Only passing this on for review and feedback from others who might be more knowledgeable on these important matters.
1) Based on the research and information provided by William Thomas at his website:
"Aluminum oxide can withstand temperatures far higher than jet engine exhausts. While highly abrasive in larger sizes, a former engineer for Alcoa aluminum says that aluminum in the 10 to 100 micron sizes called for in the sunscreen patent would simply polish jet turbine blades without harming them. The engineer added that this "very fine, talcum-like" aluminum powder would appear as a "pure white plume" in the sky.
2) Another reference also mentioned:
"...are [85%] titanium dioxide pigment having a median particle size of about 0.3 microns. Said radiation scattering powder particles have a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silco [10% by weight of colloidal silica of 0.007 micron primary particle size, and 5% by weight of silica gel having an average particle size of 4.5 microns] thereon to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.
3) Now, I know that different compounds and molecular arrangements of elements can have very different chemical and biological effects. And recognizing that based on the above, "chemtrails" might be largely composed of an "aluminum" powder - now consider the possible health effects on humans and animals and/or eco-systems as a result of "chemtrail spraying".
The potential consequences could be catestrophic if this "solution" turns out to be another oversight like DDT, POPs, PVCs (endocrine disruptors) DIOXINS, PCBs, etc. Just read the following article to understand "how".
I'd appreciate any chemists' or ecologists' insights on how the following article might have significance, or not, to the above contention that the material composition of "chemtrails" is an aluminum compound.
Best to all
Global Strategies Project
A 13-year fight for an investigation into Britain's worst case of water poisoning, in which symptoms afflicting hundreds of people were written off as imaginary, will culminate today in the announcement of an official government inquiry.
The Environment minister Michael Meacher is expected to announce a formal investigation into the effects of the mass-contamination at Camelford in Cornwall in July 1988, when water supplies to 20,000 homes were polluted by 20 tons of aluminium sulphate accidentally dumped in the wrong tank by a lorry driver.
Almost immediately, hundreds of people reported alarming symptoms, ranging from peeling skin and hair turning green to nausea, vomiting and joint pains. More seriously, over weeks, months and years many victims claimed long-term impairment of brain functions such as memory and balance.
But no full survey of those affected was done and the Department of Health's own report on the incident made light of the possible aluminium poisoning, saying people's symptoms were "the consequence of sustained anxiety", and blaming the media for whipping up public concern. Eventually, a group of victims settled out of court for modest damages.
Campaigners say the full consequences of the incident were covered up by the Tory government of the day because it was in the middle of privatising the water industry and wanted no bad publicity; the publicly owned South-West Water Authority, in charge of Camelford's supplies at the time, was being transformed into the privatised South-West Water.
Paul Tyler, Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, who has led the inquiry campaign, said: "The accident was a major calamity, the worst of its type to happen in Britain, but what happened afterwards was undoubtedly covered up for political convenience as water was about to be privatised.
"My constituents were undoubtedly injured - some people's lives have been wrecked - but insult was added to the injury by the failure to look after them. I will be delighted by the announcement of an inquiry."
The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said only that Mr Meacher would be announcing "the next steps on Camelford", but sources indicated an inquiry was on the cards. Mr Meacher visited Camelford last year, at Mr Tyler's urging, to listen to people's stories of how they had been affected. At a meeting, he began by insisting an inquiry was not possible but ended saying his mind was changing.
The government investigation is unlikely to be a full-scale public inquiry. Mr Tyler said: "[That]would just be going back to square one and there is no need for it because the basic facts are too well-known. But there has never been a public, impartial, independent investigation of what has been caused in health consequences
"What we want is an effective analysis of the health side-effects that would seem to have been caused by exposure to aluminium sulphate, and an assessment of the health treat- ment needs of people who have suffered. And we might get answers to some questions which we didn't have at the time, such as why there was a cover-up."
Last week, Peter Smith, chairman of the Lowermoor Support Group, which represents those affected, said he was "open-minded" about an announcement. "We are hoping the Government will deliver on the promise it made while in opposition to give us a public inquiry," he said. "They can call it what they like as long as it is given wide powers and is independent. But if it is some sort of Whitehall botch we will be very unhappy."
In 1999, evidence delayed from 1991 because of legal problems
was published in the British Medical Journal suggesting that some people
suffered brain damage. Researchers led by Dr Paul Altmann rejected the
original government claim that anxiety was the cause of symptoms and concluded:
"Aluminium sulphate poisoning probably led to long-term cerebral impairment
in some people."