Carpinteria Crystal

Carpinteria Crystal

by
Clifford E Carnicom
Sep 25 2016

An environmental crystal sample sent to Carnicom Institute from a concerned citizen has been analyzed as to its nature.  The ground sample was received three years ago and it has been held in custody since that time.  Circumstances are now more favorable toward establishing the identity or nature of inorganic compounds, and thus the opportunity to do so in this case has been exercised.  The sample originates from the Santa Barbara – Carpinteria region of the country.  The sample is well documented, clean, and has been collected and transported in a careful fashion.

One of the reasons for the interest in the sample is a repetition of events.  The citizen reports that similar appearing materials  have occurred within the same coastal housing district on multiple occasions over a period of many years.  In addition, the findings of this study may have relevance to a paper presented earlier on this site.  The interest in devoting time to sample analysis is directly related to the the frequency and pattern of appearance.

There are also several occasions of crystal samples collected or received over the years that have not received proper attention due to insufficient resources and means for investigation.  The majority of these cases, to my recollection, resulted from air filtration systems.  These deficiencies have likely delayed our understanding of various forms of pollution that likely surround us, and this will remain the case until full and sufficient resources are devoted to these types of problems.  It is the opinion of this researcher that the regulating environmental protections agencies have an obligation to this end and that it has not been well served.

This particular sample has the following appearance:

sb_crystal_2013-01

Environmental Crystal Sample Material Received in 2013

 

The purpose of this paper is not to debate the origin or delivery method of the sample; the information available is insufficient to fully detail those answers.  It can be stated in fairness that the observer witnessed heavy aerosol  operations over the region in the early hours of the day of collection of the sample.  The density and activity level of the operations was stated to be high.

The purpose of this paper IS to call attention to what may be a repeating type of material that has potentially important environmental consequences, particularly if they are found to exist in aerosol or particulate form within the general atmosphere.  The sample type is also fully consistent with many of the analyses and postulates that have developed within the research over the years.  The specifics of that discussion will follow within this paper.

The sample has been evaluated using multiple approaches.  These include, but are not limited to:

  1. Electrochemistry techniques, specifically differential normal pulse voltammetry.
  2. Solubility analyses
  3. Melting point determination
  4. Density estimates
  5. Microscopic crystal analysis
  6. Qualitative reagent tests
  7. Conductivity measurements
  8. Index of refraction measurements

The results of these analyses indicate that the dominant component of the material is that of potassium chloride, a metallic salt form.  There are indications that the sample does contain more than one component, but any further investigation will have to take place at a later time.   Every physical and chemical form has implications, applications and consequences, especially if they occur in a manner foreign or unexplained to the environment.  The material shown above is of no exception to those concerns.  It may be the case that the appearance of this material in an unexplained manner and location is of no consequence; prudence, however, would suggest that we are obligated to seek out that which has no accountable explanation.  This premise is at the very heart of any forensic investigation, and environmental science and pollution control are also subject to that very same demand.

 


 

A brief bit of historical perspective on this topic could be helpful.  A search on this site on the subject of crystals will bring up a minimum of eight additional papers that are relevant; there are likely to be more.  These papers range in date from 2001 to the current date, so from this standpoint alone there is a repeating issue involved here.

A search on this site for historical presentation on potassium issues produces at least three papers on the subject.  There is reason to consider, therefore, that potassium (and related) chemical compounds may be worthy of examination with respect to geoengineering as well as biological issues.

Within this combined set of close to a dozen or more papers on the subjects, two will be mentioned further at this time.

The first will be that of another sample, also of a crystalline nature, received in 2003 from the same specific region of the country.  The title of that short report is “Additional Crystal Under Examination” (Jun 2003).  There are three points of interest in comparison between that and the current report:

1. Two generally similar and unaccountable sample forms appear in similar locations over a 10 year period, and a public interest in identification of the nature of the material remains over this same prolonged period.

2. The report in 2003 is reasonably brief with a limited microscopic examination offered.  The topic is mentioned more in the sense of an anomaly and a curiosity as there is no basis at the time for an in depth study of the materials; in addition, resources to do so at the time are non-existent.

3. The third will be the comment regarding the lack of water solubility of the first sample.  The importance of this observation will be the fact that the samples, although visually similar, have important differing chemical properties.  The conclusion is that multiple material types are expected to be subject to investigation over the course of time.

The second will be that of a laboratory report received in the year of  2005.  The title of that paper is “Calcium and Potassium” (Mar. 2005).  The importance and relevance of this paper can be understood from the opening paragraph:

A laboratory analysis of a rainwater sample from a rural location in the midwestern U.S. has been received.  This lab report reveals extremely high levels of potassium and calcium within the sample. Comparative studies have been done and they show that the calcium concentration is a minimum of 5 times greater, and that the potassium level is a minimum of 15 times greater than that which has been reported1 in the polluted skies of Los Angeles, California.

It will also be noticed that several health and environmental concerns with respect to aerosolized potassium salts are enumerated in that latter paper.  Attention should also be paid to the intriguing discussion of electromagnetic effects and impacts that must be considered with the chemistry of potassium and related ions.

Potassium chloride has common uses as well, such as a fertilizer or as a water treatment compound; there is, however, no cause given to think that it is being used in such fashions at this location and setting at this time.

 


 

Let us now bring ourselves back to the current moment.  The relevance and direction of those papers have borne themselves out over time, and the urgency of responsibility upon us is as imposing as ever.  We do not have the luxury of another 20 years to conclude on such an obvious state of affairs.

There are at least three immediate applications or consequences of the existence of aerosolized potassium chloride upon the atmosphere that should be mentioned.

1. Heat Impacts

2. Moisture Impacts

3. Electromagnetic Impacts

With respect to heat impact, potassium chloride is highly soluble within water.  When it does dissolve, it absorbs heat from the water, and the magnitude is significant.  Potassium chloride has actually been used as a cold pack commercially for this same reason; it is also readily available and relatively inexpensive.  It therefore can potentially be used to influence atmospheric thermodynamics, and this is one of many leads of investigation to pursue.

On the flip side of the equation, potassium chloride in a solid state has a rather low specific heat, especially relative to that of both air and water.  This means that, depending upon the state of the surrounding atmosphere, that it can also possess the capability to heat the atmosphere, rather than to cool it.

Furthermore, potassium as a metal in its elemental form also has a lower specific heat than air and once again this may allow for a net heating impact upon the atmosphere, depending on states of being, location and interaction with other elements or compounds.

The point of this discussion is that metallic salts of any kind DO have an impact upon the heating dynamics of the atmosphere, and that this process can be both complicated and variable.  You cannot place anything into the atmosphere without having an effect in some fashion, and it is a mistake to oversimplify and overgeneralize as to what those changes will be.  The location of placement of aerosols is another matter also, as has been discussed extensively on this site.

