Having addressed the content of the letter that I received from Mr Robert Goodwill, who describes himself as ‘the minister responsible for aviation’, I will now deal with the first part of the FAQ that the Department for Transport (DfT) issues to concerned members of the public.
When looking at the questions posed and the answers provided by the DfT, it is worthwhile not just looking at what is said but also what is left unsaid.
"According to some reports contrails contain barium or compounds of aluminium and silicon (often called aluminiosilicates). Is this correct?
We understand from the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that measurements undertaken in the UK since 2004 have shown no significant increase in concentrations of barium in rainwater measured at rural sites across the UK. Moreover alumina-silicates are common in clay soils and a wide range of other minerals, therefore measurements in air and soils are dominated by the ground level sources of aluminosilicates rather than any that might come from contrails."
First, we need to be careful with terminology here. The DfT is talking about ‘contrails’, whereas my concerns, and those of other members of the public, are about un-natural aircraft trails, often referred to as ‘chemtrails’. By talking about contrails, the minister is deliberately excluding activities that do not relate to natural condensation trails. In this way, he makes the scope of his discussions ludicrously narrow.
Second, the words he chooses are evasive and misleading and I pointed that out in my response to my MP and the minister.
"This is an answer to a question that simply sought to establish whether reports on the contents of contrails are correct. The response starts with “We understand”, which is just a comment about the level of comprehension, rather than a statement about the facts.
It also refers to DEFRA tests conducted “since 2004”. This is significant because later in the document, there is a reference to a treaty on weather modification in 1977. Given that this occurred 38 years ago, surely there would have been a need to monitor adherence to such an agreement?
Maybe the lack of earlier evidence is because DEFRA was not formed until 2001. However, it was partly created from the previous Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food, which was formally established in 1919.
Can you please explain why DEFRA did not reference MAFF data prior to 2004 when conducting its analysis?"
Third, the minister talks about ‘no significant increase’ and this is how I responded to my MP and the minister about that particular assertion.
"Once again, we have a subjective assessment. To say that there is “no significant increase” is to make an unsubstantiated claim. After all, what is meant by “significant”? It is not a statement of fact, but just a comment used to justify a conclusion. Nevertheless, it is revealing because it says that there has been an increase in the concentrations of barium in rainwater. But as before, in the Government’s opinion, it is an unimportant rise.
Can you please confirm what the measurements are that he is referring to, the increases that have been observed and what the source of the contamination is?"
Fourth, the minister refers to ‘rainwater measured at rural sites across the UK’. He does not say exactly when or where the measurements were taken from, which I pointed out to my MP and the minister.
"Here, we are told that the samples used to derive the measurements, were of “rainwater” from various “rural sites” across the UK. If the measurements are from rainwater, then they are derived from water that falls as rain. This is stating what should be an obvious point but it is important because later in the paragraph, he refers to “measurements in air and soils”, which by definition are not rainwater. As such, it cannot possibly have any scientific relevance because it is not part of the original data set.
However, there is a logic to using rainwater data as it will capture airborne contaminants. But there is no logic at all in only taking measurements at an unspecified number of rural sites, given that the vast majority of the population live in built up conurbations.
Why was only rainwater measured, why only at rural sites and where are those sites?"
In summary, we can see that from a 75 word answer by the DfT to the first question in its own FAQ, I have identified four key concerns. The DfT concentrates on ‘contrails’ and avoids ‘chemtrails’. It talks about what is ‘understood’, rather than what is known and what is unknown. It makes assertions about what is ‘significant’ and then finally, it refers to ‘measures’, without saying when they were taken or where they were taken from.
This is what we are up against when dealing with the UK government on matters of public health and welfare. Worst of all, the mainstream media avoids the subject of aircraft trails and weather modification experiments like the plague.
The third and final part of this series will look at more dubious answers by the DfT to questions from its own FAQ.