The Obscuration of Health Hazards :

The Obscuration of Health Hazards:
An Analysis of EPA Air Quality Standards

Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 12 2016

A discrepancy between measured and observed air quality in comparison to that reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under poor conditions in real time has prompted an inquiry into the air quality standards in use by that same agency. This analysis, from the perspective of this researcher, raises important questions about the methods and reliability of the data that the public has access to, and that is used to make decisions and judgements about the surrounding air quality and its impact upon human health. The logic and rationale inherent within these same standards are now also open to further examination. The issues are important as they have a direct influence upon the perception by the public of the state of health of the environment and atmosphere. The purpose of this paper is to raise honest questions about the strategies and rationales that have been adopted and codified into our environmental regulatory systems, and to seek active participation by the public in the evaluation process.  Weaknesses in the current air quality standards will be discussed, and alternatives to the current system will be proposed.

Particulate Matter (PM) has an important effect upon human health.  Currently, there are two standards for measuring the particulate matter in the atmosphere, PM 10 and PM 2.5.  PM 10 consists of material less than 10 microns in size and is often composed of dust and smoke particles, for example.  PM 2.5 consists of materials less than 2.5 microns in size and is generally invisible to the human eye until it accumulates in sufficient quantity.  PM 2.5 material is considered to be a much greater risk to human health as it penetrates deeper into the lungs and the respiratory system.  This paper is concerned solely with PM 2.5 pollution.

As an introduction to the inquiry, curiosity can certainly be called to attention with the following statement by the EPA in 2012, as taken from a document (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012,1) that outlines certain changes made relatively recently to air quality standards:

“EPA has issued a number of rules that will make significant strides toward reducing fine particle pollution (PM 2.5). These rules will help the vast majority of U.S. counties meet the revised PM 2.5 standard without taking additional action to reduce emissions.”

Knowing and studying the “rule changes” in detail may serve to clarify this statement, but on the surface it certainly conveys the impression of a scenario whereby a teacher changes the mood in the classroom by letting the students know that more of them will be passing the next test.  Even better, they won’t need to study any harder and they will still get the same result.

In contrast, the World Health Organization (WHO) is a little more direct (World Health Organization 2013, 10) about the severity and impact of fine particle pollution (PM 2.5):

“There is no evidence of a safe level of exposure or a threshold below which no adverse health effects occur. The exposure is ubiquitous and involuntary, increasing the significance of this determinant of health.”

We can, therefore, see that there are already significant differences in the interpretation of the impact of fine particle pollution (especially from an international perspective), and that the U.S. EPA is not exactly setting a progressive example toward improvement.

Another topic of introductory importance is that of the AQI, or “Air Quality Index” that has been adopted by the EPA (“Air Quality Index – Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia” 2016).  This index is of the “idiot light” or traffic light style, where green means all is fine, yellow is to exercise caution, and red means that we have a problem.  The index, therefore, has the following appearance:

There are other countries that use a similar type of index and color-coded scheme.  China, for example, uses the following scale (“Air Quality Index – Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia” 2016):


As we continue to examine these scale variations, it will also be of interest to note that China is known to have some of the most polluted air in the world, especially over many of the urban areas.

Not all countries, jurisdictions or entities , however, use the idiot light approach that employs an arbitrary scaling method that is removed from showing the actual PM 2.5 pollution concentrations, such as those shown from the United States and China above.  For example, the United Kingdom uses a scale (“Air Quality Index – Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia” 2016) that is dependent upon actual PM 2.5 concentrations, as is shown below:

Notice that the PM 2.5 concentration for the U.K. index is directly accessible and that the scaling for the index is dramatically different than that for the U.S. or China.  In the case of the AQI used by the U.S. and China (and other countries as well), a transformed scale runs from 0 to 300-500 with concentration levels that are generally more obscure and ambiguous within the index.  In the case of the U.K index, the scale directly reports with a specific PM 2.5 concentration level with a maximum (i.e., ~70 ug/m^3) that is far below that incorporated into the AQI index (i.e., 300 – 500 ug/m^3).

We can be assured that if a reading of 500 ug/m^3 is ever before us, we have a much bigger problem on our hands than discussions of air quality.  The EPA AQI is heavily biased toward extreme concentration levels that are seldom likely to occur in practical affairs; the U.K. index gives much greater weight to the lower concentration levels that are known to directly impact health, as reflected by the WHO statement above.

Major differences in the scaling of the indices, as well as their associated health effects, are therefore hidden within the various color schemes that have been adopted by various countries or jurisdictions.  Color has an immediate impact upon perception and communication; the reality is that most people will seldom, if ever, explore the basis of such a system as long as the message is “green” under most circumstances that they are presented with.  The fact that one system acknowledges serious health effects at a concentration level of  50 – 70 ug/m^3 and that another does not do so until the concentration level is on the order of 150 – 300 ug/m^3 is certainly lost to the common citizen, especially when the scalings and color schemes chosen obscure the real risks that are present at low concentrations.

The EPA AQI system appears to have its roots in history as opposed to simplicity and directness in describing the pollution levels of the atmosphere, especially as it relates to the real-time known health effects of even short-term exposure to lower concentration PM 2.5 levels.  The following statement (“Air Quality Index | World Public Library” 2016) acknowledges weaknesses in the AQI since its introduction in 1968, but the methods are nevertheless perpetuated for more than 45 years.

“While the methodology was designed to be robust, the practical application for all metropolitan areas proved to be inconsistent due to the paucity of ambient air quality monitoring data, lack of agreement on weighting factors, and non-uniformity of air quality standards across geographical and political boundaries. Despite these issues, the publication of lists ranking metropolitan areas achieved the public policy objectives and led to the future development of improved indices and their routine application.”

The system of color coding to extreme and rarified levels with the use of an averaged and biased scale versus one that directly reports the PM 2.5 concentration levels in real time is an artifact that is divorced from current observed measurements and the knowledge of the impact of fine particulates upon human health.

The reporting of PM 2.5 concentrations directly along with a more realistic assessment of impact upon human health is hardly unique to the U.K. index system. With little more than casual research, at least three other independent systems of measurement have been identified that mirror the U.K. maximum scaling levels along with the commensurate PM 2.5 counts. These include the World Health Organization, a European environmental monitoring agency, and a professional metering company index scale (World Health Organization 2013, 10) (“Air Quality Now – About US – Indices Definition” 2016) (“HHTP21 Air Quality Meter, User Manual, Omega Engineering” 2016, 10).

As another example to gain perspective between extremes and maximum “safe” levels of PM 2.5 concentrations, we can recall an event that occurred in Beijing, China during November 2010, and that was reported by the New York Times in January of 2013 (Wong 2013) .  During this extreme situation, the U.S. Embassy monitoring equipment registered a PM 2.5 reading of 755, and the story certainly made news as the levels blew out any scale imaginable, including those that set maximums at 500.

An after statement within the article that references the World Health Organization standards may be the lasting impression that we should carry forward from the horrendous event, where it is stated that:

“The World Health Organization has standards that judge a score above 500 to be more than 20 times the level of particulate matter in the air deemed safe.”

Not withstanding the fact that WHO also states that no there is no evidence of any truly “safe” level of particulate matter in the atmosphere, we can nevertheless back out of this statement that a maximum “safe” level for the PM 2.5 count, as assessed by WHO, is approximately 25 ug / m^3.  This statement alone should convince us that we must pay close attention to the lower levels of pollution that enter into the atmosphere, and that public perception should not be distorted by scales and color schemes that usually only affect public perception when they number into the hundreds.

Let us gain a further understanding of how low concentration levels and small changes affect human health and, shall I daresay, mortality. The case for low PM 2.5 concentrations being seriously detrimental to human health is strong and easy to make.  Casual research on the subject will uncover a host of research papers that quantify increased mortality rates with direct relationship to small changes in PM 2.5 concentrations, usually expressing a change in mortality per 10 ug / m^3.  Such papers are not operating in the arena of scores to hundreds of micrograms per cubic meter, but on the order of TEN micrograms per cubic meter.  This work underscores the need to update the air quality standards, methods and reporting to the public based upon current health knowledge, instead of continuing a system of artifacts based upon decades old postulations.

These papers will refer to both daily mortality levels as well as long term mortality based upon these “small” increases in PM 2.5 concentrations.  The numbers are significant from a public health perspective.  As a representative article, consider the following recent published paper in Environmental Health Perspectives in June of 2015, under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences(Shi et al. 2015) :




with the following conclusions:




as based upon the following results:




Let us therefore assume a more conservative increase of 2% mortality for a short-term exposure (i.e., 2 day) per TEN (not 12, not 100, not 500 per AQI scaling) micrograms per cubic meter.  Let us assume a mortality increase of 7% for long term exposure (i.e, 365 days).

Let us put these results into further perspective.  A sensible question to ask is, given a certain level of fine particulate pollution introduced into the air for a certain number of days within the year, how many people would die as a consequence of this change in our environment?  We must understand that the physical nature of the particulates is being ignored here (e.g., toxicity, solubility, etc.) other than that of the size being less than 2.5 microns.

The data results suggest a logarithmic form of influence, i.e. a relatively large effect for short term exposures, and a subsequently more gradual impact for long term exposure.  A linear model is the simplest approach, but it also is likely to be too modest in modeling the mortality impact. For the purpose of this inquiry, a combined linear-log approach will be taken as a reasonably conservative approach.

