New Science Study Confirms Contamination From Climate Engineering Assault


The "International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health" has just published an in depth research report from Dr. Marvin Herndon that directly implicates the use of highly toxic coal fly ash with 99% certainty as base material in the ongoing climate engineering programs. Why would such a material be utilized for climate engineering? Because coal ash is light enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere for extended periods. Additionally, it would give the climate engineers a form of plausible denial in regard to the source of materials raining down on us. Using a refined form of coal ash as a base material for climate engineering would also effectively disposes of the extremely fine coal ash particles in the process which has always been a problem for the industry.

To match Interview POLAND-BELCHATOW/

 Poland’s Belchatow Power Station, pictured here, is the European Union’s most polluting coal-fired power station

The curtain of lethal deception continues to be pulled back exposing the total tyranny of those in power. While they claim to be attempting to clean up our air, all available evidence makes clear the fact that highly toxic materials have been intentionally and continuously sprayed into our atmosphere as part of the ongoing climate engineering experimentation programs. The newly published study below is a very important breakthrough in the ongoing effort to expose the weather warfare assault on humanity. It is a huge addition to reports already posted on by Dr. Herndon. My sincere thanks to Dr.Herndon for his valuable efforts in this critical battle for life on Earth.
Dane Wigington


Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health

Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, article by Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.

Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou
Received: 29 June 2015 / Accepted: 5 August 2015 / Published: 11 August, 2015


The widespread, intentional and increasingly frequent chemical emplacement in the troposphere has gone unidentified and unremarked in the scientific literature for years. The author presents evidence that toxic coal combustion fly ash is the most likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of the multifold consequences on public health. Two methods are employed: (1) Comparison of 8 elements analyzed in rainwater, leached from aerosolized particulates, with corresponding elements leached into water from coal fly ash in published laboratory experiments, and (2) Comparison of 14 elements analyzed in dust collected outdoors on a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter with corresponding elements analyzed in un-leached coal fly ash material. The results show: (1) the assemblage of elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and (2) the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical. The consequences on public health are profound, including exposure to a variety of toxic heavy metals, radioactive elements, and neurologically-implicated chemically mobile aluminum released by body moisture in situ after inhalation or through transdermal induction.


Geoengineering; coal fly ash; aerosol particulates; chemtrails; autism spectrum disorder (ASD); Alzheimer’s disease; Parkinson’s disease; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); neurological disorders; chemically mobile aluminum.

1. Introduction

The interplay of political, military, and commercial interests during World War II led to the development and grand-scale deployment of a host of herbicides and pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). In her 1962 book Silent Spring [1] Rachel Carson called attention to the unintended consequences of herbicide and pesticide use, and launched the modern environmental movement. Half a century later there is growing evidence of a grave new and persistent global environmental health threat, again fomented by the interplay of political, military, and commercial interests. To date this new threat, posed by widespread, intentional tropospheric aerosol-particulate emplacement, has gone unremarked in the scientific literature for more than one decade. Here, based upon original research, the author discloses substantial evidence as to the identification and nature of the specific particulate substance involved and begins to describe the extent of this global public health and environmental threat.

Recently there have been calls in both the popular and scientific press to begin discussions about the possibility of engaging in future stratospheric geoengineering experiments to counter global warming [2,3]. Geoengineering, also called weather-modification, has been carried out for decades at much lower altitudes in the troposphere. The recent calls for open discussion of climate control or geoengineering tend to obscure the fact that the world’s military and civilian sectors have modified atmospheric conditions for many decades as has been described by science historian, James R. Fleming [4]. Some of the early weather-modification research resulted in programs like Project Skywater (1961–1988), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s effort to engineer “the rivers of the sky”; the U.S. Army’s Operation Ranch Hand (1961–1971), in which the herbicide Agent Orange was an infamous part; and its Project Popeye (1967–1971), used to “make mud, not war” over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. These few examples of weather-modification, all of them secret at the time they were engaged, show that the weather is in the words of the military, “a force multiplier” [5].

In the spring of 2014, the author began to notice tanker-jets quite often producing white trails across the cloudless blue sky over San Diego, California. The aerosol spraying that was happening with increasing frequency was a relatively new phenomenon there. The dry warm air above San Diego is not conducive to the formation of jet contrails, which are ice condensate. By November 2014 the tanker-jets were busy every day crisscrossing the sky spraying their aerial graffiti. In a matter of minutes, the aerosol trails exiting the tanker-jets would start to diffuse, eventually forming cirrus-like clouds that further diffuse to form a white haze that scattered sunlight, often occluding or dimming the sun. Aerosol spraying was occasionally so intense as to make the otherwise cloudless blue sky overcast, some areas of sky turning brownish (Figure 1). Sometimes the navigation lights of the tanker-jets were visible as they worked at night, their trails obscuring the stars overhead; by dawn the normally clear-blue morning sky already had a milky white haze. Regardless, aerosol spraying often continued throughout the day. The necessity for daily aerosol emplacement stems from the relatively low spraying-altitudes in the troposphere where mixing with air readily occurs bringing down the aerosolized particulates and exposing humanity and Earth’s biota to the fine-grained substance. The author’s concern about the daily exposure to ultra-fine airborne particulate matter of undisclosed composition and its concomitant effect on the health of his family and public health in general prompted the research reported here.

Ijerph 12 09375 g001 1024
Figure 1. Composite of four images of the blue sky over San Diego taken on cloudless days showing various instances of the on-going daily tanker-jet spraying of ultrafine-particulates into the troposphere. Upper Left: Spraying just started. Note that one tanker-jet turned off the spray in mid-flight. The “clouds” are dispersed particulates; Lower Right: Overcast “clouds” produced by intense tanker-jet emplacement of particulates.

Since the beginning of the 21st century there have been numerous observations of tanker-jet aerosol particulate spraying. Sometimes samples of rainwater, soil, and other residue were collected by concerned citizens and sent to commercial certified laboratories to be analyzed, although without an understanding of what tests should be made. The composition of the aerosolized particulate matter has been a tightly held secret. In the face of this unknown, there has been much sincere speculation in books and on the Internet, but also disinformation, attempts to convince the public that the particulate trails are nothing more than ice crystals formed from jet exhaust, and to pin on concerned citizens the pejorative moniker “conspiracy theorists”.

From the variety of observations reported in books and on the Internet, one might reasonably conclude that, at least during the early years, various weather-modification experiments were undertaken. But as indicated by photographic data and chemical analyses of post-spraying rainwater, one particular methodology was developed that ultimately was observed by the author to be operational on a daily basis in the skies over San Diego, and reportedly is now operational over much of the United States and in a number of foreign countries as well [6]. Beside the observational commonality, post-spraying rainwater was frequently found to contain aluminum and barium, two elements usually not present in naturally-occurring rainwater; sometimes strontium, a third element, was included in the tests and determined to be present [7]. The presence of strontium together with barium suggests that the undisclosed particulate matter is derived from a natural product, because alkaline earth elements, Group II on the Periodic Table, behave similarly and are often found together in nature. For example, cement contains calcium and often contains some strontium as well. That bit of insight evoked further considerations related to the potential costs and logistics of annually producing millions of tons of the undisclosed particulate matter and doing so out of public view.

Industrial coal burning produces four types of coal combustion residuals (CCRs): fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization product (FGDP), i.e., gypsum. Bottom ash is heavy and settles out; coal fly ash, on the other hand, is comprised of micron and sub-micron particles that would go up the smokestack unless captured and stored. Because of its well-known adverse environmental health effects, Western nations now mandate that coal combustion fly ash is to be captured and stored [8,9]. Representatives of coal burning utilities and their trade organizations actively promote commercial applications for coal fly ash, which, to name a few, include uses as additives to Portland cement, agricultural soil amendments, replacement for compacted backfills, mine reclamation, melting river ice, and as subsurface for roads. Some applications pose potential environmental health risks in the short term and/or in the long term as coal fly ash is a concentrated repository for many of the trace elements that were trapped in coal during its formation, including, but not limited to, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, thallium, thorium, vanadium and uranium. 

