http://patft.uspto.g...6&RS=PN/5003186

 

http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/2891.pdf

Having a huge abrasive factor I'm pretty sure this would reduce the reliability of engines quite a bit.

Not in nano mixtures.

 

Its the potential health effects that concern me more than the longevity of a jet engine.

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3298

I haven't seen many people in the wood and metal fab business die of it from their sandpaper and blasting.

I guess that's critical thinking?

I can't see where it says how many tonnes of material would be needed. It does say the effect lasts up to a year, so presumably the materuial falls back to earth and neeed ciontinually renewing. Isn't that polluting?

There are patents for a lot crazier stuff that isn't used. This isn't something to lose sleep over yet.

If this method was really being used it would have been trumpeted around to get out of the EU Carbon Trading Scheme and/or Kyoto by now. In addition particles 10 to 100 microns in size are not nano particles, nano-particles are 0.001 to 0.1 microns in size, though the boundary is fuzzy, given that nano is a buzzword.

I could mention that chemtrail sites are usually not known for the validity of their scientific information on health effects, but I prefer to attack an article on it's merits, not on where it's published (which is just an inversion of the appeal to authority), so here goes:

 

First of all I hope that Mr Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. in his actual scientific articles actually links his references to the statements they are supposed to be supporting, rather than just dumping a list of references at the end and leaving it up to the reader to figure out what they're supposed to be saying. Having said that I actually went and looked up these references.

 

The first two say that nano-particles (which again, the patent doesn't discuss) have neurotoxic effects in lab studies, but there is no information on possible health effects of exposure (e.g. salt can also be toxic in a lab study, but it's perfectly fine if you consume it in normal doses). The others just show that aluminium may produce certain chemical effects, which may be linked to Alzheimers. However they don't give any relevant information on what kind of exposure would be needed to generate those effects, nor do they prove that aluminium causes Alzheimers. More people drown on days that ice cream sales are higher, but that doesn't mean ice creams cause drowning. (People are more likely to be in or near water, and thus more likely to drown, when it's hot, which is also when more people will buy ice creams).

 

None of the articles he references provides any kind of proof for the existence of chemtrails.

 

Furthermore I hope that Dr Blaylock is more careful with his use of the word 'infinitely' in actual scientific articles. If nano-particles really were 'infinitely' more reactive than normal particles they would instantaneously react with anything in their vicinity and thus you would never have to worry about actually getting them inside your body, as they would already have reacted. If he had merely said that nano-particles are significantly (or even very much) more reactive he would be correct.

 

On to the final part of this critique, the first paragraph, in which Dr Blaylock tells us why he was convinced of the existence of chemtrails:

"But over the past several years I have notice a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern and slowly evolve into artificial clouds."

Given that Dr Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon (http://www.belhaven.edu/academics/Biology/faculty.htm) he presumably grew up a couple of decades ago. I.e. in a time when (a) there was less air traffic, and (B) a far greater proportion of it was propeller driven. Thus it's hardly surprising that contrails nowadays look different. Dr Blaylock claims (implicitly) that 'chemtrails' evolve differently from regular contrails, but unfortunately he doesn't provide any evidence for this. As to the definite pattern in which contrails are laid out, I'm sure I don't need to explain the concept of airways to anyone here.

 

Finally, as Cessnaflyer mentioned, the only thing a patent proves is that someone wrote down an idea they had and sent it to the patent office, who then certified that they hadn't heard of that idea before.

A common view outside the US is that the US Patent Office grants patents that no other offices would. Has this idea been patented elsewhere? There is no such thing as an international patent - a US patent is only valid in the US