The model developed, therefore, is of the form:

Mortality % Increase (per 10ug/m^3) = 1.65 +. 007(days) + 0.48 * ln(days)

The next step is to choose the activity level and time period for which we wish to model the mortality increase.  Although any scenario within the data range could be chosen, a reasonably conservative approach will also be adopted here.  The scenario chosen will be to introduce 30 ug/m^3 of fine particulate matter into the air for 10% of the days within a year.

The model will therefore estimate a 3.6% increase in mortality for 10 ug/ m^3 of introduced PM 2.5 materials (36.5 days).  For 30 ug/m^3, we will therefore have a a 10.9% increase in mortality.  As we can see, the numbers can quickly become significant, even with relatively low or modest PM 2.5 increases in pollution.

Next we transform this percentage into real numbers. During the year of 2013, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 2,596,993 people died during that year from all causes combined (“FastStats” 2016).  The percentage of 10.9% increase applied to this number results in 283, 072 additional projected deaths per year.

Continuing to place this number into perspective, this number exceeds the number of deaths that result from stroke, Alzheimer’s, and influenza and pneumonia combined (i.e, 5th, 6th, and 8th leading causes of death) during that same year.  The number is also much higher than the death toll for Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease (COPD), which is now curiously the third leading cause of death.

We should now understand that PM 2.5 pollution levels are a very real concern with respect to public health, even at relatively modest levels.  Some individuals might argue that such a scenario could never occur, as the EPA has diminished the PM 2.5 standard on an annual basis down to 12 ug/m^3.  The enforcement and sensitivity of that measurement standard is another discussion that will be reserved for a later date.  Suffice it to say that the scenario chosen here is not unduly unrealistic here for consideration, and that it is in the public’s interest to engage themselves in this discussion and examination.



The next issue of interest to discuss is that of a comparison between different air quality scales in some detail.  In particular, the “weighting”, or influence, of lower concentration levels vs. higher concentration levels will be examined.  This topic is important because it affects the interpretation by the public of the state of air quality, and it is essential that the impacts upon human health are represented equitably and with forthrightness.

The explanation of this topic will be considerably more detailed and complex than the former issues of “color coding” and mortality potentials, but it is no less important.  The results are at the heart of the perception of the quality of the air by the public and its subsequent impact upon human health.

To compare different scales of air quality that have been developed; we must first equate them.  For example, if one scale ranges from 1 to 6, and another from 0 to 10, we must “map”, or transform them such that the scales are of equivalent range.  Another need in the evaluation of any scale is to look at the distribution of concentration levels within that same scale, and to compare this on an equal footing as well.  Let us get started with an important comparison between the EPA AQI and alternative scales that deserve equal consideration in the representation of air quality.

Here is the structure of the EPA AQI in more detail (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012, 4) .


 AQI Index AQI Abitrary Numeric  AQI Rank PM 2.5 (ug/m^3) 24 hr avg.
Good  0-50  1  0-12
Moderate  51-100  2  12.1-35.4
Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups  101-150  3  35.5-55.4
Unhealthy  151-200  4  55.5-150.4
Very Unhealthy  201-300  5  150.5-250.4
Hazardous  301-500  6  250.5-500


Now let us become familiar with three alternative scaling and health assessment scales that are readily available and that acknowledge the impact of lower PM 2.5 concentrations to human health:


United Kingdom Index U.K. Nomenclature PM 2.5 ug/m3 24 hr avg.
1 Low 0-11
2 Low 12-23
3 Low 24-35
4 Moderate 36-41
5 Moderate 41-47
6 Moderate 48-53
7 High 54-58
8 High 59-64
9 High 65-70
10 Very High >=71


Now for a second alternative air quality scale, this being from Air Quality Now, a European monitoring entity:


Air Quality Now EU Rank Nomenclature PM 2.5  Hr PM 2.5 24 Hrs.
1 Very Low 0-15 0-10
2 Low 15-30 10-20
3 Medium 30-55 20-30
4 High 55-110 30-60
5 Very High >110 >60


And lastly, the scale from a professional air quality meter manufacturer:


Professional Meter Index Nomenclature PM 2.5 ug/m^3 Real Time Concentration
0 Very Good 0-7
1 Good 8-12
2 Moderate 13-20
3 Moderate 21-31
4 Moderate 32-46
5 Poor 47-50
6 Poor 52-71
7 Poor 72-79
8 Poor 73-89
9 Very Poor >90


We can see that the only true common denominator between all scaling systems is the PM 2.5 concentration.  Even with the acceptance of that reference, there remains the issue of “averaging” a value, or acquiring maximum or real time values.  Setting aside the issue of time weighting as a separate discussion, the most practical means to equate the scaling system is to do what is mentioned earlier:  First, equate the scales to a common index range (in this case, the EPA AQI range of 1 to 6 will be adopted).  Second, inspect the PM 2.5 concentrations from the standpoint of distribution, i.e., evaluate these indices as a function of PM 2.5 concentrations.  The results of this comparison follow below, accepting the midpoint of each PM 2.5 concentration band as the reference point:

PM 2.5 (ug/m^3) EPA AQI UK EU (1hr) Meter
1-10 1 1 1 1
10-20 2 1.6 1 2.1
20-30 2 2.1 2.2 2.7
30-40 2 2.1 3.5 3.2
40-50 3 3.2 3.5 3.2
50-60 3 4.3 3.5 4.3
60-80 4 5.4 4.8 4.9
80-100 4 6 4.8 6
100-150 4 6 6 6
150-200 4 6 6 6
200-250 5 6 6 6
250-300 5 6 6 6
300-400 6 6 6 6
400-500 6 6 6 6


This table reveals the essence of the problem; the skew of the EPA AQI index toward high concentrations that diminishes awareness of the health impacts from lower concentrations can be seen within the tabulation. 

This same conclusion will be demonstrated graphically at a later point.

Now that all air quality scales are referenced to a common standard, i.e., the PM 2.5 concentration), the general nature of each series can be examined via a regression analysis.  It will be found that a logistical function is a favored functional form in this case and the results of that analysis are as follows:

EPA Index (1-6) = 5.57 / (1 + 2.30 * exp(-.016 * PM 2.5))
Mean Square Error = 0.27

Mean (UK – EU – Meter) Index (1-6) = 6.03 / (1 + 5.65 * exp(-.046 * PM 2.5))
Mean Square Error = 0.01

The information that will now be of value to evaluate the weighting distribution applied to various concentration levels is that of integration of the logistical regression curves as a function of bandwidth.  The result of the integration process (Int.) applied to the above regressions is as follows:

PM 2.5 Band EPA AQI (Int.)
[Index * PM 2.5]
Mean Index (Int.)
[Index * PM 2.5]
% Relative Overweight or Underweight of PM 2.5 Band Contribution Between EPA AQI and Mean Alternative Air Quality Index Scale (Endpoint Bias Removed)
1-10 16.1 10.1 +42%
10-20 19.8 15.8 +27%
20-30 21.9 21.6 +8%
30-40 24.1 28.3 -10%
40-50 26.3 35.2 -27%
50-60 28.5 41.5 -39%
60-80 63.6 98.0 -47%
80-100 72.1 110.4 -46%
100-150 211.7 295.0 -32%
150-200 243.7 300.8 -16%
200-250 261.7 301.4 -8%
250-300 270.7 301.5 -4%
300-400 551.8 603.0 -2%
400-500 555.9 603.0 0%


A graph of a regression curve to the % Relative Overweight/Underweight data in the final column of the table above is as follows (band interval midpoints selected; standard error = 4.1%).


EPA Underweight Function Feb 09 2016 - 01


And, thus, we are led to another interpretation regarding the demerits of the EPA AQI.  The EPA AQI scaling system unjustifiably under-weights the harmful effects of PM 2.5 concentrations that are most likely to occur in real world, real time, daily circumstances.  The scale over-weights the impacts of extremely low concentrations that have little to no impact upon human health.  And lastly, when the PM 2.5 concentrations are at catastrophic levels and the viability of life itself is threatened, all monitoring sources, including the EPA, are in agreement that we have a serious situation.  One must seriously question the public service value under such distorted and disproportionate representation of this important monitor of human health, the PM 2.5 concentration.



Let us proceed to an additional serious flaw in the EPA air quality standards, and this is the issue of averaging the data. It will be noticed that the current standard for EPA PM 2.5 air quality is 12 ug/m^3 , as averaged over a 24 hour period. On the surface, this value appears to be reasonably sound, cautious and protective of human health. A significant problem, however, occurs when we understand that the value is averaged over a period of time, and is not reflective of real-time dynamic conditions that involve “short-term” exposures.

To begin to understand the nature of the problem, let us present two different scenarios:

Scenario One:

In the first scenario, the PM 2.5 count in the environment is perfectly even and smooth, let us say at 10 ug/m^3. This is comfortably within the EPA air quality standard “maximum” per a 24 hour period, and all appears well and good.

Scenario Two:

In this scenario, the PM 2.5 count is 6 ug/m^3 for 23 hours out of 24 hours a day. For one hour per day, however, the PM 2.5 count rises to 100 ug/m^3, and then settles down back to 6 ug/m^3 in the following hour.

Instinctively, most of us will realize that the second scenario poses a significant health risk, as we understand that maximum values may be as important (or even more important) than an average value. One could equate this to a dosage of radiation, for example, where a short term exposure could produce a lethal result, but an average value over a sufficiently long time period might persuade us that everything is fine.

And this, therefore, poses the problem that is before us.

In the first scenario, the weighted average PM 2.5 count over a 24 hour period is 10 ug/ m^3.

In the second scenario, the weighted average PM 2.5 count over a 24 hour period is 10 ug/m^3.