Although seemingly unacknowledged in publicly accessible reports and in scientific literature as a potential material for geoengineering, coal fly ash is one major global waste product stream with the appropriate grain-size distribution for aerosolized tropospheric spraying that is readily available at extremely low cost and with existent processing and transport infrastructure. The author submits the following hypothesis: Coal fly ash is most likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes.

The objectives of the research are to provide substantial scientific evidence as to the correctness of the hypothesis, namely, that coal fly ash is the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and to reveal some of the adverse human public health consequences and the antagonistic consequences on Earth’s environment and biota.

2. Experimental Section

The methodology is two-fold: (1) Compare element ratios analyzed in rainwater, which were leached in the atmosphere from aerosolized particulates, with the corresponding element ratios that were extracted from coal fly ash into water in laboratory leaching experiments; and, (2) Compare the element ratios analyzed in dust collected outdoors on a HEPA filter with corresponding element ratios analyzed in coal fly ash material.

One of the reasons coal fly ash is sequestered, usually in lined ponds, is that a variety of toxic chemical elements are readily extracted by water, including but not limited to aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, thallium, lead, mercury and uranium. Scientists have conducted leaching experiments on coal fly ash samples, but none of the various investigations appear to be as thorough as that of Moreno et al.[10]. They obtained coal fly ash samples from 23 different European sources (from Spain, The Netherlands, Italy and Greece) which they analyzed for 33 chemical elements. They leached 100 grams of each coal fly ash sample with one liter of distilled water for twenty four hours, and then determined the concentrations of 38 elements in the leachate, the water-extract, from each experiment. Although there were some variations observed in the pre-leach coal fly ash chemical compositions and in the relative proportion of extracted elements in the leachate and variations in the resulting pH, the overall pattern of leachate elements was remarkably consistent among the different fly ash sources. Table 1 summarizes the average values for European coal fly ash pre-leach compositions and the average values of leachate chemical compositions that include those used in the present investigation.

Click image to enlarge

Table 1. Average chemical composition of the 23 un-leached and leached (leachate) European coal fly ash samples from Moreno et al.

With its normally limited natural cloud cover San Diego is ideal for observing tanker-jet dispersal of ultra-fine particulates. Because the city lacks heavy industries and their particulate pollution, it is an ideal environment to ascertain by rainwater measurement the nature of the specific particulates being sprayed which are leached by rainwater. The author personally collected rainwater samples for chemical analysis and compared those data to corresponding average values of experimental leachate chemical analyses [10], which as shown below provides a firm basis for identifying the particulate substance being emplaced as an aerosol in the troposphere as coal fly ash. Because of persistent spraying, rainwater devoid of spray contamination was not available.

For three months during a period of intense aerial spraying in 2011, an individual in Los Angeles, California captured and had analyzed outdoor air-borne particulates.The results were posted on the Internet [11]; subsequently the author obtained the analytical laboratory report. The requested analyses returned results for aluminum, barium and twelve trace elements. But the meaning of the data was not clear at the time. Comparison of those data with corresponding pre-leach average coal fly ash chemical analyses (Table 1), as shown below, further reinforces the correctness of identifying the particulate substance as coal fly ash that is being sprayed into the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering.

3. Results and Discussion

The average elemental composition of each of the 38 elements from the 23 different sources of European coal fly ash leach studied by Moreno et al. [10], presented as ratios relative to aluminum, is shown in Figure 2 as a function of Atomic Number. Normalization to one common element, in this case aluminum, makes comparisons possible when total mass or total volume is not available. In this plot, the less abundant leachate element ratios are not shown. Note that aluminum (Atomic Number 13), strontium (38), and barium (56), elements which are sometimes determined in post-spraying rainwater, are relatively abundant.

Ijerph 12 09375 g002 1024


Figure 2. The average leachate chemical concentration of each of the 38 elements from the 23 different sources of European coal fly ash (Table 1) studied by [10], normalized to aluminum so as to facilitate comparison with analyzed post-aerosol-spraying rainwater. Elements of lower concentration are not shown. Red leachate elements correspond to those measured in San Diego rainwater (Figure 3), from left to right, Boron, Magnesium, Aluminum, Sulfur, Calcium, Iron, Strontium and Barium.

Two commercial state-of-California certified laboratories, Babcock Laboratories, Inc. and Basic Laboratory, were engaged for the San Diego rainwater analyses by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Their analytical results were consistent to within 2%–10%. Figure 3 shows concentrations of 8 chemical elements, normalized to aluminum, measured in post-aerosol-spraying San Diego rainwater for comparison with corresponding element ratios in the [10] water-extract of coal fly ash leaching experiments (Table 1).

Ijerph 12 09375 g003 1024


Figure 3. The chemical concentrations of 8 elements, normalized to aluminum, measured in post-aerosol-spraying San Diego rainwater for comparison with similar average element ratios in the leachate of coal fly ash from Figure 1. This figure shows that post-spraying rainwater leached the same elements, in similar proportions, to the elements leached from coal fly ash in laboratory investigations [10]. This is strong evidence that the substance emplaced into the troposphere is coal fly ash. At a 99% confidence interval, the two sets of data have the same mean (T-test) and the same variance (F-test).

Like a fingerprint, the 8-element ratios of the San Diego rainwater extract of the tropospheric-emplaced particulate matter match element-by-element the laboratory water extract of coal fly ash within the range of observations. Said another way, the tropospheric-emplaced matter has the same water-leach characteristics as coal fly ash for at least eight elements, which is indeed strong evidence of the identification of the aerosolized substance as coal fly ash. For any indicated element the difference between the rainwater extract and average experimental coal fly ash element extract is less than the differences observed between the element extracted experimentally from the various coal fly ash sources [10]. 

Without mass or volume totals, statistical treatment was somewhat limited. Nevertheless, at a 99% confidence interval, the assemblage of elements in the rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test). Furthermore, the 8-element “fingerprint” shown in Figure 3 is comprised of elements with different chemical properties and thus provides extremely strong validation of the hypothesis: Coal fly ash is most likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes.

One limitation in the use of commercial laboratories is in their limits of detection for some elements. Note from Figure 2 that the experimental coal fly ash leachate element ratios span six orders of magnitude. When academic research laboratories, with their high sensitivity capabilities, hopefully repeat the post-spray rainwater measurements, additional “matched pairs” for other elements will doubtlessly be added to the coal fly ash “fingerprint” presented in Figure 3.

For about fifteen years concerned individuals have sampled water, soil, and other materials in attempt to learn what is being sprayed into the atmosphere. From 15 May 2011 through 15 August 2011, a period intense tanker-jet spraying, an individual in Los Angeles, California operated a Honeywell model HHT081 HEPA Filter in her backyard in the vicinity of Olympic and La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90035. Samples were collected and then transferred via chain-of-custody to American Scientific Laboratory, a state-of-California certified laboratory for analysis of aluminum, barium, and twelve trace elements by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. 

Figure 4 shows concentrations of 14 chemical elements, normalized to aluminum, measured in the Los Angeles HEPA air filter dust for comparison with corresponding average element ratios for un-leached coal fly ash data (Table 1) from [10].

Ijerph 12 09375 g004 1024


Figure 4. The chemical concentrations of 14 chemical elements, normalized to aluminum, measured in the Los Angeles HEPA air filter dust for comparison with corresponding average element ratios for un-leached coal fly ash (Table 1) data from [10]. This figure shows the 14 elements measured in the collected filter dust occur in the same relative proportions as similar elements in un-leached coal fly ash from published laboratory investigations [10]. This is strong evidence that the substance emplaced into the troposphere is coal fly ash. At a 99% confidence interval, the two sets of data have the same mean (T-test) and the same variance (F-test).

