By Rady Ananda
On Dec. 6, New York’s Suffolk County government will hold a public hearing on a proposal to ban aerial spraying of aluminum oxide, barium, sulfur, and other salts into the air over the county without first filing an Environmental Impact Statement with and receiving approval from the county’s Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.
Exempted from the proposed ban are aerosol spraying operations for agriculture, and for lyme disease, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), West Nile virus (WNV), and other disease vector control operations.
The hearing will be held at the Riverhead Legislative Auditorium, Evans K. Griffing Building, 300 Center Drive in Riverhead, NY at 2:30 pm.
If the public is able to convince legislators of the risk from such geoengineering operations, the legislation will then be voted on at the Dec. 20th session. Otherwise, the proposed ban will be tabled indefinitely.
Initiated by Cindy Pikoulas and her husband Jim, along with Siobhan Ciresi of Long Island Sky Watch (LISW), with the assistance of chemtrail opponent Rosalind Peterson of Agriculture Defense Coalition, the bill was finalized and proposed by legislator Edward P. Romaine (1st District). (Full text below.)
Involved in Suffolk County government since 1989, Romaine is a fiscal conservative who prioritizes saving farmland and protecting the environment. In August, he organized Long Island’s first countywide farmers market, along with the Long Island Farm Bureau.
Romaine has represented the 1st District (eastern end of Long Island) continuously since 2005. He serves on the Environment, Planning & Agriculture Committee, which voted on Nov. 28 to submit the proposed law banning such aerial spraying to a public hearing.
The Piloulases and Ciresi will speak on Dec. 6 and are urging people to “pack the hearing” to show support for the ban.
“If this proposal becomes law in Suffolk County, Long Island, it would be the first in the nation. It would be a starting point for others to follow,” said LISW in a press release. “Eventually, our governments would have to investigate why our trees are dying in record numbers; why our waters contain toxic levels of aluminum, barium and strontium; why 90% of us are vitamin D deficient; why our crops are failing; and where all of this crazy weather is coming from.”
Cindy Pikoulas of LISW spoke with New York Sky Watch radio on Nov. 20, when she advised that tree samples from Suffolk show high levels of barium, strontium and aluminum. She is asking Long Islanders to have their water and trees tested for these chemicals in order to build a body of evidence that would spur investigations by health and environment authorities.
In addition to attending the Dec. 6 hearing, Long Islanders can contact their county legislators via http://legis.suffolkcountyny.gov/legislators.html
Are Exemptions Necessary?
Though exempted under the proposed ban, disease vector spraying may be a subterfuge for weather control operations, given the extreme rarity of EEV and WNV. According to the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services:
“Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) is a rare but serious viral disease caused by a virus transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito with more severe symptoms than for West Nile virus. EEE is an arbovirus (short for arthropod-borne, meaning spread by insects). Birds are the source of infection for mosquitoes, which can sometimes transmit the infection to horses, other animals, and, in rare cases, people.
“West Nile Virus (WNV) was first seen in the US in 1999, in the New York City area of Queens. WNV can live in a number of types of birds and is passed bird to bird by certain types of mosquitoes. Occasionally, an infected mosquito will pass the virus to humans or other animals. Most healthy people do not get sick from the virus, but sometimes it may cause symptoms.”
Per the US Geological Survey, two horses caught WNV in 2011 and 12 caught EEE, none of them in Suffolk. Of humans, 43 contracted WNV in New York State in 2011, four of them in Suffolk County. Only one person contracted EEE in the entire state.
Of the other vector-borne diseases of concern to health authorities – St Louis Encephalitis, La Crosse Encephalitis, Powassan Virus, and locally-acquired Dengue Fever – no New Yorkers contracted any of them in 2011. (But 40 New Yorkers did contract Dengue Fever when traveling outside the US in 2011.)
Considering that the population of NYS is 19 million, the application of toxic chemicals purportedly to control for such rare vector-borne diseases where only 44 people became ill in 2011 seems absurd.
US health officials admit that Ugandans and Egyptians, where WNV was first discovered, develop a natural immunity before reaching adulthood. Using toxic chemicals that pollute the environment, leading to cancer and respiratory diseases, instead of allowing humans to develop immunity to such diseases is an unsustainable and irresponsible control method.
Whether these vector control spray programs are involved in other activities such as solar radiation or rainfall management is uncertain. But, in addition to the obvious jets laying chemtrails at 30,000 feet, they may be involved in contributing to the high levels of aluminum, barium and strontium found in Suffolk waters and trees.
Below is the full text of Suffolk’s proposed legislation:
WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held on [December 6], 2011, a proposed local law entitled, “A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY” now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. _____-2011, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent.
This Legislature hereby finds and determines that Suffolk County is a leader in environmental protection and has several programs to protect soil and groundwater from contamination.
This Legislature also finds and determines that air pollution is another environmental issue that can impact the health and safety of County residents and may also contaminate soil and groundwater.
This Legislature further finds and determines that concerns have been raised that business and government entities may be discharging polluting chemicals, including barium, sulfur, salts, and aluminum oxide, into the air, which may impact weather and other environmental elements.
This Legislature finds that such particulates eventually fall from the atmosphere, exposing the public to these air pollutants and, upon landing, may contaminate soil and water.
This Legislature determines that County residents may be exposed to these chemicals while they are in the atmosphere, which can cause respiratory and other health problems.
This Legislature also finds that, to protect County residents from potential harm, any person who plans to discharge these chemicals into the airspace over Suffolk County should first file an Environmental Impact Statement with and receive approval from the Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.
Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk to file a complete Environmental Impact Statement with the County prior to taking such action.
Section 2. Definitions.
As used in this law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: “PERSON” shall mean any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock association, or other entity or business of any kind.
Section 3. Requirements.
Any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk must file a completed environmental impact form, as established in Section 4 of this law, with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality and with the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature and receive the approval of the Division of Environmental Quality prior to engaging in such discharge.
Section 4. Form Established.
The Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to develop an environmental impact form to be used by persons wishing to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk. Such form shall require applicants to detail the nature and purpose of their proposed discharge and any potential environmental and/or public health impacts that may result from such discharge.
Section 5. Exemption.
The requirements set forth in this law shall not apply to any person engaging in aerosol spraying for agricultural or vector control purposes.
Section 6. Penalties.
A. Any person who violates any provision of this law shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for an initial violation, with a fine of $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
B. Any civil penalty may only be assessed by the Commissioner of Health Services following a hearing and opportunity for an alleged violator to be heard.
Section 7. Rules and Regulations.
The Commissioner of the County Department of Health Services is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and promulgate such rules and regulations as he or she deems necessary to implement and carry out the provisions of this law.
Section 8. Applicability.
This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law.
Section 9. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered.
Section 10. SEQRA Determination.
This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or (27) of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR) and within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection. The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law.
Section 11. Effective Date.
This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State.
~~~~
Related: Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails
Elizabeth Woodworth
betsylangert
bobkoehler
CasaZaza
coto2admin
cz85b
Denis Rancourt
geobear7
HeartThinks
jerseyg
laudyms
Mr. M
Michael Collins
ozspeaksup
Puddy Dunne
Rady
slindauer2010
Megan 'Verb' Kargher
tomdegan
volaar
COTO Report 
“Using toxic chemicals that pollute the environment, leading to cancer and respiratory diseases, instead of allowing humans to develop an immunity to such diseases is a more sustainable and responsible control method.”
I think there’s a major typo here — the way it reads, it says using toxic chemicals is more sustainable and responsible. Please fix, so I can send it on to important people.
thanks; just caught it myself
This isn’t going to work, one thing I know for sure is fed weaseles in on any chance they can to depopulate. “Exempted from the proposed ban are aerosol spraying operations for agriculture, and for lyme disease, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), West Nile virus (WNV), and other disease vector control operations.” Since these chemtrails were denied in the first place, this gives them their excuse to keep spraying potent damaging chemicals. All of these diseases are curable with a royal rife machine, lyme’s disease has great testimonies of people being cured with it especially, this is a little progress, but not what we need. It is just loosening the shackle but the shackle is still there. They are still going to do what whenever they can. We need to think bigger to bring an end to the entire agenda. This is a first step but I am positive this same trial of air-spraying will be revisited in the future to eliminate all air spraying.
how do we “think bigger”? how do we bring an end to their entire agenda?
I agree with you — I’m just wondering if you have concrete ideas.
If you listen to the radio interview (starting at the 2nd hour) with Cindy Pikoulas, the host and R.Peterson both support the strategy of legally banning such operations, then following up with investigations — because (we all know) they’re going to keep on with their chemtrail program.
There’s got to come a point when catching them red-handed (after law is passed banning such ops but toxic chems are found in water, soil and trees) actually spurs a confrontation. Either the states are going to start standing up to the criminal feds or we the people will have to do it ourselves.
Citizens of Suffolk County better be careful about spilling any table salt. There is a custom that you must throw a pinch over your left shoulder to ward off the Devil. So that would be two instances of discharging “salts” for which you must file a completed environmental impact form.
Apart from not exempting that type of “discharge” I think this is a marvellous step towards better environmental protection and prevention of further air pollution.
Well done!
To: Rady Ananda
The title of your article is misleading and also has some errors in text: “Suffolk Co. NY to hear proposal to ban chemtrails”.
The resolution does not “ban chemtrails”, a term our government defines as a “hoax”. Your placing a conspiracy theory front and center in this article marginalizes this entire issue. Then your article goes straight into Geoengineering without defining this real government term or the serious issues revolving around those that want to implement a whole host of Geoengineering schemes that will negatively impact all of our lives and our environment.
You define my support on this issue by referring to me as a “chemtrail” opponent. I try never to use this word because it marginalizes those that use it. I am opposed to Geoengineering projects…both ongoing and proposed in no uncertain terms. And I oppose the jet produced water vapor programs, aviation produced pollution and man-made cloud programs that change our climate. And I certainly oppose the use of particles, gases, and chemicals or salts used in a wide variety of ongoing atmospheric testing experiments. We should all object to using our atmosphere as an experimental physics laboratory.
Weather Modification programs also fall under Geoengineering schemes and some do use sea salt to enhance precipitation in Texas and other states. And a huge Geoengineering scheme proposes using sea salt to brighten clouds. The problem with using various types of salts for these programs is that the salt rains out over land areas and into fresh water streams and rivers. The salt, over time, makes the soil unproductive (unable to be used for crop production), and also destroys fresh water marine life, our drinking water and irrigation supplies.
Your article goes into subjects which are not included in this proposal: “…Exempted from the proposed ban are aerosol spraying operations for agriculture, and for lyme disease, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), West Nile virus (WNV), and other disease vector control operations. This further marginalizes and diffuses the issue we are engaged in…and you make claims which have nothing to do with this legislation. And then you add a whole section saying that our proposal exempts this issue. This legislation has nothing to do with this subject and the intermingling of this issue with Geoengineering distorts the entire process.
I understand your interest in the West Nile spraying issue but confusing the public and placing misleading information about our legislation hinders our efforts. Also your article fails to define Geoengineering and does not go into any details about this issue, instead veering off onto subjects that need attention but are not part of our efforts at this time.
Included in your article is this typographical error which needs to be corrected: “Using toxic chemicals that pollute the environment, leading to cancer and respiratory diseases, instead of allowing humans to develop an immunity to such diseases is a more sustainable and responsible control method.”
I hope that you will write another article which delves into Geoengineering issue and its current and future implications and make corrections to your current article. If you need more information on Geoengineering issues please visit either of the two Geoengineering sections on the Agriculture Defense Coalition Website: http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/
You will find in the current events Geoengineering section a new power point presentation and video on this topic which were presented on October 23, 2011. Also sections about current and proposed Geoengineering schemes.
Respectfully,
Rosalind Peterson
Rosalind ~
First, I appreciate the amount of work you have put into this field.
But, you are incorrect to assert that the bill does not exempt aerosol spraying operations for agriculture and disease vector control operations. I urge you to read the proposed legislation reproduced at the bottom of my article. (See Section 5. Exemptions.)
Next, I appreciate that you object to the use of the term “chemtrails” probably as much as doctors object to the use of the term “heart attack” when referring to myocardial infarction. However, “chemtrails” is the popular term used when referring to aerial spraying of salts, nanoparticles and who-knows-what-else.
You can’t change a meme that is globally embraced and understood, and it is foolish to try. I remember being admonished in elementary school not to call children “kids” since that term refers to goat babies. Like you, those teachers could not stop the flow of popular culture – today, human children are universally called kids.
Government forces continue to try to change the name of things as a way of obfuscating the subject. Everyone who knows anything at all about the subject understands what chemtrails are – that is the common term, and for title purposes, it’s a hell of a lot shorter.
Considering that my piece, Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, was just published in the book “Censored 2012” (as the 9th most censored topic in the US), the use of the term does not marginalize it or me. My research stands and supports the theme, despite (or because of) my use of the term “chemtrails.”
Also, to only refer to chemtrails as one aspect of geoengineering is to accept the theory that chemtrails are being sprayed to alter the climate. The evidence is not fully developed on the “why” of chemtrails, so it is scientifically erroneous to make that assumption.
For all we know, chemtrails may be about:
· sterilizing people;
· shortening their life span;
· making them ill to benefit pharmaceutical companies;
· enhancing or blocking telecommunications; or
· it may be about killing natural plants so that Monsanto’s crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand aluminum toxicity can dominate the market.
That certainly is not “geoengineering” so we should not censor ourselves in service of a theory that is not fully supported by the evidence.
Again, thanks for all your work on the topic and I urge you to consider that chemtrails may not be solely about modifying the weather.
Good Stuff Rady
thx, CH
😉
Aerial spraying of chemtrails is a WAR CRIME.
Any Local law NY gets out of this will simply make it harder for you or me to spray crops, or hire a “crop duster” it will ensure Vector Control continues unabated with spraying peoples houses for mosquitoes while sucking down that (CAFR) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report money. But hey they can scramble in 24 hours to beat the wind!
Also the confusion added by mixing cropdusting and vector control with nato jets aerial spraying chemicals, it’s set to be a cluster-fudge of fail. (Note: For improved recipe flavor If you want to add more green party confusion, add California’s “no burn day” to the reality. Yeah stay cold in the winter while chemicals rein down on your heads.) Maybe add in some IPCC Copenhagen fraud. For less confusion, differentiate between local crop dusting and high altitude chemical spraying to setting up the latest electronic battlefield, or worse(See Nick Begich below.) Such things are CLEARLY different and to lump them is idiotic but probably a tactic which will be used to cloud the current “problem, reaction, solution” iteration to be completely opposite or nullified in spirit.
A $5000 fine is nothing when you coin money, or when you are bankrolled by international banksters. Make the punishment death (by shooting the jet down), and you then have a starting point!
YES I SAID SHOOT THE JET DOWN!
Spraying chemicals is an act of war, recognize it, and deal with it that way. The people spraying are WAR CRIMINALS protected by NATO treaty.
my opinion, I can’t prove squat
Maybe NIck Begich Can prove it?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/dr-nick-begich-haarp-secret-sciences-high-tech-mind-control.html
For the record I was an aircraft electrician in the USAF I never saw aerial spraying back then, but then I worked on fighter jets, not the big cargo jets.
shoot them down
it has to be drastic change numbers have to be the force wake up america and breath the chem trails
filing done down south also;
http://newsworldwide.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/geoengineeringchemtrail-complaint-presented-to-alachua-county-committee-harold-saive-bob-tuskin/
taken from;
do you have any follow up on this, naturalrain? The hearing was in Feb. 2011… do you know if the Enviro Dept did anything?