San Diego is ideal for
rainwater sample collection as there are no coal-burning facilities nearby or in the path of prevailing winds and there are no
heavy industries to cause air borne pollution in San Diego. The
residence-time for smokestack particulates in the boundary
layer, a few days at most, is too short for coal fly ash to arrive
from China via low-level transport, which takes longer than
10 days (56). Further, the observed aerial particulate density, at
times sufficient to cause artificial overcast (Figure 3), is related
to observed aircraft spraying activities, and is not present in the
absence of aerial activity.
The rainwater samples were sent to two commercial state-ofCalifornia certified laboratories, Babcock Laboratories, Inc., and
Basic Laboratory. Their analytical results, by inductively coupled
plasma mass spectrometry, were consistent to within 2–10%.
Figure 4 shows the San Diego rainwater analytical element ratios
for comparison with corresponding ratios of the average values
and ranges of the Moreno et al. (48) laboratory leachate results for
23 European coal fly ash samples and the range of American coal
fly ash leachate data of Suloway et al. (55). The European coal fly
ash samples were leached using distilled water (pH = 7.00). After
leaching for 24 h the pH of the 23 laboratory leachates ranged
from 6.40 to 12.54. Comparable data are not available for the

Coal fly ash is trapped and confined in Western countries because
it contains numerous toxic elements including aluminum, arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, thorium,
and uranium among others. These elements are readily released
by contact with water. Moreno et  al. (48) conducted leaching
experiments on 23 different coal fly ash samples from European
sources (Spain, The Netherlands, Italy, and Greece), which they
analyzed for 33 elements. They leached 100 g of each sample in
1  liter of distilled water in a 2-liter bottle for 24  h. They then
analyzed the filtered leachate solution of each for 38 elements.
No reason was given for the greater number of leachate analyses.
These data provide the primary standard for comparison of the
analytical results for rainwater, HEPA filter dust, and fibrous matter reported here. An additional comparison is made of the range
of compositions and range of leachate values of 12 American coal
fly ash samples, ten of which come from the Illinois Basin (55).

FIGURE 4 | Analyzed element ratios in San Diego rainwater samples taken in February, May, and December of 2015 shown for comparison with the
range of corresponding element ratios and average values from laboratory coal fly ash leachate of 23 European (48) and 12 American coal fly ash
samples (55). Previously published (14) rainwater Al/Ba and Sr/Ba ratios from Internet postings are shown for comparison.

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

different locations. Note in Figure 4 that the Internet-posted
rainwater Al/Ba ratios (14), determined on samples from the
United States, France, and New Zealand, are quite similar to the
San Diego rainwater Al/Ba ratio and span a range less than the
corresponding leachate range of the 23 European coal fly ash
samples. A similar observation may be made with respect to the
published rainwater Sr/Ba ratios. Indeed, each of the seven San
Diego rainwater ratios of the three data sets is remarkably similar to the corresponding European leachate average and range.
Rainwater samples absent aerial spraying would be desirable
as blanks, but the near-daily, pervasive spraying makes such
samples impossible to obtain.
Do the data shown in Figure 4 prove that the aerosolized substance is indeed coal fly ash? Not necessarily, as incontrovertible
proof is difficult to obtain, except in mathematics. But the data
of Figure 4 do show that some substance in the atmosphere is
capable of being leached by rainwater and that substance has for
eight elements similar leach characteristics to coal fly ash.

American leach experiments as the pH was constantly adjusted
during the experiment to maintain a value of 5.00. Figure 4 also
includes for comparison the analytical rainwater results from
Internet sources (see footnote text 2–5) published by the author
(14, 57). Plotted data are shown in Tables 1–3.
Ranges of variations are observed in the compositions of
coal fly ash (48, 55). These variations arise not only from differences in coal type, in chemical compositions and mineral
constituents of the coal from the various locations, but also
arise from fly ash characteristics and from boiler configurations and prevailing physical conditions during the burning
process. Despite those variable factors, there is nevertheless
an overall compositional consistency. Not surprisingly, overall
compositional consistency appears to be the case as well for
leachate compositions leached from coal fly ash samples from
TABLE 1 | Analytical ICP-MS data for San Diego rainwater samples.


February 2015

May 2015

December 2015





HEPA Air Filter Dust

Citizens throughout Western nations, concerned about the
particulate spraying they observe in the troposphere, have taken
numerous samples other than rainwater. Some instances, such as
soil samples, are too complicated to draw meaningful conclusions.
In many instances, though, too few elements were ordered in the
analyses. Individuals in Los Angeles and Montebello, California
(USA) in 2011, and in Phoenix, Arizona (USA) in 2008 and 2009
were exceptions. During times of intense aerial spraying these

The differences between samples primarily reflect various amounts of dilution.

TABLE 2 | Tabulation of Internet-posted ICP-MS analytical data plotted in
Figure 4.









TABLE 3 | Analytical ICP-MS data for HEPA filter dust and fibers.


Data sources (see footnote text 2–5).

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org




























Sample weights unspecified in reports.


