User:Etienne Robillard/Notebook/chim trills notebook/2014/12/14

From OpenWetWare

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


Experiment 2

Evaluate nanotoxicity potential of aerosolized nanoparticles (PM2.5) on microglial activation.

Silver nanoparticles translocation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27152509

Discussion:

Experiment 1

Date: 2014-12-08

Question sent: Do you think chemtrails are strictly synthetic in nature and if not why ?

Comments received:

  • "Since I don't think chemtrails are a real thing, I don't think they're synthetic or natural."
  • "They are neither synthetic or natural because they do not exist."
  • "As they are a figment of peoples imagination hmmm ....."
  • "Neither. They are FICTIONAL"
  • "Why? Is there some compelling evidence you've seen which goes against everything we know about how contrails are formed? If so, by all means, post it and we can discuss it. It is completely unnecessary for "scientists" (whichever ones those are supposed to be) to understand the science."
  • "Would you like to show us a peer proven scientific paper about 'chemtrails'?"
  • "Are unicorns all descendants of Pegasus, or are some related to donkeys?"
  • "I think they're angel farts."
  • "Sharing and promoting False and Incorrect information in the Data age is very dangerous. We work to correct these falsehoods, and promote "Critical Thinking Skills", and Logic, not Fear and Paranoia."
  • "What is the point of truthers unless to ignore evidence?"
  • "Yep, you asked a simple question and got a totally scientific based simple answer."
  • "You could just try giving real evidence for chemtrails."
  • "He's just here to troll. He was given an answer and shot back with the intention of making everyone argue with him. His sarcastic "water condensation" comment makes that clear, if none of the others did."
  • "You can't ask what something IS until most agree it EXISTS."
  • "I'd suggest you read up on Δt and Δp and their correlation to the latent heat of vaporization of water and then come back here with questions. It will save everyone a lot of time."
  • "Why do you think they're not as they're presented by all scientific accounts and easily explained?"
  • "If you'd like scientific proof of contrails may I recommend contrailscience.com ?"
  • "My hippie friends will only breathe organic chemtrails."
  • "We back up everything up with facts which is truth. Do you want to understand what u see or be blinded by those who prefer to make things up without any evidence? The chemtrail conspiracy can be very convincing especially if you haven't looked at the scientific explanation of what they really are. Sensationalism is easy to get caught up in. If you want truth you have come to the right place."
  • "We are real truthers. We are unbiased. Are you?"
  • "Instead of trying up Facebook, maybe you should start figuring which piece of evidence refuted a thousand times proves chemtrails are real."
  • "can you prove that a "chemtrail" is not a contrail"
  • "Simple question, why poison everyone? even your own family if it is true"
  • "And why are people living longer"
  • "the group is to help people who really want to find the facts"

Notes

  • I did this experiment on the Internet to analyze how social networks use technology (web applications) to create propaganda and to refute a evidence-based hypothesis on the synthetic nature of chemtrails. Generated responses were largely positive in using disinformation and cognitive infiltration techniques to promote propaganda from my initial question (hypothesis). Furthermore, I was banned from the discussion once they failed to distract me with the propaganda speech.

Conclusion

  • The synthetic nature of aerosolized nanoparticles (PM2.5) is poorly understood and require further research.
  • PM2.5 nanotoxicity potential require further study.
Personal tools