Both scenario averages are within the current EPA air quality maximum pollution standards.

Clearly, this method has the potential for disguising significant threats to human health if “short-term” exposures occur on any regular basis. Observation and measurement will show that they do.

Now that we have seen some of the weaknesses of the averaging methods, let us look at an additional scenario based upon more realistic data, but that continues to show a measurable influence upon human health. The scenario selected has a basis in recent and independently monitored PM 2.5 data.

The situation in this case is as follows:

This model scenario will postulate that the following conditions are occurring for approximately 10% of the days in a year. For that period, let us assume that for 13.5 hours of the day that the PM 2.5 count is essentially nil at 2 ug/m^3. For the remaining 10.5 hours of the day during that same 10% of the year, let us assume the average PM 2.5 count is 20 ug/m^3. The range of the PM 2.5 count during the 10.5 hour period is from 2 to 60 ug/m^3, but the average of 20 ug/m^3 (representing a significant increase) will be the value required for the analysis. For the remainder of the year very clean air will be assumed at a level of 2 ug/m^3 for all hours of the day.

A more extended discussion of the nature of this data is anticipated at a later date, but suffice it to say that the energy of sunlight is the primary driver for the difference in the PM 2.5 levels throughout the day.

The next step in the problem is to determine the number of full days that correspond to the concentration level of 20 ug/m^3, and also to provide for the fact that the elevated levels will be presumed to exist for only 10% of the year.  The value that results is:

0.10 * (365 days) * (10.5 hrs / 24 hrs) = 16 full days of 20 ug/m^3 concentration level.

As a reference point, we can now estimate the increase in mortality that will result for an arbitrary 10 ug/m^3 (based upon the relationship derived earlier):

Mortality % Increase (per 10ug/m^3) = 1.65 +. 007(16 days) + 0.48 * ln(16 days)


Mortality % Increase (per 10ug/m^3) = 3.1%

The increase in this case is 18 ug/m^3 (20 ug/m^2 – 2 ug/m^3), however, and the mortality increase to be expected is therefore:

Mortality % Increase (per 18ug/m^3 increase) = 1.8 * 3.1% = 5.6%.

Once again, to place this number into perspective, we translate this percentage into projected deaths (as based upon CDC data, 2013):

.056 * (2, 596, 993) = 145, 431 projected additional deaths.

This value is essentially equivalent (again, curiously) to the third leading cause of death, namely Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease (COPD), with a reported value of deaths for 2013 of 149, 205.

It is understood that a variety of factors will ultimately lead to mortality rates, however, this value may help to put the significance of  “lower” or “short-term” exposures to PM 2.5 pollution into perspective.

It should also be recalled that the averaging of PM 2.5 data over a 24 hour period can significantly mask the influences of such “short-term” exposures.

A remaining issue of concern with respect to AQI deficiencies is its accuracy in reflecting real world conditions in a real-time sense. The weakness in averaging data has already been discussed to some extent, but the issue in this case is of a more practical nature. Independent monitoring of PM 2.5 data over a reasonably broad geographic area has produced direct visible and measurable conflicts in the reported state of air quality by the EPA.

After close to twenty years of public research and investigation, there is no rational denial that the citizenry is subject to intensive aerosol operations on a regular and frequent basis. These operations are conducted without the consent of that same public. The resulting contamination and pollution of the atmosphere is harmful to human health.  The objective here is to simply document the changes in air quality that result from such a typical operation, and the corresponding public reporting of air quality by the EPA for that same time and location.

Multiple occasions of this activity are certainly open to further examination, but a representative case will be presented here in order to disclose the concern.



Typical Conditions for Non- Operational Day.
Sonoran National Monument – Stanfield AZ


Aerosol Operation – Early Hours
Jan 19 2016 – Sonoran National Monument – Stanfield AZ


Aerosol Operation – Mid-Day Hours
Jan 19 2016 – Sonoran National Monument – Stanfield AZ



EPA Website Report at Location and Time of Aerosol Operation.
Jan 19 2016 – Sonoran National Monument – Stanfield AZ
Air Quality Index : Good
Forecast Air Quality Index : Good
Health Message : None

Current Conditions : Not Available
(“AirNow” 2016)


The PM 2.5 measurements that correlate with the above photographs are as follows:

With respect to the non-operational day photograph, clean air can and does exist at times in this country, especially in the more remote portions of the southwestern U.S. under investigation.  It is quite typical to have PM 2.5 counts from 2 to 5 ug/m^3, which fall under the category of very good air quality by any index used.  Low PM 2.5 counts are especially prone to occur after periods of heavier rain, as the materials are purged from the atmosphere.  The El Nino influence has been especially influential in this regard during the earlier portion of this winter season.  Visibility conditions of the air are a direct reflection of the PM 2.5 count.

On the day of the aerosol operation, the PM 2.5 counts were not low and the visibility down to ground level was highly diminished.  The range of values throughout the day were from 2 to 57, with the low value occurring prior to sunrise and post sundown.  The highest value of 57 occurred during mid-afternoon.  A PM 2.5 value of 57 ug/m^3 is considered poor air quality by many alternative and contemporary air quality standards, and the prior discussions on mortality rates for “lower” concentrations should be consulted above.  This high value has no corollary, thus far, during non-aerosol-operational days.  From a common sense point of view, the conditions recorded by both photograph and measurement were indeed unhealthy.  Visibility was diminished from a typical 70 miles + in the region to a level of approximately 30 miles during the operational period.  Please refer to the earlier papers (Visibility Standards Changed, March 2001 and Mortality vs. Visibility, June 2004; also additional papers) for additional discussions related to these topics.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports no concerns, no immediate impact, nor any potential impact to health or the environment during the aerosol operation at the nearest reporting location.



This paper has reviewed several factors that affect the interpretation of the Air Quality Index (AQI) as it has been developed and is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the process, several shortcomings have been identified:

1. The use of a color scheme strongly affects the perception of the index by the public. The colors used in the AQI are not consistent with what is now known about the impact of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) to human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that there are NO known safe levels of fine particulate matter, and the literature also acknowledges the serious impact of low concentration levels of PM 2.5, including increased mortality.

2. The scaling range adopted by the AQI is much too large to adequately reveal the impact of the lower concentration levels of PM 2.5 to human health. A range of 500 ug/m^3 attached to the scale when mortality studies acknowledge significant impact at a level of 10 ug/m^3 is out of step with current needs by the public.

3. The underweighting of the lower PM 2.5 concentration levels relative to more contemporary scales that adequately emphasize lower level health impacts obscures health impacts which deserve more prominent exposure.

4. The AQI numeric scale is divorced from actual PM 2.5 concentration levels. The arbitrary scaling has no direct relationship to existing and actual concentrations of mass to volume ratios. The actual conditions of pollution are therefore hidden by an arbitrary construct that obscures the impact of pollution to human health.

5. The AQI is a historic development that has been maintained in various incarnations and modifications since its origin more than 45 years ago. The method of presentation and computation is obtuse and appears to exist as a legacy to the past rather than directly portraying pollution health risks.

6. The averaging of pollution data over a time period that filters out short term exposures of high magnitude is unnecessary and it hinders the awareness of the actual conditions of exposure to the public.

7. Presentation of air quality information through the authorized portal appears to present potential conflicts between reported information and actual field condition observation, data and measurement.


In the opinion of this researcher the AQI, as it exists, should be revamped or discarded. Allowing for catastrophic pollution in the development of the scale is commendable, but not if it interferes with the presentation of useful and valuable information to the public on a practical and daily basis.

There is a partial analogy here with the scales used to report earthquakes and other natural events, as they are of an exponential nature and they provide for extreme events when they occur. It is now known, however, that very low levels of fine particulate matter are very harmful to human health. Any scaling chosen to represent the state of pollution in the atmosphere must correspondingly emphasize and reveal this fact. This is what matters on a daily basis in the practical affairs of living; the extreme events are known to occur but they should not receive equal (or even greater) emphasis in a daily pollution reporting standard. It is primarily a question of communicating to the public directly in real-time with actual data, versus the adherence to decades old legacies and methods that do not accurately portray modern pollution and its sources.

It seems to me that a solution to the problem is fairly straightforward; this issue is whether or not such a transformation can be made on a national level and whether or not it has strong public support. Many other scaling systems have already made the switch to emphasize the impact of lower level concentrations to human health; this would seem to be admirable based upon the actual needs of society.

It is a fairly simple matter to reconstruct the scale for an air quality index. THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION IS TO REPORT THE CONCENTRATION LEVELS DIRECTLY, IN REAL TIME MODE. For example, if the PM 2.5 pollution level at a particular location is, for example, 20 ug/m^3, then report it as such. This is not hard to do and technology is fully supportive of this direct change and access to data. We do not average our rain when it rains, we do not average our sunlight when we report how clear the sky is, we do not average the cloud cover, and we do not average how far we can see. The environmental conditions exist as they are, and they should be reported as such. There is no need to manipulate or “transform” the data, as is being done now. A linear scale can also be matched fairly well to the majority of daily life needs, and the extreme ranges can also be accommodated without any severe distortion of the system. The relationship between visibility and PM 2.5 counts will be very quickly and readily assimilated by the public when the actual data is simply available in real-time mode as it needs to be and should be. Of course, greater awareness of the public of the actual conditions of pollution may also lead to a stronger investigation of their source and nature; this may or may not be as welcome in our modern society. I hope that it will be, as the health of our generation, succeeding generations, and of the planet itself is dependent upon our willingness to confront the truths of our own existence.

Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 12, 2016

Born Clifford Bruce Stewart
Jan 19, 1953



“AirNow.” 2016. Accessed March 13.

“Air Quality Index | World Public Library.” 2016. Accessed March 13.

“Air Quality Index – Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.” 2016. Accessed March 13.

“Air Quality Now – About US – Indices Definition.” 2016a. Accessed March 13.
———. 2016b. Accessed March 13.

“FastStats.” 2016. Accessed March 13.

“HHTP21 Air Quality Meter, User Manual, Omega Engineering.” 2016.

Shi, Liuhua, Antonella Zanobetti, Itai Kloog, Brent A. Coull, Petros Koutrakis, Steven J. Melly, and Joel D. Schwartz. 2015. “Low-Concentration PM2.5 and Mortality: Estimating Acute and Chronic Effects in a Population-Based Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124 (1). doi:10.1289/ehp.1409111.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. “Revised Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution and Updates to the Air Quality Index (AQI).”

Wong, Edward. 2013. “Beijing Air Pollution Off the Charts.” The New York Times, January 12.

World Health Organization. 2013. “Health Effects of Particulate Matter, Policy Implications for Countries in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.”

Environmental Filament : False Report

Environmental Filament : False Report
Clifford E Carnicom
Jan 08 2013

It is now appropriate to disclose the circumstances involving a laboratory report on an airborne filament sample that was paid for in the year of 1999.  This report was issued jointly by three separate companies and they shall remain anonymous at this time.  It is now appropriate to present this information as the conclusions of the report are undeniably false.  Whether or not there was intent to misrepresent the facts of the case is not to be discussed in this paper; the purpose is to disclose information that is relevant to the public interest and welfare.  The laboratory was hired and paid significant monies to analyze and identify the very same airborne environmental filament sample that was sent to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during this same time period of 1999-2000.  The failure of the EPA to identify that sample is adequately documented in this site.  This report will chronicle the events that surround this affair. 

The circumstances are generally as follows:

1. A laboratory in the southwestern United States was privately contracted in the fall of 1999 to identify an airborne environmental filament sample.  The nature of this environmental filament has been discussed and researched extensively on this site over the subsequent years.  A portion of this same sample was sent to the EPA for identification as noted above.  The reason for contracting with the private company was because of the failure of the EPA to identify the material.

2. The laboratory report was issued in December of 1999 with joint responsibility of findings between three separate companies.  The report claims to use the results of infra-red spectroscopic analysis and Polarized Light Microscope Analysis on the sample.

3. The final statement of analysis from the contracting laboratory is as follows (names of laboratories redacted).  The conclusions of this report will be discussed in more detail below.

4. At the same time that the laboratory was conducting their tests, I also was conducting my own tests on this same sample material.  The results of that testing process are extensively reported on within this web site.  Certain primary conclusions were being reached on my side about the nature of the material such as size, chemical reactivity, microscopy results, conditions of collection and the like.  Prior to the results being officially released, we were given the subjective information above relaying that the material “could be” a “spider’s web”.  It was quite clear to me from my own analysis that the testing results were inadequate and inaccurate, as it was already evident that the material was not a “spider web”.  The final report claiming to use spectral analysis was then issued, and it was clear to me at this point that a contest of conclusions was in order.  It was equally obvious through any reasoned analysis that the material was likewise not a wool fiber or any other obvious fabric or textile.  Readers familiar with “counter arguments” of the period will also know that a commonly circulated theme by a relatively small group of vocal advocates was that the material was simply a “spider’s web that had fallen from the sky.”… There were also questions that had emerged from the spectral reports themselves.

5. At this point, it was obvious that a rather serious and important conflict of conclusions had developed.  The first conflict arose from the failure of the EPA to identify the material on behalf of the public interest.  The second conflict resulted from paid professional services that provided obvious and conflicting information to my own independent analysis of the material.

6.  A personal visit and meeting with the president of the issuing company was then arranged.  The meeting had three participants: the president of the company, Dave Peterson (a colleague of mine) and myself.  The subject of the meeting was identified ahead of time to all parties as a discussion of the conclusions that had been issued by the laboratory.  It is also a fact that the letter presented below was written by myself prior to the actual meeting and it was held in reserve until the outcome of the meeting was decided.  It is fair to say that I had serious concerns and issues with the professionalism and honesty of the science that was on display by the laboratory.

7. Prior to the meeting, in addition to the letter written and held below, I had also prepared a list of nine line items that substantiated, from my own analyses, why the laboratory results issued were false.  At the opening of the meeting, I expressed my concern that I had some reservations and conflicts with the validity of the report and that I would like to discuss them with him.  It is also true that the atmosphere of the meeting was generally one of unspoken tension and alertness.

8.  I began with my first item of nine on the list.  This issue was simply the point  and question of direct observation, especially under the microscope.  I told the president of the company that the materials did not even look like spider webs under the scope.  In my own analyses, I made extensive study of numerous filament, textiles, hairs and filaments in general, including those of spider webs.  I actually had the serious issue as to whether or not the sample had been properly observed, as it is the starting point of the scientific method.  The president of the company did not contest or agree with or discuss my point of contention in any fashion, there was at most a tacit or implied acknowledgment of this first of nine points.

9. I then proceeded to the second item on my list of nine.  This issue had to do with the size of the filaments.  The size of the filaments is micron to sub-micron in nature, and it does not correspond in any physical or possible way to a hair or a spider web.  My own measurements of spider webs were in the order of seven microns and hair is on the order of 60-100 microns.  The conclusion on the laboratory report simply had no justifiable metric basis.  I again wondered privately whether or not the laboratory had made the effort to even measure as well as look at the filament in any detail.

10. The next event in the meeting was entirely unexpected.  At the end of the second of nine points to be raised, the president of the company immediately halted the discussion and my speech.  The words that were uttered by this individual were the following:

“This meeting is now adjourned.”

11. There was nothing more that was allowed to be said.  The meeting was over as I had reached item two on my list of nine.  At this point, I personally handed the letter that I had written apriori to the President of this company.   Thirteen years later, it is now time to make this correspondence available to the public.  The letter could not be presented until a certain confidence in laboratory results was achieved; this is now in place.

12. The letter written at the time of the meeting in the year 2000 is presented below for the record:

13.  There are additional details that can be discussed.  In the short form, let me assert to you that these airborne environmental filaments, that have been repeatedly observed, reported and collected over the last decade and a half, at a minimum,  are:

a) NOT naturally occurring.

b) NOT a spider’s web or silk.

c) NOT wool (or any other common textile fiber or hair).

14.  They are, however, at least in part, indeed a “proteinacous material”, but that is another story….


Clifford E Carnicom

Jan 07 2013


Additional Note from David Peterson provided on Jan 07 2013:

The reason my signature does not appear on this statement is that I trusted that we were dealing with a legitimate laboratory at the time this document was presented to them. There were inconsistencies in their findings that were sent to us via USPS prior to this that were the reason the face to face meeting needed to take place. I attended this meeting with Clifford Carnicom to address our concerns with their findings, so I was indeed a witness to how the meeting transpired and in retrospect I would have absolutely signed this document when it was presented to them.

David Peterson

(P.S. Dave, thank you, 13 years later…)



Clifford E Carnicom
Dec 14 2009

I am not offering any medical advice or diagnosis with the presentation of this information. I am acting solely as an independent researcher providing the results of extended observation and analysis of unusual biological conditions that are evident.

An environmental source, at least in part, for specific biological organisms that are under scrutiny in association with the so-called “Morgellons” condition, has been identified.   This source is the unusual airborne filament sample that was sent in June of 2000 to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for identification on behalf of the public welfare.  The United States EPA refused to acknowledge the existence of the sample for a period of one and one-half years, and subsequently returned the sample without identification after a Freedom of Information Act request for accounting was submitted by a third party.  

Upon return in 2001, the EPA stated that it was not the policy of the Agency to “test, or otherwise analyze any unsolicited samples of material or matter.

The mission of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is to “protect human health and the environment.”1

This particular and same sample that was sent to the EPA has been successfully cultured and reproduced, and the culture growth exhibits the identical biological organisms, structure and chemistry of certain biological filaments that are under extensive study in association with the Morgellons condition.  The sample has been held in custody for more than ten years to await opportunities for proper identification.  This particular form of material has been observed, gathered, reported and documented on numerous occasions by independent citizens during the last decade.  The filament samples have been considered by many to be a potential health hazard due to the sustained lack of proper identification and the airborne nature.  Previous documentation of the events surrounding the original requests for identification are available through this site.

An incomplete (or false) report by a private laboratory, at cost, was received shortly after the EPA refusal of identification.  A meeting held to confront and dispute the findings of the private laboratory was abruptly canceled while in process when evidence was presented that contradicted the report using numerous independent methods of observation and analyses.  No further progress in formal analytical or biological identification has been made since that time.

The method of culturing is identical to that which has been developed for certain dental filament samples, and it involves the application of an alkali in solution to the filaments, heat, and subsequently an introduction into a wine medium for growth.  The culture has taken approximately four to six weeks to develop.  This method has been briefly described on numerous occasions with respect to the dental sample analyses, and it will not be repeated here.

The specific cultured structures that have been identified are the chlamydia-like organism, the mycoplasma-like organism (pleomorphic), and the encasing filament structure.  The erthyrocytic form within the EPA culture has not been identified at this time.  The recent set represents three out of four primary forms that continue to be under examination from a multitude of analyses viewpoints.  Erythrocytic forms were identified by an independent medical professional in the original sample that was submitted to the EPA, and that has been reported on in detail within this site during the early part of this decade.


cultured fiber

digital close up

An example of more mature development within the culture medium.  Comprised of an encasing filament and internal structures of both chlamydia-like (red arrows) and the pleomorphic (ribbon-like) forms.  Magnification approx. 10,000x.