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

citizens ran HEPA air filters out doors for 3 months during times
of intense aerial spraying to capture air borne dust which they had
analyzed for 14 chemical elements by state-certified laboratories.
The laboratory results were posted on the Internet, but led to no
immediately conclusions other than that a number of toxic elements were evident.
Having had the experience of comparing post-spraying
rainwater analyses to laboratory-produced coal fly ash leachate,
the author decided to compare the HEPA air filter analyses with
corresponding analyses of non-leached coal fly ash samples
(48,  55, 57). As in the case of San Diego, there were no coal
burning facilities and no polluting heavy industries nearby or
in the path of prevailing winds for the Los Angeles, Montebello,
and Phoenix areas where sample collections took place. As noted
above, the residence-time for smokestack particulates in the
boundary layer, a few days at most, is too short for coal fly ash
to arrive from China via low-level transport, which takes longer
than 10 days (56).
Figure 5 shows the comparisons of the four sets of analyses of
HEPA air filter dust, normalized to barium, with corresponding
ratios of the average and range of European coal fly ash compositions from Moreno et al. (48) and from a suite of 12 investigated
by Suloway et  al. (55) that includes ten from the Illinois Basin
(USA), one from North Dakoda (USA) and one from Minnesota
(USA). Even though coal fly ash varies in composition according
to location, the data presented in Figure 5 show the great similarity between the four samples of HEPA filter dust and coal fly ash
compositional ranges. That great similarity is further evidence
in support of the following hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely the
principal aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by

jets for geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate
It follows logically that if aerosolized coal fly ash is the progenitor of the rainwater content of aluminum, barium, strontium,
and other elements by leaching, as evidence suggests (Figure 4),
then coal fly ash should be found trapped on HEPA air filters
(Figure 5) as the tropospheric air at spray-altitudes mixes with
the air we breathe (15).

Fibers Found after Snow Melted

In the spring of 2015 a citizen in Laona, Wisconsin (USA)
noticed that immediately after snow had melted a fibrous, sticky
mesh, initially flexible and sticky, covered the underlying grass
(Figure 6). Upon drying over a period of 24 h, the white fibrous
mesh became brittle; subsequent addition of water decomposed
the fibrous mesh into a black gelatinous mass. Samples of the
brittle white fibrous mesh were analyzed by inductively coupled
plasma mass spectrometry at Northern Lake Services, Inc. in
Crandon, Wisconsin. Of the 26 elements detected and measured
in the fibrous mesh, 23 had been measured by Moreno et al. (48)
in the non-leached coal fly ash European samples. Of the 22 element ratios relative to barium that are common to each data set,
11 are common to element ratios measured in HEPA air filter
dust and are shown with those ratios in Figure 5. Considering the
compositional variability in coal fly ash from different sources, it
is reasonable to conclude that the fibrous mesh ratios are essentially indistinguishable from ratios measured in the HEPA air
filter data and in turn are essentially indistinguishable from ratios
measured in non-leached coal fly ash. Figure 7 is a comparison of
the remaining 11 fibrous mesh ratios with corresponding ratios of

FIGURE 5 | Analyzed element ratios of dust collected on four high-efficiency air filters shown for comparison with the range of corresponding
element ratios and average values for 23 non-leached European coal fly ash samples (48) and element ratio ranges of 12 U.S. coal fly ash
samples (55). Also shown, 11 of 22 element ratios of fibrous mesh (Figure 6); remaining 11 element ratios are shown in Figure 7.

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

FIGURE 6 | Photographs of fibrous mesh observed atop grass just as snow had melted showing its initially “sticky” nature. Photos by Robert West,
with permission.

FIGURE 7 | Remaining 11 of 22 analyzed element ratios of fibrous mesh found after snow had melted (Figure 6) shown for comparison with the
range of corresponding element ratios and average values for 23 non-leached European coal fly ash samples (48) and element ratio ranges of 12
U.S. coal fly ash samples (55). See Figure 5 for the other 11 of 22 element ratios of fibrous mesh.

the average and range of European coal fly ash compositions from
Moreno et al. (48) and American coal fly ash composition ranges
published by Suloway et al. (55). The great similarity observed in
the data plotted in Figure 7 further reinforces the assertion that
the composition of the white fibrous mesh is essentially identical
to that of coal fly ash.
Coal fly ash is electrostatically trapped as a powder that ranges
in color from tan to dark gray depending on composition, which
is consistent with observations of the dust trapped by HEPA air
filters, which is further consistent with the hypothesis that coal fly

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org

ash is sprayed from jet aircraft. So, how might one account for the
strikingly different appearance of the fibrous mesh morphology if
indeed it is, as evidence indicates, essentially identical in composition to coal fly ash? For the reasons and observations described
in the next section, the author posits potential circumstances in
which coal fly ash is sometimes exposed to jet fuel combustion,
which usually leads to aerosolized coal fly ash, but occasionally,
depending physical variables, leads to the production for fibers
instead. Viewed this way, the fibrous mesh provides an inferred
direct connection with the aerosolizing jet aircraft and also admits


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

the possibility for further investigation of environmentally disastrous formation of methylmercury (CH3Hg) and/or the production of ozone-depleting chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons in
the jet exhaust.