We are, therefore, not permitted to remain ignorant of the impacts that foreign and contaminating materials have upon the environment; heat dynamics are only one of many aspects of that we are forced to confront when the atmosphere is altered in ANY significant fashion.

There are, of course, many other environmental consequences from the addition of ionizable metallic salts into the environment.  These include plant life and agriculture, for example.  Readers may also wish to become familiar with a discussion regarding soil impacts as presented within the paper “The Salts of Our Soils” (May 2005).

As far as moisture is concerned, heat and moisture are obviously very closely related subjects.  One of the trademarks of the salt genre is that of absorbing moisture.  Some salts attract moisture so strongly that they are hygroscopic, meaning that they can draw moisture from the ambient atmosphere.  The observation of this phenomenon is quite remarkable; one can start with a solid and watch it change to an eventual liquid form.  Calcium chloride and strontium chloride are both good examples of this class of materials.

Locking moisture up in this fashion will most certainly increase the heat in the atmosphere; water is one of the greatest cooling compounds that exists on the planet.  It is impossible to separate heat and moisture impacts when dealing with aerosolized metallic salts; it is certain that there will be an impact upon the atmosphere,  environment and health.  It is difficult to predict a favorable outcome here.

Lastly, there may still be some that will ridicule the notion of electromagnetic impacts of ionized metallic salts upon the atmosphere and the environment.  I think such an approach might ultimately be foolhardy.  This tenet was brought forth early in the research of this organization, and the premise remains as strong as when it is originated.  For those that care to repeat the enterprise, there are measurements to support the hypothesis, and they only continue to accumulate.

For those that seek conventional sources, one need look no further than a document that traces back to the 1990’s, entitled “Modeling of Positively Charged Aerosols in the Polar Summer Mesopause Region” (Rapp, Earth Planets Space 1999).  A very specific reference of the ability of potassium in combination with ultraviolet light to increase the electron density of the atmosphere will be found there.  There are other elements that share in this remarkable physical property, and they have been discussed within this site for many years now.  Reading the patents by Bernard Eastlund may also be insightful.  The ability of moisture to ionize many metallic salts is also to be included within the examinations that are required to take place.

It is difficult to ignore and discount the fundamental heat, moisture, and electromagnetic impacts upon the planet when metallic salts are artificially introduced into the atmosphere.  It would not be wise to do so.  The case for investigation, accountability and redress is now strong, and each of us can make the choice as to how to best proceed.  It seems to be a simple matter to want to protect and ensure the welfare of our gifted home, as our existence depends upon it.  Clarity and unity of purpose would seem to be an end goal here; I hope that each of us will seek it.

Regardless of the origin of this particular sample (which is unlikely to ever be known exactly), this report points to the requirement of identifying repetitive and unknown contaminants in the environment.  The responsibility for this process does not fall either primarily or exclusively upon the citizens; this population has neither the resources or means to perform or satisfy the requirements of identification, evaluation and assessment.  Entrusted agencies that exist specifically for protection of the welfare of the common environment (e.g., air, water, soil) and that are funded by these same citizens ARE required to do so.  In this vein, I will once again repeat the closing statement from above:

Clarity and unity of purpose would seem to be an end goal here; I hope that each of us will seek it.

 

Clifford E Carnicom

Sep 25 2016


 

Supplemental Discussion:

Approximately a dozen methods of investigation have been used to reach the conclusions of this report.  These will now be described to a modest level of detail to assist in portraying the complexities of analyzing unknown environmental samples.  This description will further the argument that the citizenry is not realistically expected to assume this burden and cost; contamination and pollution are at the heart of existence for publicly funded environmental protection agencies and entities.  It is recommended that the public seek the level of accountability that is required to reduce and eliminate persistent and harmful pollution and the contamination of our common environment.

1. Voltammetry:

The methods of differential pulse voltammetry have been applied to the sample.  The methods are quite useful in the detection of inorganics, especially metals and trace metal concentrations.  The results of the analysis are shown below:

carpinteria-crystal-sep-04-2016-03

Differential Normal Pulse Voltammetry Analysis of Crystal Sample

The analysis indicates a minimum of two chemical species to consider.  The first of these is a suspected Group I or Group II element (-2.87V).  The most probable candidates to consider will be that of calcium, strontium, barium and potassium.  The other will be the consideration of  the chloride ion ( +0.63V and +1.23V).

At this point of the investigation, our strongest prospect will therefore be an ionic metallic salt crystalline form, most likely involving a subset of Group I or II of the periodic table.  The most likely candidate will, furthermore, be a chloride form of the salt.

2. We can then proceed to solubility tests.  Four candidates from above will now be considered, along with two additional candidates resulting from the chloride prospects:

calcium chloride
strontium chloride
barium chloride
potassium chloride

lithium chloride
cesium chloride

With respect to the first set of four, the solubility tests applied (i.e., water, methanol, acetone, sodium bicarbonate, acid, base) eliminate all but potassium chloride for further examination.

This reduces the primary set of consideration to that of:

potassium chloride
lithium chloride
cesium chloride

We now attempt to confirm the existence of the chloride ion in a redundant fashion.  A qualitative chemical test (HCl, AgNO3) is then applied to the sample in aqueous solution.  The existence of the chloride ion is confirmed.  The set of three candidates remains in place.

The next method applied to the sample is the determination of the melting point of the presumed ionic crystal form.  Ionic metallic salts have generally high melting points and this does present some difficulties with the use of conventional equipment and means.

The methods of calorimetry were adapted to solve this particular problem.  The methods were also applied to a control sample of potassium chloride, as well as two additional control compounds.  The results of the control and calibration trials produced results within the range of expected error (~ < 5%).

The melting point of the crystal form was determined experimentally by the above methods as approximately 780 deg. C.  The melting point of potassium chloride is 770 deg. C.  This result is well within the range of expected experimental error (1.4%).  During the process, it was noticed that an additional minority compound does exist within the sample, as a small portion of the sample does melt at a much lower point (est. 300-400 deg. C.) The minority compound would require separation and identification in a further analysis.

The melting points of lithium chloride and cesium chloride are 605 deg. C. and 645 deg. C., respectively, and they are thus eliminated from further consideration.

These results narrow the list of candidates specifically to that of potassium chloride.

An additional controlled test of conductivity of the salt in solution was applied.   The result of that test indicates agreement in conductivity with a known concentration solution of potassium chloride.  The error in that case was also well within the expected range of experimental error (0.6%).

In addition, further tests involving density determination, index of refraction, visual and microscopic crystal analysis further substantiate the identification of the crystal as being primarily that of potassium chloride.

