Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health
J. Marvin Herndon
Abstract: 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.
On 2nd September 2015, this paper was retracted.
“The retraction of my peer-reviewed and published scientific paper was based upon a systematic, aggressive attack by one or more individuals making blatantly false and/or pejorative remarks." ~ Herndon
The following is Herndon’s rebuttal of the first criticism that was used as a basis for rejection of his paper.
Allegation: The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 and used by [Herndon] to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is incorrect.
Response: Not true. The incorrect data was not for the average leachate concentration, but for the average un-leached coal fly ash composition. The incorrect data was only used to normalize the data presented in Figures 4 and 5, not in Figures 2 and 3.
Allegation: The author uses 70,000 µg/kg, while the correct value resulting from the unleached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by Moreno et al. ) is 140,000,000 µg/kg.
Response: Those criticizing my paper make it look like a huge error, and the half-truth makes it seem so. What should have been stated is that the un-leached column heading was mistyped as µg/kg, but should have read µg/g; the data were tabulated as µg/g. The error was in listing the aluminum value as 70,000 µg/g when it should have been 140,000 µg/g, a factor of two. In scientific literature, this is the kind of error that is usually allowed to be corrected as it should have been in the present instance.
Allegation: This error invalidates the conclusions of the article.
Response: No, it does not. In the worst case, if uncorrected, it might invalidate the data shown in Figures 4 and 5, but the conclusions of the article are derived from Figures 2 and 3 which are not affected by the error. Moreover, Figures 4 and 5, when normalized to another element, for example, barium are not invalidated.