may combine with several organic complexes, especially oxalic,
humic, and fulvic acids. The metal may also combine with inorganic anions including sulfates, fluorides, phosphates, bicarbonates, or hydroxides, depending on their relative concentrations.
Biological activity and toxicity vary with composition and pH.
Generally, sulfates are less toxic than hydroxide or organically
bound aluminum; however, aqueous trivalent aluminum is considerably more active chemically and biologically (64). Soluble
aluminum is toxic to plants in a variety of ways, including
formation of root lesions (65) that may weaken the plant, making it vulnerable to disease, or may kill it outright. Coal fly ash
leaching studies reveal that even distilled water can solubilize
aluminum, but details of the mechanism have not been disclosed
(48, 55). The author posits that aerosolized coal fly ash directly
settled in soil or brought down in rainwater is damaging plants
both from soluble aluminum toxicity and from pH changes (14).
Exposure to air pollution particulates, not necessarily coal fly
ash, in sizes ≤2.5 μm in diameter – often designated PM2.5 – is
especially detrimental to human health (66). Although the specific mechanisms are not well known, epidemiological studies are
beginning to reveal some of the adverse consequences of such
exposures. As noted above, exposure to PM2.5 has been shown to
be associated with increased hospital admissions (32), morbidity
and premature mortality (33–35), risk for cardiovascular disease
(36) and lung cancer (37), lung inflammation and diabetes (38),
risk for stroke (39), Alzheimer’s disease (40, 41), onset of asthma
(42), renal function in older men (43), low birth weight (44), and
reduced male fertility (45). One may therefore reasonably conclude that aerosolized coal fly ash, at least the PM2.5 component,
is harmful to human health.
Coal fly ash occurs with grain sizes down to ~0.1  μm in
diameter (67). In principle, extracting an ultra-fine fraction of
coal fly ash is relatively simple and inexpensive using cyclone classifiers (separators). Certainly, such an ultra-fine fraction would
be advantageous for aerial spraying due to added loft time. But
there is a serious downside: the toxic elements of coal fly ash tend
to be concentrated in the ultra-fine fraction (55). It is not known
whether this mechanism for producing ultra-fine enrichment is
being used for the covert tropospheric emplacement, but if it is,
then that component would be even more toxic than typical coal
fly ash.
The toxins in coal fly ash make that substance especially injurious to human health. The small particle size of aerosolized coal fly
ash (PM2.5) enables particulate intake through inhalation, ingestion, and induction through eyes or skin (68). When inhaled,
PM2.5 particles can penetrate and become trapped in terminal
airways and alveoli, and retained for long periods of time. Here, it
can cause inflammation and injury through antagonistic contact
(69), through in  situ toxin release by body moisture (70), and
through ionizing radiation from uranium, thorium, and their
radioactive daughter products found in coal fly ash (71). Coal fly
ash has been described as being more radioactive than nuclear
waste (72).
Coal fly ash is able to liberate a host of toxins through
exposure to body moisture (70), including aluminum, arsenic,
barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, lithium, selenium,
strontium, thallium, and thorium and uranium with their

The analytical results reported for rainwater (Figure 4), airborne
particulates collected on HEPA air filters (Figure  5), and the
fibrous mesh (Figures 4 and 6) stand as evidence that coal fly ash
is the principal material emplaced in the troposphere for ongoing, covert geoengineering, weather modification, and/or climate
alteration. For more precise information, future experiments
should sample airborne particulates at the altitude in which they
are being dispersed into the atmosphere. Alternatively, the nature
of the substances being sprayed into the air people breathe may be
sought through the process of judicial discovery in legal proceedings such as recently initiated in Canada (27).

Biotic and Public Health Consequences of
Tropospheric Spraying

The ultra-fine particles of aerosolized coal fly ash do not long
remain at the altitudes they are emplaced in the troposphere. The
particles mix with and pollute the air people breathe (15) and
contaminate the soil with toxic, soluble aluminum. The coal fly
ash also causes pH changes in the soil. Aluminum is an abundant element in Earth’s crust, but typically it is tightly bound to
oxygen and other elements. Earth’s biota evolved without adapting defense mechanisms for soluble aluminum compounds.
Tropospheric aerosolized coal fly ash poses environmental
health threats from aluminum similar to those posed by acid
rain, but without necessarily requiring an acid environment. The
pH of coal fly ash varies and can be acidic or basic depending
on its coal source. Eastern USA bituminous coal fly ash, for
example, has been found to be acidic with pH in the range of
4.3–4.9 (58), whereas coal fly ash from the Western USA tends
to be more basic, with pH in the range 8.16–12.4 according to
one study (59). Uncontaminated natural rainwater has an acidic
pH of about 5.7 due to interaction with atmospheric CO2 (60);
however, an acidic pH is not a required to leach toxins from coal
fly ash. In the experiments on European coal fly ash samples by
Moreno et  al. (48), distilled water led to aluminum extraction
while other chemicals extracted led to leachate pH values in the
range 6.2–12.5.
Before action was taken to prevent acid rain (61), chemically
mobile aluminum, which is soluble in water, was released into
the environment from geological sources, such as mine tailings,
and caused serious adverse effects on forests. Forest die-backs
in North America were attributed to aluminum toxicity. These
blighted forests included balsam fir, Fraser fir, loblolly pine, red
spruce, slash pine, and sugar maples (54). Whereas reductions
in NOx and SO2 emissions have seriously reduced the acid rain
threat, there is a global decline in large old trees (62) and particularly in the Western USA (63). The biochemical–­geochemical
cycling of aluminum is complex. Its dissolved form is most readily assimilated by living organisms. Once in solution, aluminum

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

radioactive daughter products, and other toxins. Each one
of these can have adverse human health consequences, but in
combination their synergistic effects may be even more deleterious. Moreover, Haber’s Rule or some more general concentration
versus exposure-time relationship may be expected in certain
instances where a lower concentration for a long time exposure
is approximately equivalent to a higher concentration exposure
for a short period of time (16).
The extent of physiological damage from tropospheric coal
fly ash is a function of a variety of factors including concentration and exposure duration, as well as the individual’s age,
physical condition, and individual susceptibility. Generally,
the most at-risk individuals are pregnant women, children, the
elderly, and those with compromised immune and respiratory
systems. The fetuses of pregnant women exposed to inorganic
arsenic from coal fly ash are at risk as arsenic can crossover the
placenta. Arsenic can be involved with hypertension-related
cardiovascular disease (73), cancer (74), diabetes (75), respiratory diseases (76), and stroke (74). Moreover, arsenic is just one
of the numerous toxic elements of coal fly ash that are released
by water and by body fluids. Another component, chromium
VI, which comprises an estimated 10% of the chromium content
of coal fly ash, is not only cytotoxic for lungs and kidneys but
is also a carcinogen with the ability to cause lung cancer (77).
These examples are just snippets of a vast array of debilitating
conditions that can potentially arise from human exposure to
aerosolized coal fly ash.
Although aluminum is abundant in Earth’s continental crust,
comprising about 8%, it is tightly bound within minerals, and
thus is essentially insoluble, i.e., immobile. But coal fly ash is
an unnatural product whose aluminum is not so tightly bound.
Aluminum in coal fly ash can be extracted in a chemically mobile
(soluble) form by water or in situ by body fluids (70). Aluminum
is implicated in neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s, autism
spectrum disorder (ASD), Parkinson’s, and attention-deficit
disorder (ADHD) (49, 51, 78–80), all of which have increased
markedly in recent years. Moreover, aluminum is thought to
reduce fertility in men (81) and is implicated in neurological
disorders of bees and other creatures (82–84).
As might be expected of a covert operation, there have been
no public disclosures identifying the principal substance being
sprayed, no informed consent, no health warnings, and no serious investigation of the adverse health consequences. The data
described here, however, provide strong evidence that the main
aerosolized substance being sprayed is coal fly ash; public health
inferences can be drawn from extent literature, some of which is
cited herein. These citations only provide glimpses of the potential
risks involved, but they are sufficient to suggest the possibility of
a multi-dimensional global public health crisis, a slow pandemic
in the making.

troposphere: (1) blowing or pumping the powder through nozzles; and (2) dumping large quantities of the powder for the winds
to spread. The evidence of a fibrous form of coal fly ash disclosed
here presents the possibility of a third dispersing mechanism, one
that may pose yet further public health risks.
The author can envision no practical reason for coal fly
ash to be deliberately converted into an aerial fibrous form.
Moreover, the fibrous form is only sporadically observed,
which suggests it is the result of the occasional failure of a
specific dispersing mechanism for particulate spray. This fiberproducing mechanism is different in that it involves a heat
source, necessary to liquefy the material that generates fibers, a
progenitor matrix that may contain additives in addition to coal
fly ash, and a motive-mechanism for elongating the liquid into
fibers. One known mechanism for producing fibers is to inject
a liquid into a blowing stream of air, which causes elongation
(85, 86). In principle, fluid drops of coal fly ash and its additives when subjected to the high speed jet combustion exhaust
under appropriate physical conditions may be lengthened to
form fibers. Two potential processes come to mind that might
result in coal fly ash being exposed to jet fuel combustion
temperatures: (1) the coal fly ash powder, which may contain
dispersion-assisting additives, is injected into the proximity of
the jet engine combustion chamber, or (2) the coal fly ash is
suspended in the jet fuel, possibly added along with a surfactant
at the refinery or fuel distribution center.
The exposure of coal fly ash to the jet fuel combustion environment has further – and perhaps unanticipated – global public
health consequences.
As is well known, coal fly ash contains mercury (87–91) in
concentrations of 0.1–1.1 μg/g, which may be expected to pollute the environment with mercury as the aerosolized coal fly
ash settles to the surface or is brought down by precipitation.
Mercury is readily volatile; the possibility should be considered
that at elevated temperatures in the presence of copious hydrocarbons, such as are found in the jet fuel combustion environment,
conceivably, toxic methylmercury (CH3Hg) might form, and be
released into the environment. This could explain the methylmercury recently discovered in California fog (92). To the author’s
knowledge, this explanation has not been previously considered,
and the author could not find either experimental verification or
theoretical justification in the scientific literature. Experimental
verification should be relatively straightforward. In addition,
those who measure methylmercury in fog might look for other
toxic gases that might have been produced from coal fly ash at
elevated temperatures in the presence of copious hydrocarbons
in the jet fuel combustion environment. One possibility that
comes to mind is arsine, AsH3, but there may be others; this is an
unexplored potential area of investigation.
Coal fly ash contains readily volatile chlorine, ca. 200 μ/g (93),
and fluorine, ca. 225  μ/g (94). At elevated temperatures in the
presence of copious hydrocarbons, such as are found in the jet
fuel combustion environment, conceivably chlorine and fluorine
might react to form chlorinated-fluorinated hydrocarbons capable
of damaging Earth’s ozone layer (95, 96). This could explain the
observed post-Montreal Protocol emissions of those ozone-layerdamaging compounds (97). But, as in the case of methylmercury,

Potential Unforeseen Hazards Inferred
from Fibrous Mesh

From observations, photographic and video evidence, patent
literature, and airline pilots’ statements there appears to be
two main methods for dispersing the particulate matter in the

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

experimental verification is extremely important because of the
potentially profound implications.

particulate emplaced in the troposphere for geoengineering,
weather modification and/or climate alteration purposes. The
rainwater element ratios show that the aerial particulate matter
has essentially the same water-leach characteristics as coal fly ash.
The HEPA air filter dust element ratios occur in the same range
of compositions as coal fly ash, as do the element ratios in fibrous
mesh found on grass after snow melted.
The documented public health associations for PM2.5 particulate pollution are also applicable to aerosolized coal fly ash, which
is similar in grain size. These associations include increased hospital admissions, morbidity and premature mortality, low birth
weight, lung inflammation and diabetes, risk for cardiovascular
disease, lung cancer, lung inflammation and diabetes, risk for
stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, onset of asthma, renal function in
older men, and reduced male fertility.
The ability of coal fly ash to release aluminum in a chemically mobile form upon exposure to water or body moisture has
potentially grave human and environmental consequences over a
broad spectrum, including implications for neurological diseases,
reduced male fertility, neurological disorders of bees and other
creatures, and biota debilitation.
The ability of coal fly ash to release heavy metals and radioactive elements upon exposure to body moisture has potentially
grave human health implications over a broad spectrum, including, but not limited to, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes,
respiratory diseases, and stroke.
Toxic methylmercury and ozone-damaging chlorinated-­
fluorinated hydrocarbons, the author posits, may be produced
from certain types of tropospheric spraying that places coal fly
ash in the jet-fuel combustion environment. Experimental verification is warranted.
From a geophysical perspective, coal fly ash sprayed in the
troposphere warms the atmosphere, blocks heat from Earth radiating back into space, and retards rainfall, which can artificially
elevate atmospheric pressures that can block incoming weather
fronts, further leading to drought conditions. If anything this
activity contributes to global warming, the purpose of this
covert activity is unknown to the scientific community and to
the public. The time has come for the scientific community and
especially the environmental science and public health communities to understand that a multiplicity of toxic substances
is being sprayed into the air breathed by people in many parts
of the world and that it will adversely affect virtually all life on

Geophysical Considerations

Within the academic community, there has been some debate as
to whether substances emplaced high in the stratosphere will have
the intended result of cooling Earth to counteract global warming
(18). There is no debate, however, in the open scientific literature
on the efficacy of the ongoing covert tropospheric emplacement
of aerosolized particulate matter. There should be. Geophysical
considerations provide a basis for that discussion.
Although there is no open (unclassified) scientific literature
on aerosolized coal fly ash, there are some published articles on
the effects of carbon/soot particles. Although coal fly ash may be
less efficient than carbon black, generally its effects are similar.
Coal fly ash sprayed into the troposphere is expected to inhibit
radiation from Earth into space and to heat the atmosphere (98).
Coal fly ash particles, settling atop glaciers, will aid in their melting (99).
In copious amounts aerosolized coal fly ash particles, like
other pollution particulates, will inhibit rainfall by preventing the
smaller water droplets from coalescing and growing large enough
to form raindrops (see footnote text 15). Moreover, coal fly ash is
hygroscopic. Having formed under anhydrous conditions, it traps
water droplets, further inhibiting rainfall. Furthermore, the particulate pollution heats the atmosphere (by absorbed solar energy)
and retards heat loss form Earth; consequently, this produces an
artificial increase in local atmospheric pressure, which blocks
incoming weather fronts, additionally limiting rainfall. Rather
than cooling Earth, aerosolized coal fly ash enhances global
warming. It also has potentially devastating effects on habitats,
including agriculture, from changes in natural weather patterns,
from changes in soil pH, and from multiple toxic substances that
derive from the coal fly ash.
For at least 15  years, covert weather/climate modification
activities have been taking place that involve spraying pollutant
particles into the troposphere as observed by many thousands of
individuals (see footnote text 2–14). Yet none of the consequences
of this near-global weather/climate modification activity has been
taken into account by any of the climate change models evaluated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which calls into question their validity.
As a weapon aerosolized coal fly ash can be used to cause
droughts and concomitant livestock deaths and human starvation. Worse, as discussed above, coal fly ash is a multi-component
environmental public health hazard, a slow pandemic that may
already be evident in the observed increase in neurological

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and
approved it for publication.



The research results reported here provide strong evidence for
the author’s hypothesis: coal fly ash is likely the aerosolized

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org

Only internal funding, no extramural funding.