Like a fingerprint, the 14-element ratios of the HEPA dust match well the corresponding average chemical element ratios of un-leached coal fly ash. As with Figure 3 data, without mass or volume totals, statistical treatment was somewhat limited. Nevertheless, at a 99% confidence interval, the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average coal fly ash have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test). 

Coal fly ash from difference sources vary somewhat in their relative proportions of chemical elements. Figure 5, a plot of the normalized high and low value for each of the 14 respective elements from un-leached coal fly ash [10], provides an indication of the range of variation in the coal fly ash material from different sources. Significantly, for any indicated element ratio in Figure 4, the difference between HEPA dust material and average coal fly ash composition is generally less than the extremes observed between high and low values of the various coal fly ash sources shown in Figure 5. Furthermore, the 14-element “fingerprint” shown in Figure 4 is comprised of elements with different chemical properties, implying a unique process, and thus further provides extremely strong validation of the hypothesis: Coal fly ash is most likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes.

Ijerph 12 09375 g005 1024


Figure 5. This figure is a plot of the normalized high and low value for each of the 14 respective elements from un-leached coal fly ash [10]. It provides an indication of the range of variation in un-leached coal fly ash material from different sources. This natural variation in coal fly ash elemental compositions may help to explain the variations observed in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Reliable observers have reported tropospheric aerosol emplacement since the late 1990s. In the early phases of the program one might suspect that a variety of substances were tried. At what point was coal fly ash chosen as the preferred substance? In the past, one of the great uncertainties about analyzing post-aerosol rainwater has been which elements to measure. Aluminum was commonly measured, while barium and strontium were sometimes measured; other chemical elements were rarely measured. As aluminum, barium and strontium are prominent water-extracts of coal fly ash, their presence in post-aerosol rainwater might be taken as a 3-element fingerprint of aerosolized coal fly ash, albeit with much less certainty than the 8-element fingerprint shown in Figure 3. Based upon the 3-element fingerprint, with its limited certainty, the year 2002 is the earliest data found to date showing simultaneous measurement of these three elements in post-aerosol rainwater [12]. Within that certainty-limitation, the 3-element fingerprint in post-spraying rainwater measurements indicates the global extent of tropospheric aerosol coal fly ash dispersing: such measurements have been made in the United States, Canada, France, Portugal, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand. Further, this list is unlikely to be exhaustive. The global extent of tropospheric coal fly ash emplacement is inferred from rainwater analyses reporting the three elements (aluminum, barium and strontium) that are prominent in the leachate of laboratory coal fly ash water-leach experiments.

The research reported here provides strong evidence that coal fly ash is the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes. The evidence presented warrants discussion as to (1) what additional investigations should be undertaken to confirm further the identity of coal fly ash as the aerosolized particulates, (2) the consequences of troposphere-emplaced coal fly ash on public health and on Earth’s biota, and (3) the resultant geophysical implications.

The rainwater and dust sample collection, in San Diego and Los Angeles, respectively, took place in areas far removed from aerosol-polluting heavy industries under circumstances of intense and persistent aerial spraying of fine grain particulates that left a white haze in the sky. The tropospheric lifetime of the particulates was sufficiently short as to necessitate near-daily spraying, which is an argument against the collected samples originating far away, such as from China due to the global movement of weather. Whereas the “fingerprint” evidence is compelling, strongly suggesting identical processes/materials, additional investigations should be undertaken and, indeed, are being planned.

Off the coast of Southern California individuals have observed tanker jets “dumping” massive quantities of particulate matter in relatively short bursts, colloquially called “bombs”, which disperse significantly before prevailing winds bring the matter to the coast line. One plan under consideration is to use aircraft to capture in flight some of the concentrated material, which would then be analyzed physically and chemically, and as well be subjected to leaching experiments. 

In the 1970s acid rain [13] liberated aluminum in a chemically mobile form from otherwise inert sources, such as mine tailings, that posed an environmental health threat to a host of organisms [14,15]. Forest die-offs, reduced survival or impaired reproduction of aquatic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians were directly connected to aluminum toxicity, while indirect effects on birds and mammals were also identified [16]. Tropospheric aerosolized coal fly ash poses a similar environmental health threat without necessarily requiring an acid environment. In the experiments by Moreno et al. [10], distilled water led to aluminum extraction while other chemical reactions yielded leachate pH values in the range 6.2–12.5. The pH of post-spraying rainwater is a function of the composition of the coal fly ash and the degree of its equilibration with atmospheric water. Natural rainwater has an acidic pH of about 5.7 due to interaction with atmospheric CO2 [17]. The pH of the analyzed post-spraying San Diego rainwater was 5.2 whereas in instances elsewhere it has been observed as high as 6.8.

Long exposure to air pollution particulates, not necessarily coal fly ash, in sizes ≤ 2.5µm (PM2.5) is associated with morbidity and premature mortality [18,19]. One may therefore reasonably conclude that aerosolized coal fly ash, at least the PM2.5 component, is detrimental to human health.

The ultra-fine particles of aerosolized coal fly ash do not remain at tanker-jet operational altitudes: they mix with and pollute the air people breathe. Tropospheric aerosol coal fly ash can potentially endanger humans through two primary routes: (1) ingestion of rainwater-extract of coal fly ash toxins, directly or after concentration by evaporation and (2) particulate intake through inhalation or through contact with the eyes or skin [20]. In the latter instance, harm to humans can arise from in situ body-fluid extraction of coal fly ash toxins [21] as well as from the consequences of tissue contact [22]. Coal fly ash that is PM2.5is readily entrained in terminal airways and alveoli and retained in the lungs for long periods of time; the small grain size enables it to penetrate and reach deep within the airways where it can cause inflammation and pulmonary injury [23].

Coal fly ash contains a host of potentially leachable toxins, including aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium (III), chromium (IV), cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, strontium, thallium, thorium, and uranium. Coal fly ash has been described as being more radioactive than nuclear waste [24]. Moreover, many of the most toxic elements are enriched in the PM2.5 component of coal fly ash [25]. Whether or not the coal fly ash used for geoengineering is selectively enriched in PM2.5is not known, but enrichment in the small particle size fraction would be advantageous in yielding greater surface area for sunlight reflection.

The extent of adverse health consequences from aerosolized coal fly ash depends on a variety of factors including age, physical condition, individual susceptibility, concentration and exposure duration. Moreover, some toxic elements from tropospheric spraying of coal fly ash, in addition to direct bodily input by inhalation or transdermal infusion, may be concentrated by processes in nature. Arsenic, for example, one of the coal fly ash toxins, poses the greatest health threat in its inorganic form. Arsenic can be taken up by a variety of organisms and, like mercury, can be passed up the food chain [26]. Arsenic can be involved with hypertension-related cardiovascular disease [27], cancer [28], stroke [29], chronic lower respiratory diseases [30] and diabetes [31]. Arsenic leached from coal fly ash taken in by pregnant women can crossover the placenta to the fetus [32]. Concentration and exposure duration increase likelihood of this happening. 

The evidence presented here of deliberate, widespread and pervasive spraying of coal fly ash into the troposphere, which mixes with the air people breathe, opens new research possibilities into the physiological effects of long-term exposure to a substance that potentially releases multifarious toxins upon exposure to internal body fluids. Those subjects are beyond the scope of the present article. Nevertheless, mention should be made of perhaps the least appreciated coal fly ash potentially water-extracted toxin, chemically mobile aluminum.

Although aluminum is abundant in the Earth’s crust, it is highly immobile. Consequently, our planet’s biota, including humans, have not developed natural defense mechanisms for exposure to chemically mobile aluminum. It is a matter of grave concern that aluminum in a chemically mobile form can be readily extracted from coal fly ash with rainwater or in situ with body fluids. Aluminum is implicated in such neurological diseases as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [33,34,35,36,37] all of which have markedly increased in recent years. Aluminum is thought to impair fertility in men [38] and is also implicated in neurological disorders of bees and other creatures [39,40,41].