A digital close-up of the chlamydia-like organisms (red arrows) that have developed in solution from the cultured EPA filament sample.  Magnification approx 30,000x.

pleomorphic structures

encasing filament

What appears to be an example of the pleomorphic structure (red arrows)  that is under examination in addition to the chlamydia-like organism.  These two forms appear first in growth at the bottom of the petri dish.  They slowly coalesce into linear formations that eventually form as separating filaments in solution.  Magnification approx. 10,000x.

An example of the encasing filament structure with little internal detail at this particular location.  The general process of culturing is  to subject the EPA filament to an alkali solution (sodium hydroxide) and then heat the solution to the boiling point.  Temperature is maintained at this level just beneath boiling for several minutes.  The resulting solution and remaining  filaments are placed into the wine medium for examination within a petri dish.  The process of culturing here has taken approximately 6 to 8 weeks to reach the stages shown. Magnification approx. 10,000x.

emerging filament

filament 2

A photograph of an emerging filament and surrounding early growth within the wine culture medium.  This culture process has taken approximately 4-6 weeks to reach this stage of development.  The chlamydia-like and pleomorphic structures develop at the bottom of the petri dish and slowly continue to develop until they reach a filamentous form which eventually separates from the bottom of the petri dish.  Magnification approx 300x.

To be continued. The photographs within this are taken while the filaments remain in solution.  An emerging filament structure and surrounding earlier growth stages.  Magnification approx. 300x.

EPA fibrous sample

EPA 2000

The original EPA fibrous sample material, as sent to the EPA in 2000. What might be viewed as a single filament in this photograph at low  magnification is actually comprised of hundreds to thousands of sub-micron fibers.  Please refer to early reports on this site for the original studies on the EPA filament samples.  Magnification approx. 300x.

A larger segment of the original EPA filament sample as sent to the EPA in the year 2000.  Magnification approx. 300x.


1. EPA Mission Statement,


Clifford E Carnicom
Dec 10 2007

It appears as though a link has been established between three issues of research over the last decade. These three issues include:

1. The detailed observation of unusual airborne filament samples that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has refused to identify over a period of many years.
2. The morphology, or structure, of unusual filaments that are characteristic of the MORGELLONS’ condition.
3. The recent discovery of anomalies in a series of observations of human blood samples, one of which is from an individual that manifests advanced symptoms of the MORGELLONS’ condition.

This research remains at an early stage of investigation. The work will be presented without delay because of the implications should these discoveries prove to be accurate.

The finding here is that there is essentially identical form, size and structure between the airborne filament samples that have been reported on extensively over the years in connection with the aerosol operations, the morphology of at least one characteristic Morgellon’s fiber and with a series of blood anomalies that have recently been documented. There are now major considerations before us because of this.

The work here will follow this progression:

1. High magnification images of a representative Morgellon’s fiber will be presented.
2. High magnification images of blood anomalies are to be discussed.
3. High magnification images of the original airborne filament sample that was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency several years ago with a request for identification and analysis on behalf of the public interest and welfare. The EPA refused to identify that sample.

It is fair to say that there may be enormous implications ahead of us from this information on this page.  The reader may benefit if time can be devoted to investigate the history of these issues as they have been reported on this site(and others) over the years.


An adequate basis for interpreting the following photographs can be formed by reviewing at least two additional papers on this site, entitled : Morgellons : First Observations, and of recent issue, Morgellon’s Morphology Confirmed.  The salient points from those articles are as follows:

At least one characteristic fiber form from the Morgellon’s condition contains within it a rather remarkable and extensive sub-micron fibrous network.  What appears to be a single fiber in reality is composed internally of a complex network of fibers that is difficult to envision without sophisticated microscopy equipment available.  A human hair is on the order of 60 to 100 microns in thickness; these photographs show a network that exists at the sub-micron range.  The resolution of the equipment that I have developed and modified is on the order of 0.5 microns, or 500 nanometers; conventional visible microscopy normally peaks out at approximately two microns.  Photographs at this level of magnification (2500-5000+) are difficult to acquire.  These photographs, although limited by the available equipment, are nevertheless quite revealing.

morgellons fiber at 5600x
Magnification of Morgellon’s fiber; approximately 5600x.
Notice internal filament structure within the fiber.
Width of the internal fibrous structure is at the micron or sub-micron level

Second, the appearance of a generally spherical micron to sub-micron sized structure is also a discovery during the first Morgellon’s related microscopy session of August 2006.  This shows up clearly in the following microphotograph, and the structures are within the boundaries or confines of the encasing filament.  

morgellons fiber #2
Magnification of Morgellon’s fiber; approximately 5600x.
Notice internal generally circular structures.
Strongly indicative of a biological nature at this point.
These structures measure on the order of 1 micron (viral-bacterial size threshold).
Complex internal nature of the original Morgellon’s sample fiber is evident.

The purpose of the August 2006 work was simply visual examination motivated by a dearth of information over a period of several years.  This deficiency extended to include all public service and governmental health agencies, as well as non-profit organizations that purported to serve the public welfare.  Attempts at foisting a diagnosis of delusion eventually capitulated to the mounting evidence and widespread onset and distribution of the Morgellon’s condition.  Further details on the assessments as of August 2006 are available by reading the referenced paper, Morgellons: First Observations as mentioned previously.


This second category is an elaboration of work recently presented in the paper entitled Blood Testing : Lasers, Blood & Fungus(?).   In this recent addition, the anomalies that were documented in that report are magnified further, and the difference is significant.  This set comprises four microphotographs.  The first two microphotographs are from the blood of the individual with advanced manifestations of the Morgellon’s condition.  The focus here is on those structures that were identified in the earlier paper as being “what appears to be a fibrous ring like structure…”; the increased magnification further confirms that original supposition.  There was also an allusion to a fungal form(or modified fungus) for further research; this suggestion remains in force.  The important discovery from this examination is twofold:

1. There appears to a remarkable coincidence of form and similarity between the internal structure of the Morgellon’s skin fiber and the anomalous form in the blood of the same individual.

2. In addition, the spherical or circular micron to sub-micron structure is again repeating itself within the invasive structure.  Both the fiber network and the smaller internal structures are emphasized with the arrows shown on the photograph.

The conclusion at this stage is that there appears to be a remarkable similarity, and quite likely origin, between the manifestations of the fibrous network within both the blood and the skin of the Morgellon’s individual.  It would seem reasonable to me that the blood of the Morgellon’s individuals should now obviously become a focal point of further research on the condition.

anomalous form in blood
Anomalous form within the blood of a Morgellon’s affected individual.
Magnification approximately 2500x.
Sub micron network of fibrous structure becomes apparent.
Embedded spherical/circular structures.
Remarkable similarity in basic form and structure to the
internal morphology of the skin fiber from the same Morgellon’s individual.
Blood of the Morgellon’s individual becomes a focal point of investigation at this point.

second anomalous form
Second anomalous blood anomaly within the Morgellon’s affected individual.
Repetition of identical form and internal fibrous structure.
Magnification approx. 2500x.

The second set of two microphotographs present further disturbing concerns of the impact of the anomalies upon the blood.  In addition, the images here are taken from a person that does not outwardly manifest any skin problems, lesions or fibers associated with the Morgellon’s condition. It should be recalled that the vast majority of all blood samples that have been observed are showing the same anomalous forms.  The question of Morgellon’s manifestation may be one of degree, and the general population is not exempt from the discussion that is taking place here.  It has been stated that the Morgellon’s condition may have a much broader basis and distribution than we might like to admit or know.

There is additional concern on the effect that is taking place within the blood.  A section on the border of the anomaly has been photographed; both normal and abnormal cell integrity can be observed.  The observation is that the blood itself seems to be undergoing a transformation; the cellular structure appears to be changing to a more fibrous form.  In addition, we see the appearance of spherical structures in the midst of the disturbed blood cells; these structures also appear identical to those reported in both the skin fiber sample and the anomalous blood incursion.

disturbed region in blood
Disturbed region within the blood of a “non-Morgellon’s” individual.
These same developments occur within the Morgellon’s affected individual.
Magnification approximately 5000x.
Remarkable transformation of blood cellular structure is taking place.
Culminates in what appears to be a fibrous nature similar
in appearance to original blood anomalies that have been disclosed.
Arrows show transformation within the cell to a more fibrous nature.

central disturbed region
The central disturbed region within the blood of a “non-Morgellon’s” individual.
Magnification approximately 5000x.
Spherical/circular sub micron structures easily visible (arrows);
these measure at approximately 1 micron..
Bacterial forms(coccus, streptobacilli) are also under consideration at this stage.


The final subject of this paper presents discoveries that I would prefer to not have to report.  What follows are microphotographs, at much higher magnification than was originally available, of the airborne fibrous sample that was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for identification.  The EPA refused to identify that sample. The correspondence and history of that interaction with the EPA resides on this site.  The results of this study pose a rather serious confrontation for us all.  It now becomes clear with the improved imagery over that of several years ago that the airborne fibers have a structure and composition essentially identical to that reported above.  This now clearly implicates and questions the role and relationship of the airborne filaments to Morgellon’s and the blood conditions that are currently under research.

Unfortunately, we see a sub-fibrous network of the same dimensions as that observed within the Morgellon’s sample and the blood samples.  We also see the recurring circular/spherical structures.  This establishes a common theme within all three topics of investigation.

We are now forced to examine the relationships between:

1. Environmental contamination of the atmosphere with highly unusual sub-micron fibrous networks which the EPA refuses to identify.
2. The match of the airborne fibrous structure in appearance, size and structure to the manifestations of the Morgellon’s condition..
3 The subsequent similarity to anomalous forms within numerous blood samples that have been observed, one of which comes from an individual with advanced symptoms of the Morgellon’s condition.
4. The effect of all the above upon the health and welfare of the public at large.

airborne sample #1
Highly magnified view of the airborne filamentous sample sent to the EPA.
The internal sub-micron fibrous network, similar to that shown
under the separate topics of the Morgellon’ condition and blood testing.
Limiting size of internal filaments makes photography difficult.
The EPA refuses to identify this sample.

airborne sample #2
Airborne fibrous sample sent to the EPA.
Complexity of internal fibrous network is apparent within an encapsulating fiber.
What appears to be a single airborne fiber is essentially an infinite network of sub-micron fibers.
Notice appearance of circular/spherical individual structures (arrows),
and similarity to both Morgellon’s and blood testing presentations.
Magnification approx. 5000x.

airborne sample #3
Airborne fibrous sample sent to the EPA.
Further evidence of internal sub-micron fibrous nature and circular/spherical structures(arrows).
Bacterial (or modified bacterial) forms are a consideration here.
Magnification approx. 5000x.

airborne filament #4
Airborne fibrous sample sent to the EPA.
Parallel presentation of internal sub-micron fibrous nature
and circular/spherical structures(arrows).
Bacterial forms are a consideration here.
Magnification approx. 5000x.

spherical structures
A focus on spherical structures exterior to the encapsulating fiber
at high magnification and with stacked images.
Readers may wish to revisit the papers on detected biological components
within and adjacent to the fibrous network.  Bacterial forms(coccus) may wish to be considered here.
The airborne sample contains these structures both internal and external to the encapsulating fibers.
This photograph is of a set immediately adjacent to the exterior wall of
an encapsulating fiber (approx 20 microns in thickness).
Original magnification approx. 5000x.

In summary, this paper presents evidence that there are likely relationships between the original contaminating airborne fibers as reported to the EPA (with subsequent refusal of identification by that agency), the manifestation of compromised health as manifested in the Morgellon’s condition and the detection of certain anomalous forms within various blood samples.  I end this paper with, once again, a repeated appeal to those with adequate resources to address the issues that have been raised through the course of research during the last decade.  Public, governmental environmental, political and health agencies have failed to serve the public in an extended fashion and the general public and the welfare of the planet is bearing the cost of that denial.  I urge you to assume your role.


Clifford E Carnicom
Dec 10, 2007

Additional Note:

Questions exist as to whether or not conventional biological processes are represented in this study; if so, a division into either eukaryotic, prokaryotic or archaea cell types could be helpful.  It is clear that biological processes of some sort are involved.  Studies to date (ref. H. Staninger), including this one do not yet identify a eukaryotic cell type; this calls into question the supposition of the filament form as a fungus. It would, however,  be reasonable at this time to leave all options available and to investigate them thoroughly; both bacterial (e.g., coccus, streptobacilli)  and fungal (e.g., hyphae) forms should be considered as a starting point.  If we confine ourselves to prokaryotic cell types, an interesting question is whether or not there are any filamentous (not chains) forms of bacteria.  The best progress that I have been able to make on this question is to realize that such forms of bacteria have existed in the past.  A reasonable match has been found with a fossilized filamentous bacteria that existed in Australia during the the Precambrian era, approximately 3.5 billion years ago.  For an additional reference on this topic, please review Microbiology, an Introduction, Gerard J. Totora, 7th edition, 2001, p 281.


Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
May 26 2005


It has been reported that a water testing laboratory has recently terminated its services to a customer. This customer requested and paid for the testing of a rainwater sample in a rural location within the United States. The customer recently provided the results of that analysis to the public through this site1. It is also stated by this same customer that, upon inquiry,  no logical or professional reply has been given that explains or accounts for the termination of the environmental testing service to this individual.  It is also a fact that the original attempt to relay the laboratory report by mail to me failed and that this easily could have gone unknown and unnoticed; alternative means of transmission of the report were required.


At this point it will be mentioned that a similar result occurred approximately six years ago with an atmospheric testing firm. In that case, services were terminated when the results of the lab report on atmospheric fiber analysis were challenged and refuted in a personal visit by this researcher. Upon making the first two of nine contradictions known to the principal of that company, this owner stated that “this discussion is now over”. Upon this development, I submitted a letter in person to the president of this firm; this letter stated that the action of this company might eventually be made known to the public. This statement now provides notification to the public of that event.  Additional attempts to properly identify the material have failed and are noted below.


It will now also be disclosed that the career of a state criminal forensic scientist was threatened when an interest was expressed by that individual to assist in the identification of a certain atmospheric fibrous sample. It was stated in that case that the career of that individual and all post-retirement benefits of the forensicist would be terminated if any involvement in identification were to take place.  The act of laboratory identification was never completed.  This event occurred approximately four years ago. The US Environmental Protection Agency has refused to identify this same material. Extraordinary biological components within that material have been repeatedly been observed and recorded.


Clifford E Carnicom
May 26, 2005


1. Carnicom, Calcium and Potassium,, Mar 2005.


Posted on behalf of the sender
Mar 10 2002

By coincidence, I was listening to an archive of your 2/4/02 appearance on the Jeff Rense program at the same time as I was reading the latest list of exclusions from my insurance company, to my Homeowner’s policy.

At one point you mentioned that you had sent a sample to EPA to analyze, and they sent it back saying they couldn’t take the time to analyze it because they had not requested it from you. ??? Jeff mentioned it was a good thing it wasn’t Anthrax.

But, what I’m writing to offer is that you are having trouble getting any official source of pollution data. If you’ll look at the two attachments, One is the annoucement of a new “pollution exclusion” attachment to my policy since it is a “growing problem… from dispersal” etc. The second page is the official endorsement that says they will not now cover any pollution related loss to the policyholder. Of interest to Jeff is the announcement on the same page of an additional exclusion for liability for any “communicable disease” loss or lawsuit. I don’t know if there is a disease component to what they are spraying, but maybe it is a coincidence the insurance companies now know enough to exclude any losses from the two suspected components of Chemtrails!

Anyway, Clifford, my insurance company included an 800 number for any questions on the two new exclusions, and I thought you may be able to get the data, or a lead to the data they used to indicate they should CYA forthwith!

Regards, and I hope they can help.

Donald Hart, Indianapolis




Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 27 2001


A recent analysis indicates that the need for independent testing and verification of current atmospheric particulate counts now exists. Direct access to air quality data from independent sources requires scrutiny by the public in comparison to established US Environmental Protection Agency threshold values. Visibility of the atmosphere is directly related to particulate concentrations. The repeated lay observations of perpetually decreased visibility and omnipresent haze support the need for direct access to independent air monitoring data, despite the claims by federal sources of environmental improvement trends that have been made to the contrary. The demonstrated unwillingness of the U.S. EPA to adequately address the concerns of countless citizens regarding atmospheric degradation by aircraft aerosol operations adds to this need.

In addition, the reduction of visibility reporting standards from a maximum of 40 miles to a maximum of 10 miles by the National Weather Service requires further explanation. The wholesale passiveness by the so-called environmental organizations of this country, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace International and others to the aerosol operations stands as an equal disservice to the public welfare. The apparent limitations of access to post 1998 public data base files that involve direct atmospheric monitoring (e.g., via nephelometers), such as the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA) site, also require further investigation or explanation. In addition to this source, a basis for essentially real-time access to data by the public is now established. The direct visibility of excessive particulate matter by both the corona and high level candlepower light methods requires a formal accounting, as well as the recent concentrated rain samples that reveal extraordinary levels of metallic particulates.

Furthermore, the recent proclamation issued on April 20 2001 by a Walter M. Washabaugh, Colonel, USAF, Chief, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liason that “The term “chemtrail” is a hoax that began circulating approximately three years ago…” and that “The ‘chemtrail’ hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations and major media publications.” is also entitled to an eventual reckoning with its author.

Readers may also wish to become familiar with the recently (belatedly?) released 1999 U.S. mortality statistics, which show an increase in chronic lower respiratory deaths. The category of “chronic lower respiratory disease” now ranks as one of the five leading causes of death within the United States.

All data under examination, including federal sources, now requires corroboration and independent verification to assure its validity.

The United States EPA air quality standards now permit 50 micrograms of particulate matter of size 10 microns or less per cubic meter of air. As a point of reference for size, a human hair is approximately 60 -100 microns in thickness. This standard was apparently previously set at 75micrograms / m^3 and the current regulations can be viewed at the EPA web site. Mass quantities of particulate matter 2.5 microns or less are restricted to 15 micrograms / m^3.

An analytical case will be presented on this page to establish the need for direct access of particulate data counts by the public. Such data will need to become available in the raw format. Post processed data will need to be reviewed by independent sources. The approach taken in formulating this case is intended to be conservative, and it is only intended to point out the need for further investigation and independent analysis of raw data results. Any revisions to this presentation will be made as is appropriate.

The goal of this presentation is to arrive at an estimate of the amount of particulate mass in the atmosphere under current conditions, based upon certain relationships, analysis and data that are available at this time.


RELATIONSHIPS EXAMINEDIn the absence of direct and independently verified particulate count data, the theories of light scattering can be used to form at least an initial estimate of the atmospheric concentrations of particulate data. The results of this analysis can establish whether further investigation of particulate counts may or may not be justified. The study is not intended to lend finality to the question in any manner; only to examine the legitimate questions which have now surfaced regarding the degradation of atmospheric quality in direct correlation to the presence of aircraft aerosol operations. The results of this analysis indicate that such concerns are warranted.

This analysis uses the common and simplifying assumptions of particle single-scattering, non-absorbing spherical forms.

This analysis will use three relationships that have been established in the field of light scattering theory:

1. The exponential decay law : I(z) / Io= exp (-gz) where g is the extinction coefficient, z is the path length, and I(z) / Io is the light intensity ratio. (Waves and Grains, Mark Silverman 1998)

2. The extinction coefficient per unit length for a system of particles (N) of a single radius a per cubic centimeter (cm3) given as g = pi * a^2 * N * Q where Q is the efficiency factor for extinction, as derived from Mie scattering theory. (Light Scattering by Small Particles, H.C. van de Hulst, 1981)

3. Koschmeider’s relationship, z =3.912 / extinction, which may be derived from the exponential decay law. The path length of visibility is z in this case.

In addition, a derived relationship from the previous relations will be used, along with an equation involving mass summation.

Relations 2 and 3 may be combined to form:

4. N = 3.912 / (z * pi * a^2 * Q)

and involving the mass of the particles:

5. Mt = N * mp where Mt is the total mass per unit volume (spherical particles assumed) and mp is the mass of an individual particle.

and since mass = density * volume

6. Mt = (4 * pi * a^3 * d * N) / 3 where d is the density per unit volume.


EXAMPLE CASESThe need at this point is to establish representative values for use in the relationships and equations that are outlined above. A conservative approach to these values will be taken.

The first goal is to solve for N, the estimated number of particles assumed to be of constant radius per unit volume. The following quantities are necessary to estimate:

z, a and Q.

Let us assume z, or the visibility in this case is 20 km (~12.4 miles). In light of the visibility report recently presented, this value is not unreasonable under many conditions that are now frequently encountered. Within this page, it is now observed that visibility is frequently reported as being less than 10 miles, and that 10 miles is now the registered maximum visibility of interest within climatic database sources. The change of standards from 40 miles to 10 miles in October of 1997 deserves additional consideration and review by all citizens.

Another method can also be used to establish a reasonable starting point for z, or the visibility. If the reader will notice the extinction coefficient data obtained by recent nephelometer readings at the University of Maryland, it will be noticed that the extinction coefficient for the current year appears to be generally increasing. The general relationship that exists (#3, Koschmeider described above) is that the higher the extinction coefficient, the lower the visibility. This increase corresponds to the general deterioration of atmospheric visibility that is described by current researchers and countless citizens on the aerosol issue. It is noticed that the readings have recently been peaking commonly at 0.35 to .37 / km. It is of interest that this value corresponds quite well with the values stated to accompany specified meteorological conditions at this site that concerns nephelometers. Hazy skies are stated to begin occurring at this level. Let us therefore choose a more conservative value of 0.2 km. From Koschmeider, or from direct derivations of the exponential decay law, the expected visibility in this case would would be 3.912 / 0.2 km = 19.6 km. This agrees therefore, with both measured data and real world observations at a fairly conservative level. Note that an increased value used for the extinction coefficient (also justifiable in certain cases being witnessed) would only lead to an increase in the mass concentrations estimated from this study.

Note also from The Nature of Light and Colour in the Open Air, M. Minnaert, 1954, that visibility is expected to be better in the summer months than in the winter months. This expectation is at odds with the nephelometer data thus far available, as the increasing extinction coefficient that is shown depicts an environment of decreasing visibility in the summer months.

The value of a, the constant particle radius assumed in this case is an important quantity, and will lead to highly variable results. It is therefore important to arrive at a reasonable and conservative value for this radius. The method of selecting this radius can be chosen to be dependent upon the color of the haze that is now commonly pervasive. Fortunately, the color of the haze can be used as a significant indicator of the particle size within the atmosphere.

Let us consider first a certain statement made by Vincent Schaefer (Atmosphere, 1981) where blue haze characteristics are described: Note that this statement refers to the diameter of the particle as opposed to the radius.

“This effect is caused by the nearly uniform scattering of light from particles just above the threshold of visibility (0.1 to 0.3 micron in diameter)”.

Next, consider statements by H.C. van de Hulst (Light Scattering by Small Particles, 1981):

“Scattering by the aerosol (haze and dust) .. is due to scattering by a large variety of particles, usually with radii < 1 micron”.

and in regard to larger particles,

“The drops of clouds, fog and rain are very much larger than those in the haze described in the preceding section. …the radii of the drops that dominate the extinction and scattering characteristics are in the range of 5 microns to 20 microns”.

The size of the particles evaluated is a critical factor, and must be considered in detail and in correspondence with observed visual characteristics of the atmosphere. There are, in fact, established relationships between the size of particles in the atmosphere and the corresponding colors of light observed.

A conservative estimate of particle size radius in this case being examined will be 0.3 micron. This would equate to a diameter of 0.6 microns. The blue haze described does little to impair visibility, and a value of less than 0.3 microns for the radius would likely be inappropriate. If the reader accepts a whitish haze as characteristic of the current conditions, it would be both reasonable and conservative to select a value for a at the size stated. If a larger value for a would be chosen for this example, it will only increase the mass estimates that have been arrived at. A conservative value for this radius is deliberately being chosen for this example, in an attempt to introduce no skews into the final results.

The efficiency factors, developed by Mie, are dependent upon the particle radius, and are tabulated within the source by van de Hulst. For a particle size of 0.3 microns, Q is tabulated as approximately 2.1 and it does not vary significantly over the expected size range to be considered.

We can now arrive at an estimate for N, the number of particles per unit volume. Units will be chosen to lead to a volume concentration of grams per cubic centimeter, and will subsequently be converted to EPA standards of micrograms per cubic meter. Using the chosen values:

N = 3.912 / (z * pi * a^2 * Q) = 3.912 / (2E6cm * 3.14 * (.3E-4cm)^2 * 2.1) = 329 particles / cubic centimeter.

Choosing a larger value for a (e.g., 1 micron) would significantly reduce the particle count. The mass concentration, however, will be significantly increased due to the cube relationship of volume.

Continuing with a mass concentration estimate for the current example:

Mt = (4 * pi * a^3 * d * N) / 3 where d is the density per unit volume,

and again choosing a conservative density estimate of 1.6 gms /cm^3,

This leads to a mass concentration estimate of:

Mt = (4 * pi * (.3E-4cm)^3 * 1.6 * 329) / 3 = 5.95E-11 gms / cm^3 = 5.95E-5 gms / cm^3 = 59.5 micrograms / cubic centimeter.

Note that this would exceed the EPA particulate thresholds under the conditions that have been described.

These results, along with the corresponding conservative values chosen, provide some level of justification for further scrutiny of the EPA threshold values contrasted with current observations, analysis and data that are now readily available. Independent data sources are now a requirement due to the disenfranchisement of citizens by the EPA and their lack of investigation.


Additional Notes:

Readers may wish to review the results of an earlier study completed by this researcher entitled:

1996 -1999

completed on Mar 23 2000. This study was completed at the time without any awareness or knowledge of EPA particulate threshold values. Analysis was made strictly from a statistical difference viewpoint. It is of considerable interest to note that an average level of 46 micrograms per cubic meter resulted from this study. This is surprisingly close to the threshold value even though the study concerns 1999 and pre-1999 data.

Most observers would agree that there has been a significant and further deterioration in the visual characteristics of our atmosphere since the time this study was completed.

It may also be recalled that a willful attack on the credibility of the earlier report was made by a certain “individual” shortly after the original presentation. Readers may wish to assess the value of the current report of this page and the referenced past report as well as any opposing claims. The use of original NM state data vs. the use of processed EPA data from a subsequent counter-study by the independent party may be relevant to the evaluation. The original study remains as presented without cause for revision.

A summary of that report is as follows:


Source of data : New Mexico Environment Department – Air Quality
No. of observations from five monitoring stations 1996-1998 : 129410
No. of observations from five monitoring stations 1999 : 43449
Measured quantity : PM10(<=10microns)
Mean of observations 1996-1998 : 39.42 micrograms/cubic meter
Mean of observations 1999 : 45.70 micrograms/cubic meter
Standard deviation of observations 1996-1998 : 111.69micrograms/cubic meter
Standard deviation of observations 1999 : 134.57micrograms/cubic meter
Zm Statistic : 11.65
F Statistic : 1.45


Clifford E Carnicom
May 21 2001


Much ambiguity has been circulated regarding the effect of humidity upon the persistence of contrails, or vapor trails. Numerous sources, without exception, state that such vapor trails (composed of water vapor by historical and conventional definition) may persist for “extended periods” under conditions of “higher” relative humidity. Unfortunately, it is apparent that quantitative information attached to these repeated generalizations is lacking. Even the recently issued “fact sheet” under distribution by a combination of federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, the FAA and NASA falls victim to this same deficiency.

Observations by this researcher as well as countless citizens of the country for the past 2 1/2 years have revealed the glaring inconsistencies of the official positions and statements made in contrast to the physical reality of a tragically altered atmosphere resulting from the aircraft operations under examination. These records have been most dramatically illustrated in the arid high desert regions of the southwestern United States, where the physical contradictions with the proffered official positions are at the level of absurdity.

The presentation made herein will demonstrate a realistic, and I might add, quantitative assessment of the expected effect of humidity upon what we all now witness on a day to day basis. The foundation of this argument will rest on what can be called a “Relative Humidity Thought Experiment”, which seeks to establish a realistic model upon which to base any quantitative examination. This work can be compared at a later point with a rather interesting discussion and dialogue between a curious citizen and three scientists from the United States Department of Energy on this same topic. That discussion follows at the end of this report.

Let us begin by imagining one of two extreme situations at either end of the relative humidity scale. To start, imagine you are in the middle of a fog bank, and an aircraft whizzes by your face leaving the most dense vapor trail (composed of water vapor, of course) possible from the exhaust emissions. Let us assume that we hold the temperature constant for these experiments. The question is, would that trail evaporate? Would it dissipate? The expected answer must be no. Although the visible vapors would eventually mix with the surrounding fog bank, they would not change form. This leads us to conclude that if the atmosphere was at a pre-existing level of saturation (i.e., 100% relative humidity), a vapor trail would not be expected to dissipate or evaporate, although it would continue to mix with the surrounding environment.

Now examine the opposite end of the spectrum. Imagine you are in the desert, the driest desert possible, and the air around you has absolutely no moisture within it (i.e., 0% humidity). The same aircraft zooms by your face, and leaves you with the same question, will the trail evaporate or dissipate? The answer this time must opposingly be yes, and it must dissipate at the maximum rate that is possible for the given temperature. So with the desert, a maximum rate of evaporation is achieved, and for the fog bank an evaporation rate of zero is earned. To assign a sense of scale to this problem, let us call the maximum attainable rate of evaporation as 1 and the rate of zero evaporation as, well, zero.

It is now time to introduce the model. First, it shall be done narratively, and secondly, within the world of mathematics. The conceptual basis for the model is as follows:

The rate of evaporation is inversely proportional to the humidity itself.

This is the fundamental premise of this work which must be examined with a fair degree of thought. Conceptually, this premise states what has just previously been reviewed. It states that the greater the level of relative humidity that exists within the atmosphere, the slower the rate of evaporation of moisture within it. Conversely, the lower the level of moisture within the atmosphere, the greater the rate of evaporation. Both of these tenets are fundamentally sound, as is demonstrated through the thought experiment described earlier. It will be of interest to scrutinize the mildly variable Department of Energy – Argonne Laboratory responses stated at the end of this report which, incidentally, have provoked this inquiry.

We must now convert the conceptual formulation into a statement of mathematics to achieve any quantifiable results. It is as follows:

E = (1 / k) * RH + C

In this equation, E represents the rate of evaporation, and RH represents the relative humidity itself, and it will be expressed as a decimal value (100% = 1.0; 0% = 0.0). C represents an arbitrary constant, and k represents a proportionality constant.

For those with an interest, this equation results from the differential equation:

dE = (1 / k) * dRH

where dE represents the instantaneous change in the evaporation rate and dRH represents the instantaneous change in relative humidity.

This equation is an ordinary, first order and separable differential equation. It can therefore be readily solved through integration of both sides of the equation. This leads to the general solution given above.

We now need to solve for k and C. This can be accomplished with the initial conditions that we have already discussed within the thought experiment.

The first case is that when RH = 0, E = 1.
1 = 0 + C
or C = 1

The second case is then when RH = 1, E = 0.
0 = (1 / K) * (1) + 1
0 = (1 / K) + 1
K = -1

Therefore our specific and final solution is:

E = 1 – RH

Non-linear model extensions of the current discussion have also been considered, with no real impact on the final conclusions that result from this work.

It is now of much interest to examine the results of using this equation under the range of circumstances that can be expected in the real world. The results are somewhat enlightening, especially with respect to the abundant generalizations that have been included within the many official responses to citizen inquiries regarding the aerosol operations.

Here is a tabulation of the results, where the relative humidity will now be expressed as a percentage for convenience sake. Recall that a rate of evaporation of 1 means that maximum evaporation will occur at the given temperature, and zero evaporation means that no evaporation will take place (i.e., hydrostatic stability has been achieved).

Relative Humidity(%)

Rate of Evaporation























We can also translate these results into a tabulation of a “persistence factor”, i.e., if the rate of evaporation is zero, the vapor trail is expected to persist indefinitely (disregarding any mixing of mediums within the environment). Therefore the reciprocal of the rate of evaporation leads to this factor of “persistence” under the circumstances considered.

Relative Humidity(%)

‘Persistence’ Factor























This means for example, if a vapor trail under conditions of 0% humidity was, hypothetically, to last for 10 seconds and the relative humidity was instantaneously increased to 50%, the trail would be expected to persist for approximately 20 seconds (2.00 *10sec) instead. More realistically, if the relative humidity was 30% and a vapor trail was to last, hypothetically, for 15 seconds, and the relative humidity was suddenly increased to 60% (a reasonably high value under commercial flight conditions), the trail would be expected to last approximately 26 seconds ((2.50 /1.43) * 15secs.).

This formulation and the results now reveal some rather enlightening conclusions. Before embarking further, it is worthwhile to mention that the upper atmosphere at flight levels may generally considered as a relatively arid environment. It is not uncommon, as countless examinations throughout the previous two years plus have disclosed, for the relative humidity at flight altitude to range between 10 and 60 percent. This should not be surprising in any particular way, since it is easily established that most cloud layers form at lower altitudes where the moisture levels commonly exceed relative humidity levels of 70%. This is not the case for upper regions of the atmosphere, which is the favored domain of jet aircraft traffic. As a case in point, during congressional hearings regarding the environmental effects of projected supersonic flight traffic at 65,000 ft., the expert testimony explained that “persistent contrails” would not be a factor as the relative humidity at that level commonly is approximately 5%. My own computations and analysis of radiosonde observations as well as those of those of the witness in this case are in complete concordance. It is fair to state that the upper atmospheric regions are generally more arid than the lower counterparts, with relative humidity levels commonly within the range that has been stated. Extreme upper levels of relative humidity within the flight corridor region are uncommon, and again are in complete agreement with our common sense observations. It is interesting to note that one study involving persistent contrails by NASA focussed on a SINGLE persistent contrail under conditions of uncharacterisically high relative humidity. The examination of relative humidity data (reported with respect to water vapor per conventional standard) in a quantitative sense is now required for anyone that wishes to justify the existence of so-called “persistent” vapor trails on a regular basis. This is the epitome of requirements if the area under consideration is the arid southwestern desert of this country, where this work has been developed.

It may be recalled that an earlier study assessed the expected times for contrail, or vapor trail dissipation. The results of that model are in complete agreement with the observation, common sense and experience base that has accumulated during the last 50 years, i.e., vapor trails routinely dissipate within a matter of seconds, and the extreme range extends at most to a couple of minutes under usual conditions. That particular model was developed independently of any effects from relative humidity, and it is a function of the particle size, the surrounding temperature and the amount of energy placed into the system via solar radiation.

If we now wish to develop the model further, and include the expected effects from relative humidity, we learn that the model is not affected significantly by any commonly encountered levels of humidity at those upper altitudes.

Even at a relative humidity level of 70%, which must be considered quite high for the commercial flight domain, a factor of 3.3 against the maximum evaporation rate of a completely arid environment must be considered as relatively minor. Most of us would have a difficult case of making the argument of a persistent vapor trail within a moisture-free environment, and more realistically we would expect dissipation within a matter of seconds (disregarding deliberate aerosol injections). To multiply a few seconds by a factor of 3.3 leads to no real world change in the situation at hand.

One of the accomplishments from this most current analysis is that generalized statements regarding the effect of humidity upon the duration of vapor trails can no longer be accepted without further definition. It can be seen that the effects of humidity upon vapor trail evaporation rates are generally insignificant and minor within the historical reference frame of human experience, physics, chemistry, meteorology and common sense observation. To offer any extraordinary and exceptional circumstances to the American public as an explanation for the events now witnessed on a regular basis is deceptive, disingenuous and a prevarication. It is important that the citizenry educate themselves on the facts and physics of the world around themselves to serve the purpose of establishing the truthfullness of that which the public is subjected to without their consent.

That truth now includes overwhelming evidence that the populace has been systematically subjected to a covert, extensive and sustained project of aircraft aerosol dissemination without their consent. Biological components repeatedly identified within atmospheric samples during that same time period remain equally distressing and disturbing. Let it be reiterated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency remains in possession of one of those samples referred to, and to date refuses to acknowledge the existence of that sample or to disclose the results of any testing.

The need for accountability, disclosure and Congressional hearings to serve the rights of the people of this nation and the world remains paramount.

Clifford E Carnicom
Authored at Rio Chama
May 19 2001




Posted by
Clifford E Carnicom
Feb 04 2001

Two additional samples of fibrous material have been received within the last few months. These samples are identical in both appearance and characteristic to those described earlier. Four such samples have now been reviewed under the microscope. Material by all appearances identical to that presented herein has been sent by certified mail to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for identification. These earlier materials were found to contain significant biological components as described within previously. To date, this agency refuses to identify this material and to disclose the results of such testing to the American public. Carol Todd Whitman, the recently appointed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is now obligated to fulfill this duty to the citizens of this country.

Sample sent on Nov 03 2000 from California. Magnification approx. 480x.

Sample sent on Nov 03 2000 from California. Magnification approx. 480x.



Sample sent from Joseph, Oregon on Oct 02 2000. Magnification Approx. 480x.


Sample sent from Joseph, Oregon on Oct 02 2000. Magnification Approx. 480x.

Statement received which accompanied the sample from Joseph, Oregon: