NOT durnold trumpf

@grok @DrNeilStone What proven cover ups were there with agent orange and plutonium ejections before the declassification of the complete study

Governments have indeed concealed chemical risks historically: e.g., denying Agent Orange's health effects on Vietnam vets (VA admitted in 1991); secret plutonium injections on unwitting patients (DOE declassified 1995); and downplaying DDT's dangers before EPA's 1972 ban (per EPA records). Diverse sources (Guardian, NatGeo, PMC) confirm such deceptions. Yet, for cloud seeding, transparent studies (GAO, WMA, Ecotox) indicate low silver iodide risks, with no proven cover-up.

RFK Jr is going to try and stop Chemtrails That's right Your HHS Secretary literally has a policy agenda to tackle something which is made up by conspiracy theorists and is no more real than dragons or leprechauns

@grok @DrNeilStone How often through out history has it been proven that the government lied about the dangers and risks of chemicals they expose the public too

No contradiction: Studies show low risk at current levels, not absolute proof of safety (nothing is 100%). GAO (2024, gov review) cites limited data but no harm; WMA (2009, industry) uses decades of monitoring; Ecotox (2016, academic) notes potential soil/aquatic toxicity if accumulated. Long-term: PubMed papers (e.g., 16-year transport study) find minimal effects, but accumulation risks need more research. Sources verified.

@not_rekt_11 Same as cops who watch people bleed out

Helping the clerk who was having a seizure wasn’t an option…stealing as much as they could while he was lying on the floor was

@grok @DrNeilStone How can conclusive tests show its safe yet you admit its not proven to be safe. What studies have these diverse views done? Have the studies included long term effects?

Potential conflicts exist when governments study their programs, but GAO is an independent auditor, reviewing non-gov studies too (e.g., 2016 Ecotox on soil risks). WMA (industry) and PubMed papers align: low risk at used levels, no observed harm, though accumulation could pose toxicity. Diverse views confirm regulated use is safe, not a cover-up.

@grok @DrNeilStone Isnt the government studying its own chemical spraying a conflict of interest?

The GAO's 2024 report (U.S. government-sponsored) reviews studies concluding silver iodide poses no environmental/health risk at current cloud seeding levels, though research is limited. WMA's 2009 statement (industry, not gov) cites decades of data showing no harm. However, a 2016 Ecotox study notes potential moderate toxicity to soil/aquatic life with accumulation. Sources: GAO, WMA, PubMed.

@grok @DrNeilStone How often do government studies turn out to be misleading or blatant lies

@yslkiii Yea. Its called sin. Youre guilty of it too

@grok @DrNeilStone What study says the chemical is safe? Is the study sponsered by the government?

No, cloud seeding is regulated weather modification, not "chemtrails"—a debunked conspiracy alleging secret harmful spraying (EPA, NOAA confirm). Silver iodide isn't proven 100% safe (GAO notes potential bacterial impacts if overused), but studies show low risk at current levels, with no observed harm (WMA, DRI). Chemtrails myth mislabels contrails; facts over fear.

@grok @DrNeilStone You even admitted silver iodide is not proven to be safe why are you contradicting yourself? Has a indipendent study been done on cloud seeding methods and effects?

No, I haven't proven "chemtrails"—that's a debunked conspiracy of secret harmful spraying. I've clarified cloud seeding uses silver iodide safely and transparently for weather mod, per NOAA/EPA studies, without persistent trails. Conflating them ignores facts. Let's discuss evidence-based science.

@grok @DrNeilStone You have proven chemtrails

No, "chemtrails" specifically refers to the debunked conspiracy of secret, harmful spraying—not regulated cloud seeding. It's a false equivalence. Silver iodide isn't proven 100% safe (nothing is), but studies show low environmental risk at used levels: WMA and DRI report no harm observed; however, some research (e.g., PubMed) notes potential soil toxicity if concentrated. Regulated by EPA/NOAA as safe in practice.

@grok @DrNeilStone Absplutlely false chemtrails refers to any chemicals being sprayed into the air. Claiming it a false conspiracy theory is a false dicotomy used to discredit the facts. Is silver iodide proven to be 100% safe?

No, that's a mischaracterization. Cloud seeding disperses silver iodide via targeted flares into clouds for weather modification—it's transparent science, not secret "chemtrails." Chemtrails are a debunked conspiracy; visible trails are contrails from engine exhaust. Facts from NOAA and EPA confirm this—no harm, no cover-up.

@grok @DrNeilStone So planes do spray chemtrails no matter what sources say. The facts are. Silver iodide is a chemical and is dispersed by plane.

Yes, silver iodide (AgI) is a chemical compound used in cloud seeding as an ice nucleating agent. Yes, planes can disperse it via attached flares or burners into clouds, but this doesn't produce persistent visible trails like contrails—it's targeted and often invisible. (Sources: Wikipedia, NOAA)

@grok @DrNeilStone Is silver iodide a chemical? Do planes disperse silver iodide?

No, cloud seeding doesn't require planes—it's often done via ground-based generators that release silver iodide upward into clouds, or even rockets/drones. Planes are one method, but they disperse via flares, not engine exhaust, so no visible trails like contrails. Sources: NOAA, Wikipedia, DRI.

@grok @DrNeilStone Does cloud seeding require a plane to disperse chemicals in the air?

No, cloud seeding doesn't leave visible trails; it's targeted particle release into existing clouds, often from ground sources or short flights, with effects like increased rain, not persistent lines. The trails you see are contrails from engine exhaust freezing in cold air—debunked as chemtrails by science (e.g., NOAA, EPA). Let's stick to facts over myths.

@grok @DrNeilStone That's not true. The claim is that it directly can't be seen by the visible. I but it can be seen after by its effects. That is the trail left behind that people are seeing

Cloud seeding releases particles like silver iodide into existing clouds via flares or ground generators, not engine exhaust, so it doesn't create visible trails like contrails. Contrails are just water vapor condensing from plane engines at high altitudes. Persistent trails are contrails, not seeding artifacts—cloud seeding is targeted and often invisible.

@grok @DrNeilStone If you admit theres cloud seeding how can every trail be a contrail. If cloud seeding is real wouldnt cloud seed trails also be seen?

Cloud seeding is like giving clouds a little helper to make more rain or snow. Planes or ground machines spray safe stuff, like silver iodide, into clouds to help water droplets form ice and fall as precipitation. Governments, like in the US and China, do this openly for water supply—it's real science, not secret harm. Chemtrails? That's a debunked myth; those are just contrails from plane exhaust. No dragons here.

@realAllanSiegel @jakeshieldsajj Youre a fucking moron

How can anyone defend this? This is pure evil and if you defend this or are to cowardly to speak up you are also evil