If in fact some instances of neurological diseases are related to weather-modification activities during the last two decades involving the tropospheric coal fly ash aerosols, then the recent ramp-up in tanker-jet spraying, as witnessed by this author in San Diego, will likely cause a sharp spike in their occurrence. Epidemiological investigations of wide-ranging scope, including for example childhood and elderly disorders and birth defects, may begin to shed light on the human toll extracted by spraying coal fly ash into the troposphere. Those investigations should especially consider airline flight crews and frequent airline travelers who breathe the air at nearly the same altitude as the spraying.

The near-daily intense aerial spraying over San Diego witnessed by the author is part of a multinational Western, if not global, program that has been observed for a number of years in United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, but never acknowledged publically by officials. Without public candor it is difficult to know the underlying motivations and the range of specific activities involved. One thing seems certain: the potential damage to public health and the environment is likely to be unprecedented in its planetary scope. 

The process of burning coal concentrates the impurities in coal fly ash, an unnatural anhydrous chemical complex whose environmental health hazards are well-known. For decades individuals and organizations have fought long and hard for regulations requiring sequestration of this hazardous industrial waste product. So what, one might ask, is the reason for the current, widespread, pervasive spraying of coal fly ash into the troposphere with its potential harm to public health and the environment? 

Since the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 there has been much interest in global warming, which is perceived as a security threat. Geoengineering offers two basic approaches to the problem of global warming: Remove and trap carbon dioxide, or block sunlight from reaching the Earth. Trapping carbon dioxide is a difficult, prohibitively expensive, undeveloped technology. Blocking sunlight is almost universally recognized by geoengineers as being relatively inexpensive, easy to implement, and moreover has a precedent in nature: major volcanic eruptions inject ash into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) which may remain suspended for a year or more, dimming sunlight and momentarily cooling Earth. 

While academicians debate geoengineering as an activity that might potentially be needed in the future [2,3], evidence suggests that Western governments/militaries moved ahead with a full scale operational geoengineering program. But instead of mining and milling rock to produce artificial volcanic ash in sufficient volumes to cool the planet, they adopted a low-cost, pragmatic alternative, but one with consequences far more dire to life on Earth than global warming might ever be, and used coal combustion fly ash. To make matters worse, instead of placing the material high into the stratosphere, where there is minimal mixing and the substance might remain suspended for a year or more, they opted to spray coal fly ash into the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, which mixes with the air people breathe and gets rained down to ground.

Aside from the serious potential toxicity ramifications on public health and Earth’s biota that derive directly from aerosolized emplacement of coal fly ash into the troposphere, such pervasive, widespread, tanker-jet spraying affects weather and Earth’s heat balance in ways that act in opposition to cooling the Earth. Those who reside in locations where natural cloud cover is rare, like San Diego, notice the rapid cooling after the sun goes down, except on cloudy days when heat is retained. During the daytime coal fly ash clouds may block sunlight, but at night may retard heat loss from the Earth, act to prevent rainfall, and contribute to global warming. Nighttime tanker-jet spraying, presumably to the hide the activity from public view, further retards heat loss.

There is yet another consequence of tropospheric coal ash spraying that is contrary to cooling the Earth and has potentially far-reaching adverse ecological and public health implications: weather modification and concomitant disruption of habitats and food sources. As reported by NASA, “Normal rainfall droplet creation involves water vapor condensing on particles in clouds. The droplets eventually coalesce together to form drops large enough to fall to Earth. However, as more and more pollution particles (aerosols) enter a rain cloud, the same amount of water becomes spread out. These smaller water droplets float with the air and are prevented from coalescing and growing large enough for a raindrop. Thus, the cloud yields less rainfall over the course of its lifetime compared to a clean (non-polluted) cloud of the same size” [42]. In addition to preventing water droplets from coalescing and growing large enough to fall to Earth, coal fly ash, which formed under anhydrous conditions, will hydrate, trapping additional moisture thus further acting to prevent rainfall. That may cause drought in some areas, floods in others, crop failure, forest die-offs, and adverse ecological impacts, especially in conjunction with the chemically-mobile-aluminum contamination from coal fly ash. The consequences ultimately may have devastating effects on habitats and reduce human food production.

4. Conclusions

The original research reported here provides strong evidence for the correctness of the hypothesis: Coal fly ash is most likely the aerosolized particulate sprayed in the troposphere by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes. That evidence is based upon the discovery that: (1) the assemblage of 8 elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and, (2) the assemblage of 14 elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical.

Evidence indicates that tropospheric spraying of coal fly ash (1) has been taking place throughout the 21st century, (2) on an international scale, and (3) with significant ramping-up since about 2013. Throughout that period of time there has been a program of well-orchestrated disinformation, but no public disclosure, no informed consent, and no public health warnings.

The profound implications on environmental health include exposing humans and Earth’s other biota to: (1) chemically mobile aluminum, implicated in neurological disorders and botanic demise; (2) exposure to toxic heavy metals and radioactive elements; (3) preventing rainfall with concomitant loss of food production and habitats; and, (4) possibly contributing to global warming with concomitant arctic melting.

More than a half century ago Rachel Carson called the world’s attention to the unintended consequences of herbicides and pesticides widely employed by agriculture. Instead of turning a blind eye, people everywhere became motivated to stop the worst of this environmental onslaught. Today we are fully aware of the vast interconnected web of dependencies and symbioses that comprise life on our planet. Earth exists in a state of dynamic biological, chemical, and physical equilibrium whose complexity far exceeds the understanding of contemporary science. The pervasive tropospheric spraying of coal fly ash threatens this equilibrium, whose delicacy or whose resilience we cannot quantify. Human health is at risk as is Earth’s biota. Are we to remain silent? Or will we exercise our primal right to speak in our own defense as a species and question the sanity of emplacing coal fly ash in Earth’s perpetually moving atmosphere?


I thank Ian Baldwin for many helpful discussions, criticisms, and advice. I thank Weidan Zhou for professional statistics advice.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. 


  1. Carson, R.L. Silent Spring; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  2. Long, J.C.S.; Loy, F.; Morgan, M.G. Policy: Start research on climate engineering. Nature 2015, 518, 29–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. McNutt, M. Ignorance is not an option. Science 2015, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weathe and Climate Control. Available online: (accessed on 29 June 2015).
  5. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. Available online: (accessed on 29 June 2015).
  6. Das Chemtrailhandbuch. Available online: (accessed on 25 July 2015).
  7. Geoengineering. Available online: (accessed on 25 July 2015).
  8. Chakraborty, R.; Mukherjee, A. Mutagenicity and genotoxicity of coal fly ash water leachate. Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 2009, 72, 838–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ruhl, L.; Vengosh, A.; Dwyer, G.S.; Hsu-Kim, H.; Deonarine, A.; Bergin, M.; Kravchenko, J. Survey of the potential environmental and health impacts in the immediate aftermath of the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6326–6333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Moreno, N.; Querol, X.; Andrés, J.M.; Stanton, K.; Towler, M.; Nugteren, H.; Janssen-Jurkovicová, M.; Jones, R. Physico-chemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. Fuel 2005, 84, 1351–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Test Results. Available online:  http://losangelesskywatch.Org/lab-test-results (accessed on 31 May 2015).
  12. Herndon, J.M. Aluminum poisoning of humanity and earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: Implications for India. Curr. Sci. 2015, 108, 2173–2177. [Google Scholar]
  13. Likens, G.E.; Bormann, F.H.; Johnson, N.M. Acid rain. Environment 1972, 14, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cape, J.N. Direct damage to vegetation caused by acid rain and polluted cloud: Definition of critical levels for forest trees. Environ. Pollut. 1993, 82, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, A.; Agrawal, M. Acid rain and its ecological consequences. J. Environ. Biol. 2008, 29, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Sparling, D.W.; Lowe, T.P. Environmental hazzards of aluminum to plants, invertibrates, fish, and wildlife. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 145, 1–127. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Goodarzi, F. Characteristics and composition of fly ash from canadian coal-fired power plants. Fuel 2006, 85, 1418–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dockery, D.W.; Pope, C.A.I.; Xu, X.P.; Spengler, J.D.; Ware, J.H.; Fay, M.E.; Ferris, B.G., Jr.; Speizer, F.E. An association between air polution and mortality in six U.S. Cities. N. Engl. J. Med.1993, 329, 1753–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Pope, C.A.I.; Ezzati, M.; Dockery, D.W. Fine-particulate air polution and life expectancy in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cho, K.; Cho, Y.J.; Shrivastava, D.K.; Kapre, S.S. Acute lung diease after exposure to fly ash. Chest 1994, 106, 309–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Twining, J.; McGlinn, P.; Lol, E.; Smith, K.; Giere, R. Risk ranking of bioaccessible metals from fly ash dissolved in simulated lung and gut fluids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 7749–7756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gilmour, M.I.; O’Connor, S.; Dick, C.A.J.; Miller, C.A.; Linak, W.P. Differential pulmonary inflamation and in vitro cytotoxicity of size-fractionated fly ash particles from pulverized coal combustion. Air Waste 2004, 54, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stuart, B.O. Deposition and clearance of inhaled particles. Environ. Health Perspect. 1984, 55, 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hvistendahl, M. Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. Available online: (accessed on 29 June 2015).
  25. Nelson, P.F.; Shah, P.; Strezov, V.; Halliburton, B.; Carras, J.N. Environmental impacts of coal combustion: A risk approach to assessment of emissions. Fuel 2010, 89, 810–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Suedel, B.C.; Boraczek, J.A.; Peddicord, R.K.; Clifford, P.A.; Dillon, T.M. Trophic transfer and biomagnification potential of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.1994, 136, 21–89. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Tseng, C.H.; Chong, C.K.; Tseng, C.P.; Hsueh, Y.M.; Chiou, H.Y.; Tseng, C.C.; Chen, C.J. Long-term arsenic exposure and ischemic heart disease in arseniasis-hyperendemic villages in Taiwan. Toxicol. Lett. 2003, 137, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, A.H.; Hopenhayn-Rich, C.; Bates, M.N.; Goeden, H.M.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Duggan, H.M.; Wood, R.; Kosnett, M.J.; Smith, M.T. Cancer risks from arsenic in drinking water. Environ. Health Perspect. 1992, 97, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Chiou, H.Y.; Huang, W.I.; Su, C.L.; Chang, S.F.; Hsu, Y.H.; Chen, C.J. Dose-response relationship between prevalence of cerebrovascular disease and ingested inorganic arsenic. Stroke 1997, 28, 1717–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hendryx, M. Mortality from heart, respiratory, and kidney disease in coal mining areas of appalachia. Int Arch Occ. Env. Hea. 2009, 82, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kile, M.L.; Christiani, D.C. Environmental arsenic exposure and diabetes. JAMA 2008, 300, 845–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vahter, M. Effects of arsenic on maternal and fetal health. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2009, 29, 381–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bondi, S.C. Prolonged exposure to low levels of aluminum leads to changes associated with brain aging and neurodegenreation. Toxicology 2014, 315, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Good, P.F.; Perl, D.P.; Bierer, L.M.; Schmeidler, J. Selective accumulation of aluminum and iron in the neurofibrillar tangles of alzheimer’s disease: A laser microprobe (lamma) studt. Ann. Nuerol.1992, 31, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Prasunpriya, N. Aluminum: Impacts and disease. Environ. Res. 2002, 82, 101–115. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rondeau, V.; Jacqmin-Gadda, H.; Commenges, D.; Helmer, C.; Dartigues, J.-F. Aluminium and silica in drinking water and the risk of alzheimer’s disease or cognitive decline: Findings from 15-year follow-up of the paquid cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 169, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Yokel, R.A.; Rhineheimer, S.S.; Sharma, P.; Elmore, D.; McNamara, P.J. Entry, half-life and desferrioxamine-accelerated clearance of brain aluminum after a single (26) al exposure. Toxicol. Sci. 2001, 64, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Klein, J.; Mold, M.; Cottier, M.; Exley, C. Aluminium content of human semen: Implications for semen quality. Reprod. Toxicol. 2014, 50, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kowall, N.W.; Pendlebury, W.W.; Kessler, J.B.; Perl, D.P.; Beal, M.F. Aluminum-induced neurofibrillary degeneration affects a subset of neurons in rabbit cerebral cortex, basal forebrain and upper brainstem. Neuroscience 1989, 29, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Exley, C.; Rotheray, E.; Goulson, D. Bumblebee pupae contain high levels of aluminum. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yellamma, K.; Saraswathamma, S.; Kumari, B.N. Cholinergic system under aluminum toxicity in rat brain. Toxicol. Int. 2010, 17, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Particulates Effect on Rainfall. Available online: (accessed on 31 May 2015).

Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, article by Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.

42 Responses to New Science Study Confirms Contamination From Climate Engineering Assault

  1. Ed Simons says:

    As an added factor in this situation see "Radioactive contaminants found in coal ash from all three major US coal-producing basins."

  2. Michel B says:

    Guy McPherson knows these programs are going on. This traitor and his ilk will be punished for f*****g over his fellow man for a goddamn percentage.

  3. Beta says:

    Guy McPherson@

    Are you drunk?   If so, then perhaps one of your aides or handlers should immediately pry that keyboard out of your hands least you end up permanently damaging your M/O with that portion of the thinking public which can usually quite readily tell when they are being lied to.

    Guy McPherson@

    Evidence?   You want evidence?   Though it may mean me having to presently violate the usual Nature Bats Last  two post a day rule,  since you have also directly asked for it: Here is a great deal of evidence which appears to conclusively prove beyond any doubt that a massive program of atmospheric chemical spraying is in fact currently going on above heads of millions, if not billions, of otherwise completely unaware people around the globe.  

    Now, please tell me exactly!  What, if any, of the carefully documented scientifically-gathered information – which is contained in this report – do you think that you might ever be able to successfully challenge?   I will eagerly be awaiting your response.

    The report reads as follows:

    The "International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health" has just published an in depth research report from Dr. Marvin Herndon that directly implicates the use of highly toxic coal fly ash with 99% certainty as base material in the ongoing climate engineering programs.

  4. Beta says:

    August 15, 2015 – From deep within his tightly controlled  Nature Bats Last psy-op bunker, and whilst surrounded by his ever adoring cult of lemming-like followers and a thick ring of protective disinformation  agents, the former professor, who has apparently run out of anything actually useful to say to this currently dying  chemical soaked world, yet again let everyone know exactly where he stood.

    Guy McPherson SAID:  On the other hand, the type of geoengineering proposed by the nut-jobs well-intentioned, easily misled folks promulgating mythical chemtrails is imaginary. This approach has been discredited thoroughly in the scientific community — notable critiques based on reason can be found here and here — but the conspiracy freaks continue to pound the drum of their collective imagination, rabidly avoiding the evidence in a manner reminiscent of the deniers of abrupt climate change. I’ve no doubt they’ll shy away from reading the evidence presented in this short essay because it is contrary to their favorite faith-based junk science.

    “Look up in the sky,” they proclaim, as if condensation trails provide convincing evidence of members of the Dreaded New World Order spraying toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. Operating in an evidence-free zone, chemtrailers offer excellent examples of confirmation bias, even when the “confirmation” is illusory…. [STOP]

    Which in turn might dare one to ask as to exactly how low – might this, former, self-proclaimed Socrates yet go – in respect to his patently absurd denial of that truth which anyone with a pair of actually functioning eyes can readily see?

  5. This post Dane is by far the most complete and credible I've seen in years about what really could probably be the chemtrails components. It lifts a huge veil on my beliefs surrounding what I thought they we're. This is by far the greatest post I've read in a long while! Thanks to all those involved in this post. As a soldier, it pleases me greatly to see that I'm not alone in this fight. Keep fighting Earth Soldiers! It will soon be brought public, I somehow sense it. On my side, I keep harassing my government representatives with articles, letters, emails etc. I wonder if they could ever file complaints on me for my activism? Anyway's, I don't care what they do, you people here will know why I get jailed if it ever happens. My forum is active as always, I post stuff from here ( referenced of course! ) I'm still trying to find someone who knows the subject as much as you Dane to make a gathering like the ones you do but, I can't find anyone yet. I still search, I want someone bilingual to offer such conferences, someone like you Dane, who know's what he/she is talking about. Well that's all for now, see you all soon soldiers!

  6. Why America is dead meat, and American citizens are the appetizer. > Foreign ownership of U.S. corporations – SourceWatch

    US Corp. and some Agencies Duns Numbers used to impersonate the lawful government of the American people. | Scanned Retina – A Resource for the People

  7. Rachel Robson says:

    @Karl Shreiber, Hi Karl.  I told my daughter about your tomatoes and asked her about her's in another city.  She has much of her crops covered, some not.  So some tomatoes covered, some not.  All of hers are turning red.  I told her what I told you about fried green tomatoes which we love-which reminded her to pick some green ones, then she asked me why I didn't tell you the paper bag trick I've used so successfully.  This year I did not grow tomatoes though I almost always do.  As my space has become so shaded, many of mine did not ripen in time.  So, I pick them, regardless of large or small, and place in a paper bag which one then closes.  The methane from the tomatoes ripens them to perfection.  They will not get any larger, but they will get deep dark red and juicy and delicious.  You may need many bags as they should not be stacked or piled, they should not touch each other much or else they will rot.  Sometimes they turn red rather quickly, sometimes takes awhile.  Room temperature, no refrigerator.  Once when my daughter was going on a road trip back to her rez in SD via a long route by other relatives, she took a bag or two of green tomatoes which were perfectly ripe when she arrived at the rez, and much appreciated.  Try it, it works! 

  8. Rachel Robson says:

    Congratulations Dane for finding the wonder of a man that is Dr. Herndon!  He is brilliant.  And he followed through perfectly!  I knew he'd nailed it when I first heard it.  Again, from me, a bean counter's move.  As in how to dispose of a very toxic substance in some "easy" and relatively inexpensive way, rationalized as helpful.  Hopefully people caught the part of it being used in agriculture, mixed in fertilizer to boot.  Such crops would be watered of course, so…..leachating our foods?

    This was so very well done, Dr. Herndon's work, and does mention the variables which we all have noticed.  I find myself wondering who was/is the brilliant woman in LA who put her HEPA filter unit outdoors to catch the dust.  I have the same sort of unit and filter and as we get no rain, I could have done the same but never ever thought of it!  Thanks to her as well!  Many thanks.  Make no mistake, this work will go far and wide, cracking open the ridiculously resilient public mindset, not to mention that of the International Panel for Climate and other so called scientists who have been stonewalling us all.  This is the crack in the dam.

    A million thanks to Dane, Dr. Herndon, and that LA woman.

    The last few days here in Berkeley have had stunning blue skies and even the fog wall seems gone, or normal looking, with slight variations.  In the past few days I've been able to see normal aircraft flying leaving no trail whatsoever.  And just that quickly, this morning I am able to breathe through my nose in morning for the first time in about 7 years, no constant blowing and spitting which for the last couple of years has been very bad for me, and confusing as I've wondered about my many childhood allergies resurfacing.  It, by the way, has been almost as shocking to watch jets fly with no trail-we have many airports nearby-as its been shocking to watch the trails being laid.  Seeing a normal jet!  Amazing!  Looking at one last Friday, flying in a very blue sky, I was impressed until I turned around and the other half of the sky was completely whited out!  Completely!  It was as stunning as the trails.  The sky like the dome it is was exactly divided in half, like a straight line overhead arching for the full sky, very blue on east side, very white on west side.  I was stunned no one else seemed to notice, just as stunned as when they don't notice the trails.

    But, being able to breathe this morning is amazing.  It occurs to me, Dane, that your upcoming big meeting, people even flying in for it as well as Dr. Herndon's work may have made "them" back off for now a bit?  Because this being able to breathe again thing is stunning me this morning.  So wonderful.  Is anyone else here noticing these changes?  For me it is profound.  I've been very concerned about being "put under" tomorrow early as I normally, for all these 6-7 years, have so much trouble breathing in the mornings.  However, starting a couple of days ago, I've broken out in hives.  Something new going on instead?  

    • Keith Whittington says:

      Rachel, just guessing, but, I have used a product, Nutri-Soft, which is pelletized gypsum, as a soil softener. It bonds with fine clay particles leaving gaps in the soil that allow water, air and roots to penetrate heavy clay soils. Calcium is a vital building block for cell development. Sulfur is provided in an available form for plant uptake. It is rated as *organic*.

    • penny says:

      Hi Rachel, Hate to cast gloom on the beautiful blue skies, but Russ Tanner has mentioned that people in his area seem to be getting a rash (or hives) from the sun itself – perhaps from the high content of UV-C?  I haven't had that reaction on those rare days of sunshine, but am much, much farther north than you.  And there is always spraying going on here, even on days that are mostly blue.

      I second the kudos to Dr. Herndon and everyone who has contributed to this research, and to bringing it to light.  I am grateful in every waking moment for the people who are here, and out there, doing the right thing!

  9. katesisco says:

    This very important book revealed the onset of what this article so clearly describes.  The willful poisoning of American croplands and then onto the world. The corporates refuse to accept any monetary loss so all –even the waste stream–must be profitable.  This is the driver of poisoning the world.  The long-held mantra of DILUTION IS THE SOLUTION has been carried forward to apply to rivers in the air. 

    As all can see, this choice omits any burial in landfills or containment ponds.  And turns a liability—the coal fly ash—into a profitable climate altering solution. 

    One can now understand why the climate issue and its solution–clouds–has long been hyped.  The true costs—warned of 50 years ago—will haunt us long into the future. 

    My father's mantra gained in the depression:  "The bitterness of low quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."

    • Rachel Robson says:

      Too true and thank you!

    • Hello katesisco: Your father was right on. The price is the loss of our lands and freedoms. America has become a commodity, and health is simple collateral costs. >

      Excerpted from: Federal coal subsidies – SourceWatch

      ["Federal coal subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to the coal and power industry. Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use. External costs of coal include the loss or degradation of valuable ecosystems and community health.

      According to research by GigaOm analyst Adam Lesser, buried in a 2011 report from the International Energy Agency is the fact that fossil fuels currently receive subsidies via "at least 250 mechanisms."[1]

      In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.[2]"]

      Complete text:

  10. Melody Meachum says:

    @ Marc….Yup, yup, yup and agreed!

  11. Mark from OZ says:

    This is an outstanding and informative scientific study and those connected and responsible for these crimes must be prosecuted. Keep in mind that 'other's have previously illegally dumped toxic materials because the 'money is so good'. Human greed, sadly, is likely the deficient trait that may just wipe us all out. Sadder still, is that majority of world citizens are NOT that inclined and remain vulnerable and by their very trusting and caring, compassionate humanity, are easily and routinely deceived by the small number who ARE psychopathic who exploit their fellow (wo)man.

    Perhaps when 'we' are all standing at the abyss, contemplating what has happened, we'll finally understand that there is no place here where that behavior can be acceptable any more, and we'll collectively agree to identify, prosecute and incarcerate these selfish criminals with a vehemence that reflects the atrocity. " We"  have done this before.

    "Organized Crime's Involvement in the Waste Haulage Industry"

    With you all in 'spirit' tomorrow .May the spirit give us (and Dane) strength for the battles ahead!

