Thanks Jim! Total number of satellites in orbit around earth atm is estimated to be 9,900. You mentioned One Web but said that you don't know much about them. There are 630 satellites as part of its broadband internet constellation connected to 5G, 6G, and the IOT future. https://oneweb.net/our-network
I've raised this question also. But first it's important to establish whether it's necessary for the fuel to contain this amount of toxic metals in the fuel in the first place. Additives and engine corrosion just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Most likely impurities in the refining process. Intentional I believe.
When WalMart or Bed Bath and Beyond piss me off because of their greed, I can boycott them. And I do. But I don't fly much. And besides, when your kids and grandkids live far away, and you're responsible for yourself and your spouse getting there to visit, safely and without divorce proceedings ;) yet you want to visit, what are the choices? Driving or flying? Either way is not fun, nor is it even affordable. Sometimes all I want is for the pressure to be off of ME ! I understand the huge issue of geo-engineering and of air travel pollution and then I can't afford to travel by car, nor is it always pleasant, as you lose freedom just because of circumstances thatr come with getting older.
I can’t believe the omission of the programs that spray various nano particulates into the atmosphere...
Are you seriously thinking that the satellite space junk aspect of atmospheric pollution caused by various government or military or corporate programs to , for example , diminish the amount of sunlight entering our ecosphere or the many other spraying carnivals fluttering around our skies...
Wrecking the ecosphere.,
These clowns talk about space junk or starling.. are they stupid corrupt or moronic ?
Look into real research as supplied by geoengineering watch and other such research groups..
I’m speechless on reading this item!!!
I will revert to street language that I never do :
What a bunch of ***holes !!!
Even if this gets blocked etc that doesn’t change the absolutely inane parochial myopic nature of this theme and is contained in various other “scientific” statements
usually sourced from the corporate / institutionalised / academic dogma generated in the current information ecosystem..
The point of the article and video was to point out the absurdity of their claims that space junk and rocket emissions are the greatest threat to stratospheric pollution. 43 million flights per year globally (not including military flights) dwarf those numbers.
Did you watch the video, even a little bit?
Did you read the article, especially the end?
Am I the confused one and am misinterpreting your comment?
What I wrote was not about the videos criticism of the space junk be used as kind of red herring distraction.
Look over there not at the chrmtrails is what I got from the stacks theme and I didn’t need to see the video to recognise the insanity of the space junk as the main contender of the pollution problem when the real “villain “ is not not mentioned...!!
I hope that clarifies where I was at !
I would guess I’m seeing the same situation as you are and am in 100% agreement with what you are saying !
I apologise for not being clear or causing confusion..
I will look at the video because I didn’t look yet..
But I was reacting in agreement with the stance of your comment !!!
Jim Lee has covered every source of pollution in his vast array of articles and videos. I find them very useful. Unfortunately the sources are so numerous that it is impossible to include them all in one place.
It's in the title yes, but the meat of the article is arguing that the elephant in the room, the gorilla in the greenhouse is commercial aircraft junk.
From the thermal radiation geoengineering proposals, it was suggested that a concentration or 16 or more nuclei per litre in the atmosphere would establish an over-seeding regime.
Now we have “43 million commercial flights annually, many of which cruise at altitudes between 30,000 and 40,000 feet.” This covers the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. I think they are more concentrated toward the northern latitudes, so the ice nuclei concentration would be more pre-dominant there. Jet fuel releases ash through the process of combustion. About 0.045kg of ash is produced for every 450kg of fuel burned. This steady-state concentration of metallic nanoparticles is millions of times greater than the threshold for over-seeding. All of these act as ice nuclei, not just aluminium.
This is the basis for the continuous aviation-induced cirrus cloud cover in the troposphere and artificial stratospheric clouds in the stratosphere, which have an even greater net-warming effect. Anyone who thinks that spewing metallic particles into the upper atmosphere is going to cool the planet is missing a huge part of the puzzle.
Aluminum oxide particles? First question is do you have an idea of the size of the particles, Do the particles really stay airborne for months? Second question is the impact on ecology. Aluminum oxide is quite stable and hard. It's literally sandpaper grit. Is anyone asserting that this is impacting human health any more than other types of dust on this planet? Chemically, it's inert. I'm more concerned about micro-plastics.
Thanks Jim! Total number of satellites in orbit around earth atm is estimated to be 9,900. You mentioned One Web but said that you don't know much about them. There are 630 satellites as part of its broadband internet constellation connected to 5G, 6G, and the IOT future. https://oneweb.net/our-network
An overview of the top ten satellite owners: https://keeptrack.space/deep-dive/who-owns-satellites/
We have pollution control devices for all sorts of engines. Why not planes?
I've raised this question also. But first it's important to establish whether it's necessary for the fuel to contain this amount of toxic metals in the fuel in the first place. Additives and engine corrosion just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Most likely impurities in the refining process. Intentional I believe.
When WalMart or Bed Bath and Beyond piss me off because of their greed, I can boycott them. And I do. But I don't fly much. And besides, when your kids and grandkids live far away, and you're responsible for yourself and your spouse getting there to visit, safely and without divorce proceedings ;) yet you want to visit, what are the choices? Driving or flying? Either way is not fun, nor is it even affordable. Sometimes all I want is for the pressure to be off of ME ! I understand the huge issue of geo-engineering and of air travel pollution and then I can't afford to travel by car, nor is it always pleasant, as you lose freedom just because of circumstances thatr come with getting older.
Really ...
I can’t believe the omission of the programs that spray various nano particulates into the atmosphere...
Are you seriously thinking that the satellite space junk aspect of atmospheric pollution caused by various government or military or corporate programs to , for example , diminish the amount of sunlight entering our ecosphere or the many other spraying carnivals fluttering around our skies...
Wrecking the ecosphere.,
These clowns talk about space junk or starling.. are they stupid corrupt or moronic ?
Look into real research as supplied by geoengineering watch and other such research groups..
I’m speechless on reading this item!!!
I will revert to street language that I never do :
What a bunch of ***holes !!!
Even if this gets blocked etc that doesn’t change the absolutely inane parochial myopic nature of this theme and is contained in various other “scientific” statements
usually sourced from the corporate / institutionalised / academic dogma generated in the current information ecosystem..
Please wake up !!!
The point of the article and video was to point out the absurdity of their claims that space junk and rocket emissions are the greatest threat to stratospheric pollution. 43 million flights per year globally (not including military flights) dwarf those numbers.
Did you watch the video, even a little bit?
Did you read the article, especially the end?
Am I the confused one and am misinterpreting your comment?
I was criticising the space narrative directly..
As it is infuriating...
As you are saying ..
What I wrote was not about the videos criticism of the space junk be used as kind of red herring distraction.
Look over there not at the chrmtrails is what I got from the stacks theme and I didn’t need to see the video to recognise the insanity of the space junk as the main contender of the pollution problem when the real “villain “ is not not mentioned...!!
I hope that clarifies where I was at !
I would guess I’m seeing the same situation as you are and am in 100% agreement with what you are saying !
I apologise for not being clear or causing confusion..
I will look at the video because I didn’t look yet..
But I was reacting in agreement with the stance of your comment !!!
Thanks... hope that makes sense !!!
Oh Boy
This article is about space junk, Steve. It is in the title.
I wasn’t disagreeing with that .. space junk is bad stuff stuff .. of course it is !!!
It’s all bad .. all the garbage falling down on us from above !
Sorry to have caused the problem!!!
Jim Lee has covered every source of pollution in his vast array of articles and videos. I find them very useful. Unfortunately the sources are so numerous that it is impossible to include them all in one place.
https://climateviewer.com/
You're the best Frances. Love you, mean it.
It's in the title yes, but the meat of the article is arguing that the elephant in the room, the gorilla in the greenhouse is commercial aircraft junk.
From the thermal radiation geoengineering proposals, it was suggested that a concentration or 16 or more nuclei per litre in the atmosphere would establish an over-seeding regime.
Now we have “43 million commercial flights annually, many of which cruise at altitudes between 30,000 and 40,000 feet.” This covers the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. I think they are more concentrated toward the northern latitudes, so the ice nuclei concentration would be more pre-dominant there. Jet fuel releases ash through the process of combustion. About 0.045kg of ash is produced for every 450kg of fuel burned. This steady-state concentration of metallic nanoparticles is millions of times greater than the threshold for over-seeding. All of these act as ice nuclei, not just aluminium.
This is the basis for the continuous aviation-induced cirrus cloud cover in the troposphere and artificial stratospheric clouds in the stratosphere, which have an even greater net-warming effect. Anyone who thinks that spewing metallic particles into the upper atmosphere is going to cool the planet is missing a huge part of the puzzle.
Aluminum oxide particles? First question is do you have an idea of the size of the particles, Do the particles really stay airborne for months? Second question is the impact on ecology. Aluminum oxide is quite stable and hard. It's literally sandpaper grit. Is anyone asserting that this is impacting human health any more than other types of dust on this planet? Chemically, it's inert. I'm more concerned about micro-plastics.
See also (reg. smart dust etc.)
- https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/
- https://odysee.com/@psinergy:f?view=content
- https://rumble.com/user/Psinergy
- http://psinergy.com/
- https://rumble.com/user/nonvaxer420
- https://juxtaposition1.substack.com/