A Clash of Evidence

 

A Clash of Evidence:
The Realities of Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

by Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 06 2016
Edit May 14 2016
Edit Jul 05 2016
(A Partial Editorial)

There are many environmental activists who assume a certain cause and relationship between active geoengineering programs and those projects that fall under the term of “Solar Radiation Management (SRM). This paper will reiterate the basic fallacy of that assumption, and it will direct the reader towards a more comprehensive inquiry of the true nature of the forces and agendas that are likely to be involved.

For those that do not wish to engage in the full length of this article,  the Solar Radiation Management principle is one of interfering with solar heat transfer to the earth.  There are various schemes for accomplishing this which will be discussed later; the most modest of the choices requires the introduction of certain types of particulates into the middle of the stratosphere (from about 7 to 30 miles above sea level).

The essential problem here is that geoengineering  activity as it is currently practiced (and for that matter, bioengineering as well), is operational in the troposphere (from ground level to an average of about 7 miles above sea level), and not the mid-stratosphere.  There is a world of difference between the two, but for that discussion you will have to muse yourself further into this paper.

 

atmosphere2
Image source : scied.ucar.edu

 

Before going further, however, it will be beneficial to provide a brief historical context for the issues and the language involved.  There is a track record of controversy and confusion, information and misinformation, official responses and denials, organization and disorganization, research and speculation, and authorities and personalities that now span close to two decades. Unfortunately, the progress of society coming to terms and truthfulness with the deliberate modification of the atmosphere, and ultimately the planet itself, has been slow.

So first, a little history of language and personalities.  The journalistic rise of the geoengineering issue began, to my best recollection, in the last few weeks of the year 1998.  A certain Canadian journalist came to prominence quite rapidly on a nationally syndicated radio show, with coined language and defined agendas to let the world know that something very different and important was to affect the world.  It is fair to say that I have never been at ease with either the language or the a priori “agenda” that was introduced, as they always seemed to be supported with substantial fanfare and attention, but without any basic science to support claims being made.  The issue was, essentially, outlined and served to the public without proper investigation and discussion.

It is worthwhile to investigate that history a bit, as it represents a good portion of why we are where we are today.  Most of us may not be aware that generational forces are now at play in our understanding of the geoengineering issue. The language introduced at that time was the use of the term “chemtrail”,  a term that never did have a formal, accurate, or scientific definition then, and it still does not today.  That deficiency alone has been enough to interfere with the proper investigation of environmental pollution and contaminants, and it remains moderately successful to this day.  Whether such language of derision and denial, but of popular appeal, was a product of personal creativity or design of influence I may never be able to state with certainty; I do, however, have my opinions on the matter and I see no benefits from the choice.  My separation and disdain for populist and ill-defined terminology that is used in vain to seek legal standing is known, and I shall not be party to perpetuate this dubious origin. Only those words that will stand up in a court of law have merit here, and you are the one that will need to make your case.

The second great coup of the early journalistic ‘work’ was to define, in the eyes of the public, the very reason for the existence of geoengineering programs before any science was in place to justify the claim.  Again, it was all far, far “too easy” for one of my persuasion.  Check your internet history books, but you will find that a global and covert operation of unprecedented scale was, by use of a curious combination of implication and certainty,  for the purpose of “reducing global warming.

History will show that there has been an incredible level of success in strategy and influence upon public perception with these implants.  They are, however, in reality travesties and injustices to the public cause.

What the public was ‘given’, therefore, was an unsubstantiated agenda, ill-defined language of popular attraction, and a host of ready-made and supported ‘detractors’ that raised a commotion, provided distraction and dispute;  all of these set the stage to successfully avoid journalistic integrity, scientific investigation, and accountability by public representatives.  The obstacles were all provided at little cost, but at great expense to the needs and interests of the public.

This strategy of framing public perception and discussion under the guise of potential benefit was generally effective for more than a decade.  Hard hitting journalism never did take place, thorough investigations were not launched, scientific work was not supported, and public officials were not held accountable.

The problem that developed was that the claim of ‘cooling the planet’  by using aircraft to disperse aerosols did not fit the facts of observation.  They did not fit them then, and they do not fit them now.  It has taken some time for this truth to become evident; I presented my first paper on this topic (Drought Inducement, Apr. 2002) in the early part of the last decade.  This work was followed by additional papers (Global Warming and Aerosols, Jan. 2004, A Global Warming Model, Apr. 2007, and A Geoengineering and Climate Change Model, Jan. 2015) during the course of the successive decades. The tenets of that investigative work are also confirmed on a broader level with documents issued by, for example, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1999, 17) and NASA (“Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles” 2016) on the net heating effects from “thin, high clouds.”

High, thin “clouds”, including those that originate from an introduced aerosol base, do not cool the planet; they heat it up.

The next piece of the puzzle that we must fit into the picture is Edward Teller, and specifically the paper by him entitled, “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Climate Change.”  This paper, authored in part by the developer of the hydrogen bomb, is often cited by activists themselves as one of the holy grails that proves that geoengineering operations are in place, and that they are indeed “cooling the planet” and “combating global warming” (albeit covertly, for some unknown reason). There are some important portions of the paper that have not been paid attention to;  this omission inappropriately supports a culture of popular belief that lacks scientific foundation.

Edward Teller does indeed propose various schemes for cooling the earth’s temperature, including the introduction of aerosols or particulates into the atmosphere. The issue, however, is WHERE in the atmosphere he proposes to do this, and the answer to this question is very relevant to the cause and purpose of this paper. It is even more revealing to point out the additional options that are both proposed and preferred by Edward Teller in his paper, as they help to place his atmospheric aerosol proposal into a better perspective.

Let us spend a brief time with the proposals of Edward Teller, as they are outlined in the paper cited above.  Please note that even within the introductory notes that Teller uses the phrase of introducing “scatterers” (i.e., light and heat) “into space from the vicinity of the earth”; this should give some indication of what the thrust of the thinking process is.  Teller proposes to introduce the scatterers into three different locations to artificially cool the earth (Teller 1997, 7):

1. Into the middle of the stratosphere (NOT the troposphere). The stratosphere is in the upper atmosphere, and the troposphere is the lower atmosphere. This important difference will be discussed in more detail a little later in this paper.

2. In orbit, in SPACE, approximately 4000 miles above the earth.

3. Deep in SPACE, approximately 400,000 miles from the center of the earth.

An obvious pattern of diverting the heat to locations distant from the earth should be apparent to us; it is one that has not been disclosed sufficiently within the current discussions taking place with respect to both geoengineering and climate control.

The reason the materials are proposed to be so distant from the earth is two-fold:

1. Most of the materials considered will absorb heat.

2. It is desired to have the captured heat radiate into space; not into the earth and its lower atmosphere.

The principles of the approach should not be difficult to grasp here, but they most certainly have been misrepresented in most discussions that are taking place with respect to current and active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations.

If you hold a parasol over your head on a hot sunny day, it might keep you cooler. The air around you will still absorb that heat, however. The color and material of the umbrella is going to be another factor (i.e, albedo, specific heat, etc.) that you will want to consider. If you want to cool the planet, you are going to have to move the umbrella a lot further away – into space, for example. This is the essence of the Teller paper, and it is important to understand this proposal before certain terms of “solar radiation management” with respect to current geoengineering practices are bandied about. WHERE the material is injected into the atmosphere makes a big difference on the net heat effect, and this topic has largely been ignored within the popular circles of discussion on geoengineering. This discussion should lead one to think much more deeply about what the definition of geoengineering actually is, and how that definition compares to the realities of the projects and operations AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY AND ACTIVELY PRACTICED. Climate modification strategies, or more appropriately, environmental control strategies, are only one part of a much bigger picture.

The Teller paper has gained a lot of mileage in the geoengineering circles, and it is my opinion that much of this mileage is without merit and in ignorance. I must credit the Canadian journalist again for the majority of that progress, as the seed was planted very early in the game with a great deal of supposed ‘alternative media’ support. The Teller paper never explained the physics or consequences of introducing massive amounts of specific aerosol types into the lower atmosphere. The reason for this is simple; the paper was never intended to explain it because this act is not a viable way to cool down the earth. The Teller paper was inappropriately supported and attached to the observation of and media coverage of geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations as they are currently in place and operational.

Now let’s discuss some of the differences between the troposphere and the stratosphere in more detail. The distinction between what is real and hypothetical will never take place until we put at least some effort in that direction.

The troposphere is where weather is made. The troposphere is where airplanes generally fly. The troposphere is where the air is more dense and it is where pollution has a more immediate impact upon us. It is the where the majority of the earth’s atmosphere is, and consequently it is where we can breath and live. The troposphere has a profound and immediate impact upon our very existence on this planet. Roughly ¾ of the mass of the entire atmosphere is contained within the troposphere, the average height is about seven miles (a trip to the grocery store), and it is a veritable delicate eggshell of life for this planet. The troposphere is delicate and crucial to all life on this planet, and disturbance or pollution within it threatens our very existence. It cannot sustain serious damage without immediate consequence.

The stratosphere is where the air is very thin, centering closer to an average height of 20 miles above the earth. Airplanes cannot and do not fly in the mid-stratosphere regularly, as there is not enough air to support them; only specialized or high performance aircraft will rarely be able to visit this transitional zone to space. Geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations, in a practical aviation sense with current technology, cannot be practiced there. Teller makes clear that the preferred target for his ideas is generally in space, where the heat can feasibly be diverted or managed AWAY from the earth.

Readers may also to review an interview from several years past on this and related subjects; it is available via Freedom For All TV which is based in Canada (“Freedom Free For All TV: Clifford Carnicom Interview – YouTube” 2016).

It is now that we can understand a portion of the dilemma that is before us. If we accept that aviation is a primary tool that is actively being used to artificially modify the atmosphere, then we know that this is occurring within the troposphere, and not the mid-stratosphere. But we also know, at least as based upon Teller’s models, that mid-stratospheric operations would be required to effect any type of practical mitigation to global climate warming. Teller also lets us know that long term climate control by aircraft is hardly a preferred method, as it requires specialized performance aircraft and requires continual renewal to maintain its effectiveness. What is known, therefore, is that geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations AS THEY ARE NOW PRACTICED IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE, i.e., the troposphere, are not directed and motivated primarily toward climate control, including the purported mitigation of “global warming”.

The forces behind the implementation of active and current geoengineering operations have always understood this, and it never has been a logical motive for the current operations. This is the case regardless of popular conceptions with popular appeal that have been circulated for far too long without contest.

It is certainly past time for the citizens of the world to understand this as well, including many of the well intended environmental individuals and organizations that affect this same citizenry.

The language may have changed some over the recent decades, but the confusion and obfuscation remains as strong as ever now. It is past time to play the cards straight and to force each of us to confront the truths of the matter.

We must now pay some attention to the language that is now in vogue and how it changes. The terms of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘global warming’ were foisted upon us in earlier days; aerosols and particulates were always favored from my position, but those terms do not exactly have popular twitter appeal. They do, however, remain valid and accurate as far as the substance of the matter.

We have transitioned now to more socially acceptable terms of climate change, geoengineering, and “solar radiation management”. Unfortunately, the confusion behind the terms remains as dysfunctional as ever. We can be assured that the definition of geoengineering (and bioengineering) as I understand them, are not at all in agreement with many popularly held notions of that same term. Environmental modification and control is simply one small slice of the bigger pie, as far as I am concerned. I will reiterate my scope of consideration for the term near the end of this paper.

We should, however, at least seek out the definition of the popular term (by many environmental activists as well) “Solar Radiation Management”. This term refers to the management of climate control issues through a modification of the earth’s heat balance;  only one option of which includes the introduction of particulate matter into the stratosphere (NOT the troposphere).

Specifically, from the Royal Society:

“Solar Radiation Management (SRM) [are] techniques which reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space.”

Again, I will make the case here that the term cannot and does not apply to current and active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations as they are currently practiced in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). The stratosphere is not the troposphere, and the troposphere is not the stratosphere. The physics of each layer within the atmosphere are completely different from one another and they cannot, in general, be “used” for the same purposes. You cannot talk about them or treat them as though there is no difference of importance.

You cannot rely on methods and definitions that have physical principles, meaning and application within a certain domain (i.e, the stratosphere) and then use those same methods and principles for a different domain (i.e., the troposphere).

To further assume that the practitioners of active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations are active within the mid-stratosphere when they are not (as determined by direct observation) further undermines the case for protest of the actual modification of the lower atmosphere (i.e., the troposphere) that is taking place. Talk about misrepresentation and obfuscation of a global environmental and health issue; there is plenty of fodder to work with here.

To claim further that the motives of the geoengineering practitioners are beneficial and well-intended (i.e, “solar radiation management and the curtailment of “global warming”) but that the operations are now known to actually cause harm because of a net heating effect is equally misguided. The operations as they are practiced are not an experiment of beneficent intent; the developers understand the physics and the applications quite well (within their sphere of interest). Rest assured that the web of deployment is not centered on, or confined to, the principles of “Solar Radiation Management”.

Current operations directly impact and affect the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in which we all live and breathe; this assertion is now supported directly by field measurements.  The particulate counts are real and observable, and they have been made. The measurements referred to are not worthy solely of “climate control” consideration; they are, however, of immediate impact and detriment to your health and well-being. Gravity works, and the materials do ultimately reach ground level and they are measurable in direct correspondence to activity levels. You may wish to think a little closer to home, in some respects, and become active on that front.

Incidentally, attention should probably be called to a particular segment of a particular interview from several years past; my recollection is that a Mr. George Knapp from the Coast to Coast network moderated the affair. It is another part of the social history, “alternative” media, and social impressionability that precedes us. You may or may not choose to investigate the affair as I report it here.

It was not made clear prior that multiple parties would be available on the interview and fair representation on the sides of an issue can always be a topic of debate. What remains of interest to me is a particular response evoked from a particular Canadian journalist on the panel when I introduced the subject of “biological operations” (e.g., bioengineering) into the discussion. I think it is fair to say that I must have struck a nerve in the flow or agenda of the conversation. After the claim that biological operations are indeed an active component of the aerosol operations as they are now practiced, the particular response from this “Canadian journalist” was:

“There is not! There is not! I repeat there is not any evidence of biological operations available!” (to my best recollection). The response was immediate, emphatic and unqualified.

The show’s host then immediately switched to a commercial break after this statement was made. You may judge for yourself what dynamics transpired at that moment, but the forceful response certainly struck me as out of balance within a purported discussion of important environmental issues.

In the time made available, I refuted the unsubstantiated claim then. I refute it now as well.

I am only one researcher, and I hardly make claim to knowing all shades of an operation that I am not party to. Over the years, however, a ‘list of applications” has been developed which remains internally consistent with all known and observed data. The list has not changed in any significant fashion for more than a decade. I will continue to voice the claim that no discussion of geoengineering (or bioengineering) is of adequate scope unless it delves into each of the following domains:

1. Environmental modification and control (of broader scope than global temperature issues).
2. Military applications
3. Electromagnetic operations
4. Biological operations (including bioengineering)
5. Geophysical considerations
6. Surveillance System Development (LIDAR applications)
7. Exotic technology system monitoring

The prime-time audience may not be ready for the realities and implications of the various aspects itemized above, but they are ultimately deserving.

There are parties that continue to promulgate the thesis that Solar Radiation Management, i.e., the attempted mitigation of “global warming” via stratospheric modification is at the crux of active geoengineering operations. There frequently remains the implication that the motives for operation are of good intention even if the observations of consequence contradict that claim. The use of Edward Teller’s paper is frequently cited as the basis for the implementation of theoretical concepts into actual operation, regardless of the physics or details involved. There are seldom, if ever, references to differences between the impact of operations in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) vs. the stratosphere (upper atmosphere). There frequently is the assumption that the agendas of operation are known and defined by popular perceptions. For close to two decades, the evidence does not support these claims and misrepresentation is in place.

I would encourage that each of us seek common ground and understanding of the forces and applications that are likely operative within the spheres of active and practiced geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations. There is some value in review and observation of the social history and assumptions that accompany our evolution in the pursuit of truth. It is also wise to force good science and reason continuously into our deliberations and debates, and to admit our mistakes so that we may rise above them. If information, analyses and representations are inconsistent we must each be willing to confront those positions. I believe that the phrase has already been coined for us – “The Truth is Out There”, and it is the job of each one of us to help find it.

Sincerely,

Clifford E Carnicom
April 06, 2016
Edit May 14, 2016
Edit July 05, 2016

 

Additional Notes:

Readers may also wish to become familiar with a model document that proposes an international ban on geoengineering (and bioengineering) practices. Please refer to StopGlobalGeoengineering.org for additional information(“Global Ban on Geoengineering – Stop Global Geoengineering” 2016).

Appreciation is extended to Harold Saive for a note of clarification within this paper.

Bibliography:

“Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles.” 2016. Accessed March 24. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/.

“Freedom Free For All TV: Clifford Carnicom Interview – YouTube.” 2016. Accessed April 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1islqA3QNo.

“Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty | Royal Society.” 2016. Accessed March 29. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/.

“Global Ban on Geoengineering – Stop Global Geoengineering.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://stopglobalgeoengineering.org/global-ban-on-geoengineering/.

“Image: The Stratosphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed March 29.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1999. “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.”

Teller, Edward. 1997. “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Climate Change.”

“The Stratosphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview.

“The Troposphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/troposphere-overview

Global Warming Model

A Global Warming Model
Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
Apr 13 2007

global warming model


From a Special Report on April  1, 2007 from CBS 60 Minutes, entitled, The Age of Warming:

“Over the past 50 years, this region, the Antarctica peninsula, the northwestern part and the islands around it
has been going up in temperature about one degree every decade and that makes the region the fastest warming place on earth.
…And it’s not unique. More than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating….”


A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result.  The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere.  Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4. The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics.  To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation.   It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet.  These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.

The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem.  The results are not encouraging.  The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere.  The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases.  It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue,  namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.

The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue; these are: aerosol concentration, time and rise in temperature.  On one axis, relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown.  The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past, e.g., visibility studies available on this site. As a point of reference, the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms (micrograms) per m3 (cubic meter).  It will be seen from the graph, for example,  that even a 10% level of this standard (i.e., 3.5-ugms / m3) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere.  As has been stated previously, the candor and accountability of the EPA  is sorely lacking over the past decade, and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards.  It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way, and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld.  It is quite possible, and unfortunately somewhat expected, that enforceable and accountable air quality standards have been sacrificed some time ago with the advent of the aerosol operations.

A second axis on the graph is that of time in years. A point of zero time would be one that assumes no such artificial and increased concentration of barium particulates exists in the lower atmosphere.  The graph is marked in intervals of 5 year periods, from 0 to 50 years.  The time period of 50 years has been chosen only to demonstrate that the effects of these particulates upon heating is of serious and immediate concern; within a matter of decades the effects are pronounced and have measurable global impact.  The variables of aerosol concentration and time can now be considered mutually with the above graph and model.  Presumably, humans have a vested interest in protecting the welfare of the planet beyond the immediate future of a few decades, and the problem would be only more pronounced if a century of time had been presented versus a fifty year period.

The third axis is that of temperature rise presented in degrees of centigrade.  This is the variable that should solicit the greatest concern.  To give an example of usage, a concentration of 5ugms / m3 over an interval as short as 20 years would lead to heating of the lower atmosphere on the order of  0.6 degrees centigrade.  This corresponds to approximately 1 degree of Fahrenheit.  This is found by finding the intersection of 5ugms along the concentration axis with 20 years of elapsed time on the second axis.  This point is then projected horizontally upon the temperature increase axis, where it will be found to intersect at approximately 0.6 degrees.  This is a very real and measurable result in terms of global impact.  Nobel Prize Winner Paul Crutzen, in Atmosphere, Climate and Change6 writes in 1997 that even conservative estimates of global planetary surface temperature change are on the order of  1 to 3 degrees centigrade over a 50 year interval.  This temperature change will produce sea level changes on the order of 10 to 30 centimeters. It is stated, furthermore, that “much of Earth’s population would find it inordinately difficult to adjust to such changes”.

Readers may now notice that the recent CBS special report referred to above demonstrates that the rate of  heating in Antarctica is already approximately 1.5 times greater than the predictions from the 1997 era.

It can be seen from this model that the results of artificial aerosol introduction into the lower atmosphere can be of a magnitude quite on par with the extraordinary impacts projected by even modest and conservative global warming models upon humans in the near future.   As the model presented herein is intended to be reasonably conservative, the impact of the aerosol operations could be much greater than these results show.  It is advised that the citizens consider the viability and merit of this model in the examination of the global warming issue, and that they openly take aggressive action to halt the intentional aerosol operations.

This paper is late in its offering, as my availability for continued research at this level is limited.  I am nevertheless hopeful that the information can be evaluated and assimilated into the many rationales and arguments that have developed over the last decade to cease the intentional alteration of the atmosphere of our planet.

Clifford E Carnicom
April 13, 2007

Additional Notes :  The model can easily be extended to other elements of concern, however, a focus on barium has taken place due to the unique physical properties of that element along with the evidence for its existence at unexpected levels in the atmosphere.The mathematics and physics of the model is presented in a separate paper.

References:

1. CE Carnicom, Drought Inducement, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/drought-inducement/, April 2002
2. Carnicom, Global Warming and Aerosols, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/global-warming-aerosols/, Jan 2004
3. Carnicom, Global Warming and Aerosols, Further Discussion, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/global-warming-aerosols-ii/, Feb 2004
4. Wikipedia, Global Warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
5. EPA,  EPA Strengthens U.S. Air Quality Standards,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/92771013f7dda087852571f00067873d!opendocument
6. Crutzen, Paul, Atmosphere, Climate and Change, (Scientific American Library, 1997), p141.

Global Warming Model [Part II]

A Global Warming Model
Part II
Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
Apr 10 2007

The details of the Global Warming Model  are presented on this page.

The model has the following final form:

mathematical global warming model

The model is developed in the following manner: (text form)

The definition of heat capacity is given as1

C = dQ/dT

which states that the heat capacity of a substance is defined as the instantaneous change in the quantity of heat (joules) with respect to an instantaneous change in temperature (degrees Kelvin or centigrade).  The units of C are J / K, or joules per degree Kelvin.

The specific heat capacity is furthermore defined as:2

c = del Q / (m * del T)

where Q is in joules, m is the mass in kilograms (kg) and T is in degrees Kelvin or centigrade, and del is the change operator.

Specific heats are measured values that are commonly available, and they indicate how much energy is required to raise a unit volume of material a unit rise in temperature (centrigrade or Kelvin).

Specific heats can be measured at constant pressure (cp) or constant volume (cv). Specific heats for gases do not vary significantly over large temperature variations3, and they may therefore usually be treated as constants.  A suitable value of cp for air is 1.003 kJ/ kg K4. For solids and liquids, the difference between cp and cv is usually quite small5 and can usually be ignored; values for cp are readily available.

As the definition of specific heat results from a differential form, this paper will focus on the change in a small volume of air, namely 1 cubic meter of air under ideal gas conditions.

The specific heat can be rearranged to:

del T = del Q /  ( m * cp )

this is equivalent to:

del T = ( Watts / m * cp ) * t

where t is time in seconds, and Watts is the incoming energy in joules /second.

The model under consideration examines the above change from a differential standpoint, i.e., what is the effect upon temperature change with respect to an incremental change in input energy for a unit mass of air?  The incremental change in input energy will result from the change in specific heat of a mixture, i.e, air vs. air with aerosolized particulates.  Developing further, our model now has the form:

del (del T) = ( t / m * cp) * del (Watts)

The model will also be permitted to include an efficiency factor (EF), as not all of the energy coming into the system (i.e., solar energy) will be absorbed.  A current estimate for this efficiency factor is set at 50 percent.6

or

del (del T) = ( EF  * t ) / ( m * cp ) * del ( Watts )

The next problem is to determine a value of cp for the modified atmosphere, i.,e. air with aerosolized particulates added to the cubic meter of air under examination.  The specific heat capacity of a mixture is given7 as:

cp(air+aerosol) = sum ( mfi * cpi)

where mfi is the mass fraction of the ith component of mixture, and cpi is the specific heat capacity of the ith component of the mixture.

mfi is defined as mi / m

whre mi is the mass of the ith component and m is the total mass of the mixture.

Let us now refer to:

mair = mass of 1 cubic meter of air in kg

maer = mass of aerosols added to 1 cubic meter of air in kg

cpair = specific heat of air in J /kg  K

cpaer = specific heat of aerosol in J /kg K

cp(air+aerosol) = [mair / (mair + maer) ] * cpair + [maer / (mair + maer)] * cpaer

It can be proposed that del (Watts) can be aequately represented by:

del (Watts ) = [ del (cp) / cpair ] * Average Solar Radiation

and that

del (cp) = cpair – cp(air+aerosol)

or that

del (del T) = [( EF  * t ) / ( mair * cpair )] *  [( cpair – cp(aer+aerosol) ) / cpair] * Average Solar Radiation

or that

del (del T) = [( EF  * t ) / ( mair * cpair )] *  [ cpair –   ( [mair / (mair + maer) ] * cpair + [maer / (mair + maer)] * cpaer  ) / cpair ] * Average Solar Radiation

which is equivalent to the model presented above.

The average incoming solar radiation (insolation) to the earth will be taken as 342 W / m2.8

The mass of air will be taken as 1.2 kg / m3.

The specific heat capacity of barium, cpaer, is .19 J / kg  K.9,10

The specific heat capacity of air, cpair,  is 1.003 J /kg K.

The efficiency factor is selected as .50.

In the model proposed, the mass of the aerosol varies from 0 to 50 ugms (micrograms) per cubic meter, or from 0 to 50E-9kg/ m3.

Time is measured in seconds, and varies from 0 to 50 years (one year = 31536000 seconds).

The model evaluated with respect to variations in time and mass concentration of the aerosol will produce the graphic result of this report.  The final units of the model are in degrees centigrade per m2, which corresponds to the differential element of air chosen as 1 cubic meter.  A more complete partial differential model of change with respect to both del (Watts) and del (cp)  may be pursued in the future if warranted. The model is not intended by any respects to be all inclusive of the global warming issue; it is intended to introduce, in a quantitative sense, the consideration of heating of the lower atmosphere from the artificial introduction of particulates.

References:

1. Walter Benenson, Handbook of Physics, (Springer-Verlag, 2002), 684.
2. Benenson, 687.
3. Merle C. Potter, Thermodynamics for Engineers, (McGraw-Hill, 1983), 55.
4. Potter, 289.
5. Potter, 56.
6. National Snow and Ice Data Center,  University of Colorado, Boulder,  Arctic Climate and Meteorology, http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/radiation.html
7. Potter, 251.
8. Wikipedia, Solar Radiation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
9. C.E. Carnicom, Drought Inducement, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/drought-inducement/
10. David Lide, Editor, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, (CRC Press, 2001-2002), 12-219.

CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO MAHATMA GHANDI UNIVERSITY

CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO
MAHATMA GHANDI UNIVERSITY

Clifford E Carnicom
Jan 07 2006
Edited March 08 2006

Notes as of March 08, 2006:

Additional information is now available at the following linked page at Mahatma Gandhi University:

Home Page of Dr. Godfrey Louis
School of Pure & Applied Physics
,
Mahatma Gandhi University

Kottayam, Kerala, INDIA

An introductory excerpt from this page follows:

RED RAIN OF KERALA

“A red rain phenomenon occurred in Kerala, the place where I live, during July-September 2001. The characteristics of this phenomenon were very strange. Conventional explanations appeared totally inadequate to account for this phenomenon. I started an investigation with limited resources and I was greatly assisted by my research student A. Santhosh Kumar. We have been studying this red rain since 2001. Some of our research results are now accepted for publication in the journal -Astrophysics and Space Science, an international peer reviewed journal of astronomy, astrophysics and space science.

According to these accepted results, the red particles, which caused the red rain of Kerala, are possibly of extraterrestrial origin
……..”


Original Notes on Jan 07 2006 follow:

An attempt has been made to send the following correspondence to Mahatma Gandhi University at the following address obtained at the India Study Center website : mguty@md2vsnl.net.in.  A second email has been sent to announce that this correspondence is being made public.  Both emails have been returned with an unknown host error, and correspondence has therefore not been completed.  In the interim until communication has been ensured, this communication is being made available to the public.


To Godfrey Louis and Santosh Kumar from Clifford E Carnicom:

This email must be delivered to:
To Godfrey Louis and Santosh Kumar,

Please confirm that you receive this email and that this delivery has taken place. I have just read a report regarding your research at the university. This report is now at:

http://www.rense.com/general69/microbe.htm

I think that it is appropriate that I refer you to research that I have been involved in as a citizen for the the last 6-7 years. This research is at:

http://www.carnicominstitute.org

Please pay attention to the numerous articles on the detection of aerosolized cellular structures in airborne samples. Best analysis thus far involves what appears to be a dessicated form of erythrocyte,and there may also be an association with stem cells.  My work is centered on a covert operation such that the flow of information on it in the United States is highly “managed.” There may be a relationship between my research and yours.  I hope that you will take the time to investigate this topic, but it is thus far impossible to make any progress on it within the United States acting from a citizen capacity. I have also produced a documentary that may be worth viewing; it is available from the public domain at:

https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/documentary-first-edition-is-available/

This is a managed and controlled topic of discussion in the United States. It must be assumed now in this country that communication on this topic is monitored.  I hope that you are able to make further progress. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Clifford E Carnicom

Appreciation is extended to Jeff Rense (www.rense.com) for making the research results from Mahatma Ghandi University available to the public.

POTASSIUM QUESTIONS INTENSIFY

POTASSIUM QUESTIONS INTENSIFY
Clifford E Carnicom
Jun 08 2005

 

Recent work indicates the very real possibility of sources for interference in the metabolism of the potassium ion within the human body. This interference is based upon the detection of continuous and apparently artificial ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) propagation at 4Hz multiples. The fifth harmonic of this radiation, detected at 20Hz, corresponds to the cyclotronic frequency of the potassium ion in the mid latitude ranges of the globe. Readers are referred to a previous article1 and to the work of Dr. Robert Becker for additional information on this subject.

 

Further inquiry on the attempt to increase potassium levels in the diet has revealed some unexpected findings. If one were to assume, hypothetically, that a potassium deficiency exists in a particular person, it might also be considered reasonable for that individual to seek out a potassium supplement, in addition to the investigation of changes in the diet. Such a search has been conducted, and the results have been unexpected.

 

In the case of magnesium or calcium, there does not appear to be any difficulty in the purchase of minimum daily requirement supplements for these minerals. They are readily available at this time. Upon examining all potassium supplements at the local health food store, regardless of brand, it was soon noticed that no products were available that provided a level of potassium greater than 3% of the recommended daily allowance for potassium. This was somewhat unexpected, as the hypothetical case assumes there is a deficiency in potassium and seeks a remedy for that situation. One can then easily determine that roughly 33 tablets a day of commercially available potassium supplements would be required to reach the recommended daily allowance. This would appear to be neither reasonable or sensible.

 

Further investigation then reveals that the maximum amount of potassium supplement available to the U.S. consumer is 99 milligrams, apparently due to a Food and Drug regulation. The difficulty arises when one consults the standards of recommended daily allowances for that same mineral as established by that same agency, the FDA. Although conflicting statements appear to be in place, the FDA labeling standard is set at 3500 mg per day, or 3.5 grams2. The US Department of Agriculture appears to recommend approximately 4000 mg, or 4 gms per day3.  Furthermore, it is recently reported that “in February of 2004, after an extensive review of scientific literature, the Institute of Medicine set the Adequate Intake of potassium for adults at 4.7 grams a day – more than double previous estimates. However, more than 90% of American children and adults are not meeting these recommendations.”4

 

The supplements that are available to the public through sources examined are limited to 99 mg, or 0.099 gms. The public may purchase, as a supplement, 0.099 gms vs 3.5 gms that is RECOMMENDED per day. It is a natural and reasonable question to ask why this is the case.

 

This paper does not presume to answer that question. It does however, raise the question, along with a few others. Not claiming any medical expertise, it is not difficult to ascertain that potassium levels that are too low in the body may present medical difficulties such as heart failure, fatigue, muscular weakness and depression5. By the same token, excessive levels of potassium can also induce serious medical conditions, such as heart attacks.   Allergic responses from electrolytic imbalances may also deserve consideration.  Notwithstanding, let it also be established that the NLM and the NIH clearly state that “Potassium supplementation should never be taken without the approval of a health care provider.” This paper is informative only, and does not advocate any specific medical advice or action.

 

It may well be that the public requires protective and limited access to adequate levels of potassium supplements for legitimate health reasons.  It may also be that they do not, and that adequate supplement levels should be more readily available to the public.  It may be that an informed public is quite capable of managing nutritional intakes of this mineral in a dietary or supplemental fashion, along with any medical expertise that is sought.

 

The concern of this paper, however, is threefold:

 

1. It would appear that the American popular diet is likely to be low in potassium levels, given that primary sources for potassium include many greens, fruits and beans.  It appears in contrast that the popular diet is often in excess of sodium, which can also lead to additional medical difficulties such as high blood pressure.  Reduced sodium diets are advocated in many cases as a means of improving the health of many individuals.

 

2. In the case of potassium deficiency, it appears to be difficult to remedy that situation through the use of over-the-counter potassium supplements.  The potassium supplement levels available to the public are a minuscule fraction of those available for other common minerals needed for health in the human body.  It is not known whether this limitation is common knowledge to the public or not; the reason for this limitation is not known to this researcher, beyond the concerns that have been expressed.

 

3. A case has been made that potassium interference over large regions of the earth affecting large populations is now possible, if not expected6.

 

Each of these conditions leads to a scenario where the primary mineral intake levels of the human body deserve a much closer examination, along with the medical effects from their deficiency or excess.   Potassium is critical and essential for the functioning of the human body.  The combined effects and interactions of all primary electrolytes in the human are to be considered in this evaluation, especially those of potassium, magnesium and calcium.  It is a fact that the role of the aerosol operations, with all of its consequences to human and planetary health, must be confronted in this pursuit.

 

Clifford E Carnicom
Jun 08, 2005

 

 

1. Carnicom, Potassium Interference Expected, http://www.carnicom.com/potassium1.htm, May 2005.
2. US Food and Drug Administration, Reference Values for Nutritional Labeling, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-7a.html
3. US Department of Agriculture, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter2.htm
4. National Dairy Council, Nutrition and Product Information, http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/NationalDairyCouncil/Nutrition/Products/PotassiumFactSheet.htm
5. National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health, Medical Encyclopedia, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002413.htm
6. Carnicom, May 2005.

 


 

Additional Notes:

 

Alternative sources for additional potassium salts, not limited to the 99 mg commercial supplement version, do exist.  Examples of such sources include potassium salt substitute products and potassium based water treatment salts.  

 

No medical advice or recommendation for action is included within this report. It is reaffirmed that supplements of any kind are not recommended or advised from this researcher, and that medical expertise should be sought in addressing any medical concerns.

 

IONS AND HUMIDITY

IONS AND HUMIDITY
Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
May 26 2005

 

It is thought that the graph shown on this page may well be at the core of the aerosol operations. This graph shows direct ion measurements in combination with historical humidity data during the past month. The graph shows what appear to be highly favored conditions for the conduct of the aerosol operations or the transport of aerosol banks within a region. Aerosol operations are being staged at specific times of low humidity and low negative ion count. These two tenets, that of humidity association and ionic manipulation, have been at the foundation of the aerosol research since the early days of investigation. The current research has refined itself until the specific conditions that are favorable to operation may have been largely identified.

 

There is information available to indicate that the ionic constitution of the lower atmosphere may be considered as a security issue.No direct legal infringements are known. This researcher makes the claim that environmental monitoring and environmental reporting of all types is a basic right of the citizen; this right is asserted with the presentation of this report to the public.

 

It is recommended that this page be widely copied, circulated and distributed as rapidly as possible through all means available. It is further advised that the general public openly and overtly participate in this process of disclosure and confrontation of environmental modification. There are significant health aspects, amongst many other profound geophysical considerations, implicit in this data that is presented. Multiple and broader studies of ionic magnitudes and variations in the lower atmosphere are of immediate value. If the current lower atmosphere ionic research is interfered with in any way, it is requested that others dedicate themselves to the task immediately behind.

 

ions and humidity

 

 

The interpretation of this data will lead to additional questions.There is also additional data that can and will be presented if circumstances of time permit. This data will portray extreme variations in ionic counts, both positive and negative, as well as extreme variations with positive to negative ion ratios.  As has been suspected, it appears that nature is being tampered with in very serious ways.

 

Caution is advised in advancing to hasty conclusions or misstatements with regard to ion concentrations, or in changes with respect to ion concentrations. Ion concentration is tied in directly to the electrical nature of the atmosphere and the earth, and this is a complex subject. It is far too simplistic to characterize certain ions as “good” or “bad”; it is the balance of nature that is to be understood. It seems quite fair to state at this stage that the balances of nature are being upset with artificial methods that threaten the viability of life on this planet.

 

A very general interpretation of the current data can be made as follows: Low humidity is a period of relatively low moisture in the atmosphere. A low negative ion count is also generally indicative of lower moisture levels in the atmosphere. The research indicates that both of these variables, taken together, serve to indicate likely periods of aircraft aerosol or aerosol bank operations. This finding may appear to be in contradiction to the humidity conditions that have been associated with the operations, but in reality they are not contradictory in any fashion. Certainly what is in direct contradiction is the infamous claim by the EPA, FAA, and NASA in the so-called “fact sheet” that purports to explain the “persistence” of trails during periods of “high relative humidity”. It is a point of fact that the exact environmental conditions of the “fact sheet”  are never specified in detail; the wording has always remained ambiguous, albeit intentional or not.

 

The data is showing exactly the opposite occurrence, and that is that the operations themselves appear to be conducted at strategic and specific environmental conditions of lower humidity and lower negative ion count – at least in this region of the country. It is important to emphasize this statement relates to the actual occurrence of the operations; not the time before the operation, and not the time after the operation. In fact, it is expected that moisture levels in the atmosphere are likely, if not expected, to increase before and after the operations.Previous predictive models by this researcher have borne out this conclusion, and that is that the operations are known to commonly occur IN ADVANCE of approaching moisture. That conclusion also remains valid to this day and is not changed by the presence of the current data. This researcher is aware of potential differences in ground observations and higher altitude observations; both have been investigated, and the use of ground data in this project can not be used to nullify any claims or observations that are being made here.

 

At this point it appears reasonable to conclude that high moisture content in the atmosphere and a high negative ion count (often associated with increased moisture) are not particularly favorable for the actual conduct of the operations.  Pre and post operative environmental conditions are an entirely different matter that deserve separate and independent study.

 

Another observation that can be made is that the enterprise appears to be extremely successful in identifying local minimums of lower humidity-negative ion combinations.  This indicates advanced capabilities in differential and predictive meteorological and conductivity modeling techniques.  

 

The value of the current report is that very specific environmental conditions favorable to the actual conduct of an aerosol operation appear to be identified. The two variables of humidity and negative ion count appear to go a long way in assessing the likelihood of such operations taking place. Both variables are given equal weight in their importance at this time, and neither of the two variables can be disregarded or ignored. Considerable pattern analysis and model development has taken place to reach this assessment. It is reasonable to suspect that the agendas of the operations, as they have been and as they continue to be determined, are enhanced if the operations are conducted under the specific environmental conditions that are now under identification. Thoughtful analysis will continue to direct that future research.  Confrontation to the point of initiating a global moratorium on the operations is required in the interim.

 

There remains much more to be stated on the measurements that have been taken with respect to positive ion counts, total ion counts and positive to negative ion ratios.  The ionic effects of the full moon are also worthy of discussion. This will have to take place at a later time. The mathematical specifics of the model that has been developed to isolate the current pattern can also be discussed at a later time. The current work is offered such that the process of analysis and interpretation can begin without hesitation.

Clifford E Carnicom
May 26, 2005