  12. Michel B says:

    This report should be sent to every major news outlet, every Health agency, every university with an Environmental Study School and to every place possible for as many people to access, read and comprehend. This is a scientific summation and conclusion, perfectly worded, understandable and irrefutable with all sources cited.

    All implications are now very clear: Geoengineering is a deliberate assault upon the planet's biosphere and nothing else. It cannot help us as it was never meant to do so. Forget the idea that there is 'help' in these programs. This is the corporate elite, the UN, the banksters, the hijacked militaries and many more minion toady traitors to Life.

  13. carol freiberg says:

    This is the proof we need to send the psychos packing. Share far and wide.

  14. Relying on the EPA to regulate industrial pollution is about as functional as buggering a whore to inspire virginity… And it gets even worse. >
    Excerpted from: U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Limiting Mercury Pollution from Power Plants | Global Research
    [“The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 vote Monday that the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.” [1]”]
    “The Supreme Court has issued yet another ruling that has many people up in arms. Environmental activists and health advocates alike are especially unhappy with their most recent decision concerning power plant emissions. Permitting mercury and other highly toxic air pollutants emitted from plants to remain insufficiently regulated will ultimately translate to higher healthcare costs around the country.”
    Reducing pollution starts at home…

  15. J Rizk says:

    This is absolutely excellent. I too am forwarding it on all over the place. 

  16. Marc says:

    The Redding event draws nigh. I sense that there will be a spectacular turnout, and whether or not the local media covers it will be most intriguing. If they ignore the event, will that not essentially prove our point? To black-out the event intentionally reeks of subterfuge, when the structure, the personnel and the topic, more than qualify as of extreme importance to people in general, and therefore "newsworthy".

  17. DAVID DARBY says:

    Total Congratulations to all the people involved in putting this evidence together. A world wide class action law suit against all parties involved. Society already suffers and will have to accept a more simpler life and learn to not be jacked up on a constant caffeine fix of materialism at the cost of earths habitat. 

  18. Diana Moss says:

    This summer, even more than last summer, I have had to completely wash down the furniture on my porch, most of the pieces are white, on a regular basis as it becomes so dirty that no one wants to sit down.  The residue isn't sticky but it is dense and I have to use a spray bleach to cut through it.  I have been wondering what in the world is in the  air that causes such a mess.  With the windows open everything inside is also dirty, especially the floors, and when I vacuum the furniture the result is black 'dust.'  The windows are filthy and not from lack of care.  It appears that I am a lousy housekeeper which couldn't be further from the truth.  Is what I am continually fighting caused by coal fly ash?

  19. Lou says:

    How many more seasons will we have?

    How many more years do we have left?

    How much longer till the power structure slams the hammer down?

    How much longer can we breath this waste???

    This is nothing less than the Nazi's.

    Good luck with your event Dane. 

    • Michel B says:

      Hello Lou,

      I very much concur with the asking of those questions. It is automatic to wonder how far down the track we are already and indeed how in Heaven's name did we arrived at this point.

      But I wonder how it is that 'Nazis' are complicit with these programs. Firstly, the term 'Nazis' was a nickname given by the Allies to members of the National Socialist Workers Party, which was democratically voted in as the majority party by the German people in 1933.

      Given that Germany lost the war, how is it that 'Nazis' are still referred to? Aren't they all gone? Given that Germany was supposedly the 'baddy' and was obliterated by 1945, how is our world in the state it's in now? Didn't the 'good guys' win? It doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

      I am not pro dictatorship, but if you want to reference a single group, why not pick the Russian Bolshevists, or Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge, or Mao's Communist China? Under Stalin about 30 million died. Under Pol Pot 3 million died. Under Mao up to 80 million died. The English empire also had its huge share of deaths and in America how many Native Indians were deliberately slaughtered to make way for the opening up of the West?

      So, I would worry about those who wear the badge of 'communist' more than anyone else. Noam Chomsky has said that by all definitions the US is the largest terrorist state on the planet and it's empire has persisted since 1945.

      Behind these regimes are cores of powerful people who profit from debt and death. We should be doing our utmost to expose who they currently are and who they influence in order to carry out their insidious deeds.

    • Andrew from scotland says:

      Here is a draft on my email that due out in a couple of weeks…..

      The Arctic sea ice has almost all gone – even at the ridiculous 85% open water measurement (all that has done is to delay us tackling the problem until it is too late).  

      So, what can we expect now?

      At the outside and without even considering the more imminent threats of catastrophic methane releases, war, civil unrest, etc, in the next 18 months there will be ever increasing extremes of weather extremes.  

      This will lead to mass human migrations as whole geographical areas become unable to support human life.  Basically, people in the northern hemisphere will migrate northwards, and south in the southern hemisphere. The current problems at Dover and Calais are nothing, compared to what will be.  Good rehearsal though.

      These human migrations will cause massive problems – food shortages and civil unrest to name just two.  I live about 15 miles from the nearest city, and am fairly well prepared for most eventualities. My biggest threat is from marauding bands of hungry and violent people.  In 4 to 6 years those living in the northern hemisphere will be facing extinction and living Without Rule of Law (WROL). Southern Hemisphere will follow within 4 years.


      97% of people who read this will ignore it and ignorantly assume our governments will save the day.  An impossible task unless one includes miracles or other 'outside intervention'. 

      Only 3% will think for themselves and act. Most of readers are in this percentage.  

      As we say in Scotland (when taking a wee dram of the amber nectar):  "Here's tae us…Wha's like us?…Damn few, an' they're a' deed."


    • Dennis says:

      @Michel B
      I am not speaking for Lou, but might I recommend looking into Project Paperclip. The NAZI's are, or in the least the spirit of Nazism, alive and well. Also, if you are not aware the "grandfather" of geoengineering is none other than famed "Paperclip" scientist Werner von Braun.
      So in a nutshell it is NAZI's still carrying on the programs of genocide. Look also into Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker financing the NAZI's. 
      More and more often I am drawn to the quote, "The world is a stage".
      I am ready for intermission.
      Best, Dennis

  20. SD says:

    Great job guys.  The Geoengineers aren't as smart as they think they are.  Like all criminals, they leave behind trace evidence for us to gather and analyze. I have seen the ash-like residue on my windshield. I have read reports of "dirty rain" and snow. I have seen the years of ABNORMAL low clouds and drizzle here in SoCal – year-round June Gloom in place of rainfall. Throw in a dose of HAARP tech and it's no wonder it never rains anymore!

    • Rachel Robson says:

      SD, hello.  I, as some others have mentioned have also seen black clouds of late.  The look quite odd even along with the other oddities and I did wonder about them until Dr. Herndon's first report positing coal fly ash.  I quite agree that they are not smart.  They are operating like criminals, who almost always leave a trail, and so get caught.  I feel a kind of relief to think they are that stupid, as opposed to some well orchestrated cabal agenda.  Most people played into it by not even noticing, and still not noticing.

      And I agree with Michel B. regarding why, why people keep referring to the Nazis.  So many other examples of greater magnitude.  But then, Nazis have been branded, virtually.  I suspect the references include the overall concept of internment camps, being gassed, a master plan of a master group of peoples, elite, if you will.  As well as the apparent relationship with England and those powers that be.  Interesting that Dr. Herndon did not include the UK. 

  21. Larwence says:

    Is this not enough proof to hold up in a court ? I am sending a link to this article to our local news station, for what is worth. I have sent it to family and friends as well. Thank you Dr. Herndon, and Dane.