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification


26. State of Rhode Island House Bill 7578: An Act Relating to Health and
Safety  –  Geoengineering. (2016). Available from: https://legiscan.com/RI/
27. Canadian Aerial Discharge Class Action. (2016). Available from: http://www.
28. Jiusto JE. Prediction of Aircraft Condensation Trails, PROJECT CONTRAILS.
Buffalo, NY: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (1961). Report No.
29. Schumann U. On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts.
Meteorologisch Zeitschrift (1996) 5:4–23.
30. Kampa M, Castanas E. Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut
(2008) 151:362–7. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012
31. Tegen I, Lacis AA. Modeling of particle size distribution and its influence on the radiative properties of mineral dust. J Geophys Res (1996)
101(D14):19237–44. doi:10.1029/95JD03610
32. Bell ML, Ebisu K, Leaderer BP, Gent JF, Lee HJ, Koutrakis P, et al. Associations
of PM2.5 constituents and sources with hospital admissions: analysis of four
counties in Connecticut and Massachusetts (USA). Environ Health Perspect
(2014) 122(2):138–44. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306656
33. Dai L, Zanobetti A, Koutrakis P, Schwartz JD. Associations of fine particulate
matter species with mortality in the United States: a multicity time-series
analysis. Environ Health Perspect (2014) 122(8):837–42. doi:10.1289/
34. Dockery DW, Pope CA, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME, et  al. An
association between air pollution and mortality in six U. S. cities. N Engl
J Med (1993) 329:1753–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM199312093292401
35. Pope CA, Ezzati M, Dockery DW. Fine-particulate air polution and life expectancy in the United States. N Engl J Med (2009) 360:376–86. doi:10.1056/
36. Haberzetti P, Lee J, Duggineni D, McCracken J, Bolanowski D, O’Toole TE,
et al. Exposure to ambient air fine particulate matter prevents VEGF-induced
mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells from bone matter. Environ Health
Perspect (2012) 120(6):848–56. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104206
37. Beeson WL, Abbey DE, Knutsen SF. Long-term concentrations of ambient
air pollutants and incident lung cancer in California adults: results from
the AHSMOG study. Environ Health Perspect (1998) 106(12):813–22.
38. Potera C. Toxicity beyond the lung: connecting PM2.5, inflammation,
and diabetes. Environ Health Perspect (2014) 122(1):A29. doi:10.1289/
39. Hong YC, Lee JT, Kim H, Kwon HJ. Air pollution: a new risk factor in
ischemic stroke mortality. Stroke (2002) 33:2165–9. doi:10.1161/01.
40. Calderon-Garciduenas L, Franko-Lira M, Mora-Tiscareno A, MedinaCortina H, Torres-Jardon R, Kavanaugh M. Early Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
disease pathology in urban children: friend verses foe responses – it’s time to
face the evidence. Biomed Res Int (2013) 32:650–8. doi:10.1155/2013/161687
41. Moulton PV, Yang W. Air pollution, oxidative stress, and Alzheimer’s disease.
J Environ Public Health (2012) 109(8):1004–11.
42. Tetreault L-F, Doucet M, Gamache P, Fournier M, Brand A, et al. Childhood
exposure to ambient air pollutants and the onset of asthma: an administrative
cohort study in Quebec. Environ Health Perspect (2016). doi:10.1289/ehp.1509838
43. Mehta AJ, Zanobetti A, Bind MC, Kloog I, Koutrakis P, Sparrow D, et  al.
Long-term exposure to ambient fine particulate matter and renal function
in older men: the VA Normative aging study. Environ Health Perspect (2016).
44. Ebisu K, Bell ML. Airborne PM2.5 chemical components and low birth
weight in the northeastern and mid-atlantic regions of the United States.
Environ Health Perspect (2012) 120(12):1746–52. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104763
45. Pires A, de Melo EN, Mauad T, Saldiva PHN, Bueno HMdS. Pre- and postnatal exposure to ambient levels of urban particulate matter (PM2.5) affects
mice spermatogenesis. Inhal Toxicol (2011) 23(4):237–45. doi:10.3109/0895
46. Chakraborty R, Mukherjee A. Mutagenicity and genotoxicity of coal fly ash
water leachate. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf (2009) 72(3):838–42. doi:10.1016/j.
47. Ruhl L, Vengosh A, Dwyer GS, Hsu-Kim H, Deonarine A, Bergin M, et al.
Survey of the potential environmental and health impacts in the immediate

1. Cole LA. Clouds of Secrecy: The Army’s Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated
Areas. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc (1988).
2. Goliszek A. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical
Research, and Human Experimentation. New York: St. Martin’s Press
3. Hornblum AM, Newman JL, Dober GJ. Against their Will: The Secret History
of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan (2013).
4. Loue S. Textbook of Research Ethics: Theory and Practice. US: Springer
5. Gallagher C. American Ground Zero: The Secret Nuclear War. New York:
Random House (1993).
6. Reiss LZ. Strontium-90 absorption by deciduous teeth. Science (1961)
134(3491):1669–73. doi:10.1126/science.134.3491.1669
7. Schaefer VJ. The production of ice crystals in a cloud of supercooled water droplets. Science (1946) 104:457–9. doi:10.1126/
8. Fleming JR. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate
Control. New York: Columbia University Press (2010).
9. Ex-Researcher Says US. Seeded Clouds Over Cuba. Palm Beach Post-Times.
June 27 (1976).
10. Rainmaking Used as Weapon of War in SE Asia. Daytona Beach Morning
Journal. May 19 (1974).
11. United States Senate. Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and
Potential. Washington, DC (1978).
12. House TJ, Near JB, Shields WB, Celentano RJ, Husband DM, Mercer AE,
et  al. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. US Air
Force (1996).
13. Thomas W. Chemtrails Confirmed. Carson City, NV: Bridger House
Publishers (2004).
14. Herndon JM. Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by
clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India. Curr Sci (2015)
15. Kley D. Tropospheric chemistry and transport. Science (1997) 276(5315):
1043–4. doi:10.1126/science.276.5315.1043
16. Miller FJ, Schlosser PM, Janszen DB. Haber’s rule: a special case in a family
of curves relating concentration and duration of exposure to a fixed level
of response for a given endpoint. Toxicology (2000) 149:21–34. doi:10.1016/
17. Pope FD, Braesicke P, Grainger RG, Kalberer M, Watson IM, Davidson PJ,
et  al. Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management. Nat
Clim Chang (2012) 2(10):713–9. doi:10.1038/nclimate1528
18. Robock A, Marquardt A, Kravitz B, Stenchikov G. Benefits, risks, and
costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett (2009) 36:L19703.
19. Bais AF, McKenzie RL, Bernhard G, Aucamp PJ, Ilyas M, Madronich S, et al.
Ozone depletion and climate change: impacts on UV radiation. Photochem
Photobiol Sci (2014) 14:19–52. doi:10.1039/c4pp90032d
20. Weart S. A national security issue? How people tried to frame global
warming. In: Pumphrey C, editor. Global Climate Change: National Security
Implications. Vol. 1, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War
College (2008), 23–4.
21. Warner J. A reduction in rainfall associated with smoke from sugar-cane
fires: an inadvertent weather modification? J Appl Meteorol (1968) 7:247–51.
22. Changnon SA. Inadvertent weather modification in urban areas: lessons
for global climate change. Bull Am Meteorol Soc (1992) 73(5):619–27.
23. Robinson E. Effects on the physical properties of the atmosphere. In:
Stern AC, editor. Air Pollution: The Effects of Air Pollution. Vol. 2, New York:
Academic Press, Inc (1977), 349–400.
24. Hansen J, Nazarenko L. Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A (2004) 101(2):423–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100
25. Gupta DK, Rai UN, Tripathi RD, Inouhe M. Impacts of fly-ash on soil
and plant responses. J Plant Res (2002) 115(6):401–9. doi:10.1007/s10265002-0057-3

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139







Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

aftermath of the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Environ Sci Technol
(2009) 43:6326–33. doi:10.1021/es900714p
Moreno N, Querol X, Andres JM, Stanton K, Towler M, Nugteren H, et al.
Physico-chemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly
ashes. Fuel (2005) 84:1351–63. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2004.06.038
Bondi SC. Prolonged exposure to low levels of aluminum leads to changes
associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration. Toxicology (2014)
315:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2013.10.008
Good PF, Olanow CW, Perl DP. Neuromelanin-containing neurons of the
substantia nigra accumulate iron and aluminum in Parkinson’s disease:
a LAMMA study. Brain Res (1992) 593(2):343–6. doi:10.1016/00068993(92)91334-B
Yokel RA, Rhineheimer SS, Sharma P, Elmore D, McNamara PJ. Entry,
half-life and desferrioxamine-accelerated clearance of brain aluminum
after a single Al-26 exposure. Toxicol Sci (2001) 64(26):77–82. doi:10.1093/
Cape JN. Direct damage to vegetation caused by acid rain and polluted cloud:
definition of critical levels for forest trees. Environ Pollut (1993) 82(2):167–80.
Singh A, Agrawal M. Acid rain and its ecological consequences. J Environ
Biol (2008) 29(1):15–24.
Sparling DW, Lowe TP. Environmental hazards of aluminum to plants, invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol (1996) 145:1–127.
Suloway JJ, Roy WR, Skelly TR, Dickerson DR, Schuller RM, Griffin RA.
Chemical and Toxicological Properties of Coal Fly Ash. Illinois: Illinois
Department of Energy and Natural Resources (1983).
Stohl A, Eckhardt S. Intercontinental transport of air pollution: an introduction. Air Pollution. In: Stohl A, editor. Berlin: Springer (2004). p. 1–11.
Herndon JM. Obtaining evidence of coal fly ash content in weather modification (geoengineering) through analyses of post-aerosol spraying rainwater
and solid substances. Indian J Sci Res Technol (2016) 4(1):30–6.
Peffer J. Fly ash disposal in a limestone quarry. Ground Water (1982)
20(3):267. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1982.tb01346.x
Theis T, Gardner K. Environmental assessment of ash disposal. Crit Rev
Environ Control (1990) 20(21):21. doi:10.1080/10643389009388388
Goodarzi F. Characteristics and composition of fly ash from Canadian
coal-fired power plants. Fuel (2006) 85:1418–27. doi:10.1016/j.
Likens GE, Bormann FH, Johnson NM. Acid rain. Environment (1972)
14(2):33–40. doi:10.1080/00139157.1972.9933001
Lindenmayer DB, Laurance WF, Franklin JF. Global decline in large old trees.
Science (2012) 338:1305–6. doi:10.1126/science.1231070
van Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL, Byrne JC, Daniels LD, Franklin JF, Fulé PZ,
et al. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States.
Science (2009) 323:521–4. doi:10.1126/science.1165000
Driscol CT, Schecher WD. Aluminum in the environment. In: Siegel H,
Siegel A, editors. Aluminum and Its Role in Biology. Metal Ions in Biological
System. Vol. 24, New York: Marcel Dekker (1988). p. 59–122.
Kopittke PM, Moore KL, Lombi E, Gianoncelli A, Ferguson BJ, Blamey FP,
et al. Identification of the primary lesion of toxic aluminum in plant roots.
Plant Physiol (2015) 167(4):1402–11. doi:10.1104/pp.114.253229
Arnold C. Air pollution and ASDs: honing in on an environmental risk factor.
Environ Health Perspect (2015) 123(3):A68. doi:10.1289/ehp.123-A68
Linak WP, Miller CA, Wendt JOL. Comparison of particle size distributions
and elemental partitioning from the combustion of pulverized coal and
residual fuel oil. J Air Waste Manag Assoc (2000) 50:1532–44. doi:10.1080/
Cho K, Cho YJ, Shrivastava DK, Kapre SS. Acute lung disease after exposure
to fly ash. Chest (1994) 106(1):309–31. doi:10.1378/chest.106.1.309
Gilmour MI, O’Connor S, Dick CAJ, Miller CA, Linak WP. Differential
pulmonary inflammation and in vitro cytotoxicity of size-fractionated fly ash
particles from pulverized coal combustion. J Air Waste Manag Assoc (2004)
54:286–95. doi:10.1080/10473289.2004.10470906
Twining J, McGlinn P, Lol E, Smith K, Giere R. Risk ranking of bioaccessible
metals from fly ash dissolved in simulated lung and gut fluids. Environ Sci
Technol (2005) 39(19):7749–56. doi:10.1021/es0502369
Stuart BO. Deposition and clearance of inhaled particles. Environ Health
Perspect (1984) 55:373–93. doi:10.1289/ehp.8455369

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org

72. Hvistendahl M. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Scientific
American. (2007). Available from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/
73. Tseng CH, Chong C-K, Tseng C-P, Hsueh Y-M, Chiou H-Y, Tseng C-C,
et al. Long-term arsenic exposure and ischemic heart disease in arseniasis-­
hyperendemic villages in Taiwan. Toxicol Lett (2003) 137(1–2):15–21.
74. Smith AH, Hopenhayn-Rich C, Bates MN, Goeden HM, Hertz-Picciotto I,
Duggan HM, et  al. Cancer risks from arsenic in drinking water. Environ
Health Perspect (1992) 97:259–67. doi:10.1289/ehp.9297259
75. Kile ML, Christiani DC. Environmental arsenic exposure and diabetes.
JAMA (2008) 300(7):845–6. doi:10.1001/jama.300.7.845
76. Hendryx M. Mortality from heart, respiratory, and kidney disease in
coal mining areas of Appalachia. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2009)
82(2):243–9. doi:10.1007/s00420-008-0328-y
77. Meij R. Health aspects of coal fly ash. International Ash Utilization Symposium.
Lexington, KY: Center for Applied Energy Research: University of Kentucky
78. Good PF, Perl DP, Bierer LM, Schmeidler J. Selective accumulation of aluminum and iron in the neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer’s disease: a laser
microprobe (LAMMA) study. Ann Neurol (1992) 31:286–92. doi:10.1002/
79. Prasunpriya N. Aluminum: impacts and disease. Environ Res (2002)
80. Rondeau V, Jacqmin-Gadda H, Ciommenges D, Helmer C, Dartigues JF.
Aluminium and silica in drinking water and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease
or cognitive decline: findings from 15-year follow-up of the PAQUID cohort.
Am J Epidemiol (2009) 169:489–96. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn348
81. Klein J, Mold M, Cottier M, Exley C. Aluminium content of human semen:
implications for semen quality. Reprod Toxicol (2014) 50:43–8. doi:10.1016/j.
82. Kowall NW, Pendlebury WW, Kessler JB, Perl DP, Beal MF. Aluminuminduced neurofibrillary degeneration affects a subset of neurons in rabbit
cerebral cortex, basal forebrain and upper brainstem. Neuroscience (1989)
29(2):329–37. doi:10.1016/0306-4522(89)90060-2
83. Exley C, Rotheray E, Goulson D. Bumblebee pupae contain high levels of aluminum. PLoS One (2015) 10(6):e0127665. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127665
84. Yellamma K, Saraswathamma S, Kumari BN. Cholinergic system
under aluminum toxicity in rat brain. Toxicol Int (2010) 17(2):106–12.
85. Sinha-Ray S, Yarin AL, Pourdeyhimi B. The production of 100/400 nm
inner/outer diameter carbon tubes by solution blowing and carbonization
of core-shell nanofibers. Carbon N Y (2010) 48:3575–8. doi:10.1016/j.
86. Reneker DH, Inventor. Process and Apparatus for the Production of Nanofibers.
(2003). US Patent No. 6,520,425 B1
87. Hower JC, Senior CL, Suuberg EM, Hurt RH, Wilcox JL, Olson ES. Mercury
capture by native fly ash carbons in coal-fired power plants. Prog Energy
Combust Sci (2010) 36(4):510–529. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.003
88. Nadkarni RA. Multitechnique multielement analysis of coal and fly ash. Anal
Chem (1980) 52:929–35. doi:10.1021/ac50056a036
89. Sager M. Determination of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, stibium,
thallium and zinc in coal and coal fly-ash. Fuel (1993) 72(9):1327–30.
90. Natusch DFS. Potentially carcinogenic species emitted to the atmosphere
by fossil-fueled power plants. Environ Health Perspect (1978) 22:79–90.
91. Li S, Cheng C-M, Chen B, Cao Y, Vervynckt J, Adebambo A, et al. Investigation
of the relationship between particulate-bound mercury and properties of fly
ash in a full-scale 100 MWe pulverized coal combustion boiler. Energy Fuels
(2007) 21:3292–9. doi:10.1021/ef0701384
92. Weiss-Penzias PS, Ortiz C Jr, Acosta RP, Heim W, Ryan JP, Fernandez
D, et  al. Total and monomethyl mercury in fog water from the
central California coast. Geophys Res Lett (2012) 39:L03804.
93. Lei C, Yufeng D, Yuqun Z, Liguo Y, Liang Z, Xianghua Y, et  al. Mercury
transformation across particulate control devices in six power plants of
China: the co-effect of chlorine and ash composition. Fuel (2007) 86:603–10.


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139


Dangers Posed by Weather Modification

94. Carida A, Cereda E, Fazinic S, Jaksic M, Braga-Marcazzan GM,
Valkovic O, et  al. Fluorine enrichment phenomena in coal combustion cycle. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res (1992) B66:298–301.
95. Organization WM. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Geneva: Global
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project (2002). Report No. 47 2003.
96. Organization WM. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Geneva: Global
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project (2010). Report No. 52 2011.
97. Laube JC, Newland MJ, Hogan C, Brenninkmeijer CAM, Fraser PJ,
Martinerie P, et al. Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. Nat Geosci (2014) 7:266–9. doi:10.1038/ngeo2109
98. Ferraro AJ, Highwood EJ, Charlton-Perez AJ. Stratospheric heating by
potential geoengineering aerosols. Geophys Res Lett (2011) 38(24):L24706.

Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org

View publication stats

99. Xu BD, Cao J, Hansen J, Yoao T, Joswia DR, Wang N, et al. Black soot and the
survival of Tibetan glaciers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2009) 106(52):22114–8.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2016 Herndon. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


June 2016 | Volume 4 | Article 139

Télécharger le fichier (PDF)

géo-ingénierie,,danger pour les humain.pdf (PDF, 2.6 Mo)

Formats alternatifs: ZIP

Documents similaires

evidence of coal fly ash toxic chemical geoengineering
geo ingenierie danger pour les humain
health impacts of solar radiation management
health risk assessment of fluoride
lithium and aluminum coal fly ash

Sur le même sujet..