    • Hello Larwence: Thanks for taking action. Civil actions are the key. Perhaps you can include these links and comments to your contact group. >

      Excerpted from: Coal waste – SourceWatch

      ["Coal ash contains large quantities of toxic metals, including 44 tons of mercury, 4601 tons of arsenic, 970 tons of beryllium, 496 tons of cadmium, 6275 tons of chromium, 6533 tons of nickel, and 1305 tons of selenium.[4] In 2006, coal plants in the United States produced almost 72 million tons of fly ash, up 50 percent since 1993.[6] "]

      Scientific American finds coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste

      ["Although nuclear power retains the stigma of producing dangerous radiation, "waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts" in addition to known problems such as polluting the air and causing acid rain. Coal contains small amounts of uranium and thorium, which are concentrated "up to 10 times" in coal ash, a waste product of burning coal. Coal ash can leech radioactivity into the surrounding groundwater and soil, depending on where it is disposed. Robert Finkelman, a former US Geological Survey (USGS) researcher, said that people living around coal plants will increase the amount of radiation they are exposed to by 5% every year. Finkelman thinks that radiation is "more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard… The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon." This is an additional reason some people support alternative forms of energy.[16] "]

      Note: You really need to review all the data on this web page to understand the magnitudes of the waste disposal problem. >


      Also see: Coal Issues – SourceWatch


  22. Melody Meachum says:

    Thank you Dane….Revealing beyond words.

    I saw a separate report in middle of July from Dr Herndon after Dane published his first report.

    In between that timeframe I came across an independent testing lab for all kinds of applications. There were 2 particular formulaic changes to chemical compositions that I noticed while skimming thru that lab site which included coal fly ash…I only remember the mention of Portland Cement.

    This wasn't the same company below, but similar and it's striking how easy it all appears to test/certify and give stamp of approval for production and distribution of toxic/hazardous chemicals.

    Avomeen is an independent contract testing laboratory that provides advanced chemical analysis, product testing, and innovative formulation development services to business clients. We frequently assist entrepreneurs, manufactures, distributors, lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and even other testing laboratories nationwide with our unique service offerings.  Our experienced scientific staff can complete even your most complex testing project on-time and within budget. 

    Direct Consultation with Ph.D. Level Chemist
    Free Initial No-Obligation Consultation
    Project Customization (No Cookie Cutter Quotes)
    Rapid Turnaround on Requests for Proposal (RFP)
    Friendly & Responsive Staff who are Flexible to Your Needs
    Wealth of Knowledge & Technical Expertise
    Dedicated Team of Talented Chemists
    We Will Work Within Your Tight Deadlines
    Rush Services & After-Hours Support Available
    Extensive Experience Solving Difficult Analytical Testing & Formulation Development Projects
    Specialization in Solving Complex Non-Routine Projects
    Wide Range of State-of-Art Instrumentation
    Proprietary Testing Methods
    Strict Confidentiality
    Clients Own ALL Testing & Formulation Development Results
    Intellectual Property (IP) Rights Fully Transfer to Client
    Detailed & Accurate Results
    GMP – Complaint
    GLP – Compliant
    ISO 17025 – Accredited
    ISO 7 Complaint Clean Rooms

    By the way, Wiki Coal Fly Ash, it states…"After a long regulatory process, the EPA published a final ruling in December 2014, which establishes that coal fly ash does not have to be classified as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[4] ."

    Could we all potentially face contracting a type of Black Lung Disease without ever going remotely near a coal mine?

    • Marc says:

      OMG!! Melody Meachum may have just hit the bull's eye here! Just how much under-the-table money from the coal industry was stuffed into the pockets of the asswipes at the EPA to finally enable the industry to skirt around a "hazardous" classification for coal fly ash? And doesn't this non-hazardous status cover the asses of the entities who are absconding with the stuff and aerosolizing it for convenient "disposal" right over the heads of everybody on earth? Coal fly ash to mitigate the effects of global warming? As outlined by Dr. Herndon in this incredible article, fly ash only served to retain (or trap) heat in his San Diego observations. And I think it's a fair assessment to expand upon that observation and to then say that, hello?, given the decades of geoengineering that has gone on, if geoengineering was ostensibly deployed to mitigate warming, as most public discourse suggests, the bastards appear to have gotten the science ALL WRONG!!!!! Really? Can this actually be true? I think not. I contend there is a sinister agenda that is unfolding alongside several other highly dysfunctional agendas pertaining to greed and wealth.

    • Rachel Robson says:

      Hi Melody, If I get your gist, this company you mention: Avomeen, for testing is giving the ok to this stuff, or is it a good lab?

      Interesting that you bring up Black Lung disease.  Recently and tomorrow as well, I've had some surgeries, relatively minor.  Long ago I had a couple of major surgeries.  But with these three, in pre-op, I've had to answer a lot of questions and each time I've been asked if I have black lung disease.  This keeps blowing my mind as I keep saying, no, I've never worked in a coal mine-which is always met with laughter by whomever is asking.  And I keep wondering why they are asking.  Oh dear Deities, are your suspicions correct?!!

    • Dennie Mehocich says:

      The stuff we've been getting sprayed with out here is a slightly brownish gray-white dust, very light and seems much finer and powdery than the stuff we got hit with Big Time in June of 2010.  That stuff then felt like table salt granules, this is feeling like powdered sugar, but it's powdered metal.  It's so pervasive it's been detectable every single minute of every single day since some time in May, 2010, and now it's getting sprayed on us just thicker, so bad, every day now is like a heavy-spray day like back in May of 2010. 

      They were out layin' 'em thick and fast here in the Bay Area today, with lots of long Xs and plenty of "staff paper" (parallel lines) today in the sky.  I wish there was a way we could zoom in to see the jets, look really close and get photos.

      Can anyone find out where the sprays are made and who makes them? 

  23. Thank you to Dane and Marvin Herndon for posting this excellent Abstract and completed study. These findings need to be widely published on ALL geoengineering web sites. Readers on those web sites can take independent action from there… The radioactivity issue should not be downplayed: >

    Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants
    Science 8 December 1978:
    Vol. 202 no. 4372 pp. 1045-1050
    DOI: 10.1126/science.202.4372.1045

    ["Radiation doses from airborne effluents of model coal-fired and nuclear power plants (1000 megawatts electric) are compared. Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal (approximately the U.S. average), population doses from the coal plant are typically higher than those from pressurized-water or boiling-water reactors that meet government regulations. Higher radionuclide contents and ash releases are common and would result in increased doses from the coal plant. The study does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy."]

    Complete text:

    Environmental Protection Agency? Who's that???

    • Rachel Robson says:

      Economics Protection Agency?

    • Rachel Robson says:

      Paul. thank you as always for your extensive information.  And for emphasizing not to overlook the radiation Dr. Herndon referred to in his very well done paper of analysis.  He also-I think-mentions fly ash in fertilizers which also is not to be underestimated.  He explains that the radiation from fly ash is worse than that from reactors.  This makes me think of Dane saying not this or that, but this and that, and the other.   Also reminds me of Dane saying so much about synergistic effects, and exponential effects.  So that the issue would not really be one of how much radiation from coal power versus nuclear, rather, the exponential, synergistic effect of the combination, especially when spread out on lands (hello haboobs) as well as in the air.  We appear to be fully nuked.  People have been reporting hair loss.  For one, and so much cancer.  We are our own Fukushima.  I've been active against nuclear everything for a very long time, a lifetime, feeling it to be the main issue and the main threat to this planet.  I follow storage issues such as that at the Hanford disposal site, currently leaking into the Columbia river right above where Natives have first fishing rights.  I have a friend, seven years older than I, forging the new science of nuclear forensics.  Sightly less interesting than it sounds.  But in this particular case of fly ash it may prove helpful.

  24. Debra says:

    This is exactly what Ive been take pics of in Milwaukee and other "populated" areas in WI..I post everything on Twitter and mentioned how "blackish" the stuff was they were spraying now.  Headaches – congestion – and ears ringing off the charts (always when "ripple effect" shows in geoengineering of the skies) the past week or two also.

    • Robert says:

      Hello Debra
      Being an old fogie of 82, I don't have Twitter…… can you say what sort of response you have had, re geoengineering.

    • Jenny says:

      Robert, I tweet photos of geoengineering as well, and also tweet articles from this site.  I wish everyone would do this.  It is actually very easy to sign up for Twitter (I managed to do it, and I'm not on Facebook).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *