Showing posts with label illness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illness. Show all posts

Sunday, May 8, 2011

What Happens When Gas Drillers Are Exempt from Environmental Law

An Inside Look
Rancher Chris Velasquez knows first hand what gas drilling has done to communities, and the land, water and wildlife of New Mexico.
By Andrea Peacock, AlterNet
Posted on May 8, 2011

BLANCO, New Mexico -- Chris Velasquez sees the impacts of gas development in the San Juan Basin of northern New Mexico through the eyes of a rancher, and those of a man whose roots in this country pre-date both the gas rigs and the arrival of Anglos.

He and his dad ran cattle, until recently, on a grazing allotment called the Rosa, rolling high desert lands punctuated by bluffs and arroyos, ringed by mesas, adjacent to the Carson National Forest on the east, the Southern Ute reservation to the north, and bordered on the west by Navajo Lake. In a way, it's what's left of Velasquez' ancestral homeland. "We used to live where the Pine River and the San Juan meet up here, then when they built the lake, it either was drown or move," he says. In 1962, the Bureau of Reclamation completed a dam stretching three-quarters of a mile across the San Juan River. The idea was to control flooding and provide irrigation water for the Navajo tribe. It also displaced Velasquez' community. "All my ancestor's on my mom's side, well on my dad's side too, came from right up here," he says. "My grandpa and my grandma on my mom's side, they were the second farm below the dam. They got chased out too. From right here on, all the people who lived here -- they were all Spanish people -- relocated. Threw them to the four winds. Scattered them all over the place."

The Velasquez family wasn't blown far: his dad bought a place near Blanco, New Mexico, the nearest town with a name, a short drive west and south of their former home. The entire clan now lives and ranches on about 320 acres they share with 17 gas wells. "My dad's the one that started the ranch, but we've always had animals," he says. It was the former owners who sold the mineral rights back in the 1930s or 40s. "So they've been after this area for a long time," he says. "They've been hammering it, it didn't happen overnight. They had a vision for it."

The gas industry pumps three billion cubic feet of natural gas every day out of the San Juan Basin, which straddles the New Mexico-Colorado border. Only about seven percent of the land in this part of New Mexico is private, the rest divided between the state, feds and tribes. As of winter 2010, the San Juan gas field ranks second in production volume only to the Powder River basin of Wyoming. Some 3,000 compressors run 24 hours a day, seven days a week pressurizing gas from about 23,000 wells, lighting up the canyons and hilltops in all directions. Gas companies have punched in two and half miles of road for every square mile of land -- that's 5,400 miles worth -- nearly all dirt roads through wild country.

Though ConocoPhillips is the largest, more than 130 companies lease through the BLM here, subcontracting out everything from road construction to water hauling, putting hundreds of operators with trucks on these back roads every day of the year. While the field was officially discovered in 1927, this was ground zero for coal-bed methane (gas extracted from between layers of coal seams -- held in place by water, released when the water is drawn out), and business boomed in the 1980s, industrializing the otherwise rural landscape.

Velasquez and his family trucked cattle to the Rosa each summer for nearly two decades. His daughters spent their childhoods on horseback, camping out, wrangling. He points out abandoned homesites near natural springs, fishing holes that were rich with native squawfish before the dam, canyons containing rock art and Anasazi ruins, places of adventure from his childhood. Velasquez set aside 10,000 of those acres for wildlife conservation in 1996, a winter closure to give the mule deer some respite after his girls watched hunters on off-road vehicles chase a small herd into a pond where they nearly drowned. "My youngest daughter would call them the murderers," he says. "They can hunt on here, but they have to walk. They can't drive their vehicles. And there was some pissed off hunters."

Velasquez was a model rancher, and had a good working relationship with the BLM. In 1995 the agency nominated him for an Excellence in Range Management award, which he won. He and another rancher, Linn Blancett of Aztec, served on the Oil and Gas Ranchers Working Group.

The BLM office out of Farmington, New Mexico, manages leases for all the federal land in this portion of the basin, accounting for most of the active wells (the rest are under state or private lease). In advance of drilling, the BLM normally undertakes a massive planning effort, setting guidelines so exploration and production won't unduly affect wildlife, destroy archeological sites, dirty the air and water; so roads will be correctly built and maintained, wells will be placed appropriately for the terrain. And giving the public a chance to review and comment in advance of the dozers and drilling rigs. Or at least that was the process until the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in which the Bush Administration pushed through Congress a five-year pilot project called "categorical exclusions" in which the oil and gas industries were exempt from federal environmental laws.

Farmington BLM director Steve Henke says his office still performed all those analyses, they just did so outside the public eye. "It was a full environmental review with the same components of an environmental assessment with the exception that we didn't formally document and analyze alternatives," he says. "And we handled most of that just out in the field with that discussion saying, 'We're close to an arch site, or we're in a bald eagle area or a winter restriction area or, you staked this on a slope that's just not acceptable, we need to move it.'"

Henke says he'd bet no one could look at any particular set of well pads and tell which was approved with a formal environmental review, and which went forward under President Bush's 'categorical exclusion' experiment.

Rancher Velasquez would agree, though not for the reasons Henke intends. His experience on the Rosa, he says, has led him to believe that the rules on paper -- BLM regulations, state wildlife guidelines, the industry's own 'Good Neighbor' program -- are regularly ignored in the field. After my talk with Henke, Velasquez takes me on a day-long tour of the Rosa. We start out on a chilly February morning, during the wet winter of 2010 when road conditions were at their worst. We have a hard time finding any site that appears to meet all BLM requirements: we find inadequate and fallen fences, open gates, puddles and catch basins of viscous liquid, leaky pipes everywhere. Ruts in the roads approach and exceed six inches, the point at which BLM regs state they should be shut down and fixed.

Henke tells me his team of 30 inspectors intends to attempt to get out to each well pad once every three years, and has been coming pretty close to that goal lately. If someone calls with a complaint, they'll check it out. But jurisdiction and oversight are complex. The BLM keeps track of things like fencing and road conditions, while the state tracks air and water quality. Folks with complaints have a hard time figuring out whom to call. And then the companies themselves are always merging, buying and selling leases. As one woman put it, "You start out reporting this cattle guard and they say, 'Well, it's not ours, call BP.' And BP says, 'Well, it's not ours. Call Conoco.' And they said, 'Well, it's not ours. Call Williams.' You go around the circle and when you get to this one there, they say 'It's not ours, call Conoco.' Where you started, you know."

When I mention the conditions I witnessed on the Rosa to the acting director of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, the state's main industry group, Deborah Seligman asks me why I didn't report the violations. "Did you write them down? You took pictures. Did you call them?"

If we saw 100 wells that day, I reply, is it my job to track down and notify each company? Whose job is it? I ask her. Is it the rancher's job? Because, I'm thinking, he's already got a job.

No, she agrees, it's the industry's responsibility, and she maintains they police themselves just fine.

In 2005, Velasquez and Blancett walked out on the BLM ranchers' working group. It was, Velasquez says, a waste of his time. "I used to spend a lot of time with the guys from the BLM," he says. "I thought I was doing good, we were making progress. I found out I was just chasing my tail.

"We were fighting the same thing over and over again. They'd tell us in the meetings, 'Well, we got everything taken care of.' Okay, let's go out and look at it. I'll be darned if the first time we stopped here, it hit them right in the nose. 'Oh it shouldn't be like that. We're going to get it fixed. Next time you come out here it's gonna be fixed. We're gonna have it done.' Yeah right.

"We were the only suckers who weren't getting paid."

A year later, Velasquez gave up on the Rosa as well. Basically, he says, cattle and gas development on this scale can't co-exist. There's the constant traffic of water-hauling and maintenance trucks, heavy machinery scraping away at the muddy roads, drilling and fracturing rigs. Animals get hit. They drink from temporary reserve pits, catch basins, and puddles containing the byproducts of gas production: methanol, glycol, antifreeze used to defrost transmission pipes.

Velasquez documented as his animals lost on average a sixth of their weight in four years. He took pictures of cows and calves losing hair at their muzzles, a sign they'd been drinking polluted water. He had the herd tested for petroleum products -- a $4,500 endeavor -- and found all but two were positive for at least trace amounts. He sent pond water to a lab when he suspected it had been contaminated after a near-by reserve pit overflowed its berm. When eight of his cattle died in one week, he footed the bill for the autopsy ($550 for one animal). "When they opened her up, her liver had turned light pink, and it disintegrated as soon as the air hit it. It was like mushy at first when you pick it up with your fingers, then it just went through your fingers. Dissolved," he says. "And it's a slow death, it's not something that they can die right away from it. They kind of walk around there, with their head down until finally they lay down and die. All their organs quit on them."

When twenty of his cows got into some glycol or methanol-laced water, he lost that year's calves. He shows me the test results, the receipts for all this, as well as the response from Phillips Petroleum when --18 months after the year of the lost calves -- they sent him a check for $9,900 for the "alleged" poisoning. "This is just a small token for what they've done," he says. "They've contaminated my entire outfit. They'll pay, but they won't admit wrongdoing."

Phillips, now merged into ConocoPhillips, declined to be interviewed for this story, but sent an email stating, "as the largest operator/producer in the basin, ConocoPhillips constantly seeks ways to mitigate the impact of drilling and production."

Velasquez' frustration isn't just a matter of the hits to his pocket book. He points out, as we drive deeper into the Rosa, how the sagebrush, juniper and piƱon trees get smaller, scragglier, and eventually, deader. Mule deer populations are down, he is sure though both the state and the feds have no data on the matter -- they have no pre-drilling baseline data, so no one is keeping track in any kind of statistically meaningful way, wildlife specialists from both the BLM and New Mexico Fish and Game tell me.

We come across the carcass of an emaciated fawn by the side of the road, not scavenged by coyotes. "See when they drink that methanol and that glycol, the coyotes and the wildlife won't eat it, they know it's contaminated," Velasquez says. As a former road maintenance employee of San Juan County, he's got the expertise to grouse at the condition of the roads. "This company, they've extracted enough gas just out of the Rosa to have this road paved and done correctly. See how the roads, the water just piles up in the middle like this? That's where the erosion and sediment comes in. ... When the mud gets real heavy they'll bring in them big dozers like V-8s or V-9s, and they'll plow that road until they find dry ground, and they'll just shove that dirt completely off the road."

His frustration has built over the years, the result of dozens of accidents, slights and insults. He tells of the time a semi-sized rig climbing a steep grade locked onto his horse trailer so neither could move. The supervisor should have been ahead on the road, he says, making sure the way was clear. Another day, a water truck driver coming fast around a curve slammed on his breaks and slid sideways. "It damn near landed on top of us. I was so damn scared I couldn't even open the door to get out and chew him out."

Twenty years ago, Velasquez locked the gate leading to his private land, closing out a bulldozer driver who wanted to use the road as a shortcut to a project on BLM land. The company called the sheriff, and Velasquez was sure he'd go to jail. In a repeat performance last year, the dozer driver thought he might just push through the gate anyway. "They were trying to figure out if they could run me over with that blade they had," he says. "The sheriff told them, 'You better not. You're asking for trouble if you do that.'"

Velasquez dotes on his grandson, a blue-eyed toddler with his own hat and pony who lives next door and loves to ride on the tractor with his granddad. "I've got plans for him," Velasquez says. "I don't know how much of it will be left, but he'll take over what we've got. If he wants it."

Whatever the boy decides, the Rosa won't be part of his future. Velasquez sold off his share in 2006, a sacrifice to the gods of the gas patch.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Coast Guard Photos Show Spill Workers Without Protective Gear

by Sasha Chavkin, ProPublica | Tuesday, July 13, 2010 by ProPublica

There's something missing in the Coast Guard's latest PR photos of oil spill cleanup workers: protective gear.
No less than three items required for beach cleaning operations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- coveralls, rubber boots, and in one case, gloves -- are absent in pictures of workers cleaning potentially oiled debris from beaches in Galveston, Texas on Sunday.

The photos, first noted by a Facebook group that advocates health protections for cleanup workers, were taken by a Coast Guard Petty Officer and posted to the agency's Visual Information Gallery. A caption describes the workers as "contractors working to clean the beaches in Galveston."

Cindy Coe, the southeast regional director for OSHA, said that the Personal Protective Equipment shown in one of the photographs was inadequate and that she had instructed her staff to address the problem.

"Those two individuals didn't have the right PPE, so we'll get that corrected," Coe said. "They are tracking down the contractors of those individuals."

Coe said that heat stress concerns had led OSHA to accept long pants and T-Shirts for beach cleanup workers instead of the coveralls described in agency guidelines, but that the lack of gloves and proper footwear was unacceptable.

Frank Hearl, the Chief of Staff for the government's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said that gloves, boots and protective clothing were all necessary for working with potentially oil-coated materials. Hearl hadn't seen the photos and didn't want to comment on them specifically, but said generally that while there's a trade-off between keeping workers cool enough and certain types of protective equipment, there other ways of managing heat stress, such as providing rest breaks to workers and insuring adequate hydration.
"There's a tension between the two things, and you have to deal with both," Hearl said.

We contacted the Coast Guard this morning to ask about the photos and find out which contractor was in charge of the site, but haven't yet gotten a response. We'll let you know when we hear more.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Health Risks from Oil Spill: TILT (2 articles)

"Some of the Most Toxic Chemicals that We Know"
"Every Place Can be Ground Zero"
CDC Advises "Everyone" to Avoid Oil
06-23-2010

An "epidemiologist" is a scientist who studies diseases among groups of people.
So the following quote from Bloomberg caught my eye:
Shira Kramer, an epidemiologist who has conducted research for the petroleum industry on the health consequences of exposure to petroleum, said she is concerned that the risks are being downplayed.

“It’s completely scientifically dishonest to pooh-pooh the potential here when you are talking about some of the most toxic chemicals that we know,” said Kramer....

“When you talk about community exposure, you are talking about exposures in unpredictable ways and to subpopulations that may be more highly susceptible than others, such as those of reproductive age, people who are immuno-compromised, children or fetuses.

‘With the World Trade Center, there have been unpredictable adverse health effects to the populations that were exposed and not just the workers,” she said. “In this case, we have a soup of chemicals from the crude, chemicals from the dispersants and pollutants that were already in the water. Who can say how they will interact?”
Crude oil contains such powerful cancer-causing chemicals benzene, toluene, heavy metals and arsenic.

In addition, BP has poured millions of gallons of the highly-toxic dispersant Corexit into the Gulf. And see this.

Bloomberg also notes that the Centers for Disease Control has issued health warnings about the oil:
“Although the oil may contain some chemicals that could cause harm to an unborn baby under some conditions, the CDC has reviewed sampling data from the EPA and feels that the levels of these chemicals are well below the level that could generally cause harm to pregnant women or their unborn babies,” the CDC said on its website.

While they suggest there is no threat, the CDC simultaneously advised “everyone, including pregnant women” to avoid spill-affected areas.
While we must keep the risk in perspective - and while this does not mean that Gulf coast residents will suffer mass illness due to the oil spill - we should not underestimate the risks either. As Bloomberg notes:
“Oil is a complex mixture containing substances like benzene, heavy metals, arsenic, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons -- all known to cause human health problems such as cancer, birth defects or miscarriages,” said Kenneth Olden, founding dean of New York’s CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, who is monitoring a panel on possible delayed effects. “The potential here is huge and we have to be diligent about protecting the public health and these workers.”

For the public at large, the threat is less clear because of the uncertainty about the degree of exposure, Lioy said in a telephone interview.

“I don’t think the levels are high enough for concern,” he said. “But this is an ongoing event. Every day is Day One. Every place can be Ground Zero.”
Because hurricanes could spread the oil inland, it may indeed be true that almost every place on the Gulf Coast can be Ground Zero.

***


Workers cleaning up the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico have reported suffering from flu-like symptoms that may be the consequence of exposure to chemicals in the oil as well as the petroleum-derived solvent being used to disperse the spill.

The illness -- marked by headaches, fatigue, upset stomach, and problems with memory and concentration -- has been dubbed toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, or TILT. People suffering from TILT lose the ability to tolerate exposures to household chemical products, medication or even food, Dr. Claudia Miller of the University of Texas Health Science Center told WOAI TV:
"Things like diesel fuel, exposure to fragrances, cleaning agents that never bothered them before suddenly bother them," adds Dr. Miller.
Miller first described TILT in 1996, but it remains a controversial diagnosis among the medical community. The syndrome is also known as multiple chemical sensitivity and idiopathic environmental intolerance. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes of Health, has defined the illness as a "chronic, recurring disease caused by a person's inability to tolerate an environmental chemical or class of foreign chemicals."

Regardless of whether the illness being reported in Gulf cleanup workers and residents ends up being confirmed as TILT, the fact remains that the chemicals people are being exposed to in the 
oil and dispersants are known to have health impacts including eye, skin and respiratory irritation, as well as headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea and confusion. An analysis of EPA air testing data has found levels of these chemicals in coastal communities exceeding safety standards.

As of this week, the Louisiana Department of Health has documented 109 reports of illnesses among residents exposed to the spill, with 74 of those complaints coming from cleanup workers, 
according to ProPublica. In Alabama, another 19 cases of illness have been reported among people exposed to chemicals in the spill.

As 
Facing South reported, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network has been distributing safety equipment including respirators to cleanup workers -- but some workers have been threatened with firing if they wear them, apparently because of BP's liability worries.

In the U.S. Coast Guard photos accompanying this story, oil spill cleanup workers along Louisiana's coast can be seen performing their duties without respiratory protection. Concerns have also been raised about inadequate safety training being provided to workers.

Monique Harden, co-director of 
Advocates for Environmental Human Rights in New Orleans, blasted the lack of worker protections during an interview yesterday with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.

"What's happened in this situation is BP with the approval of our government has placed expediency over health protection," she said.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Citizens Demand Answers about Stratospheric Aerosol GeoEngineering

Concerned Citizens Demand Answers about Global Stratospheric Aerosol GeoEngineering Programs
Published on 03-04-2010

By Michael J. Murphy

What would you say if you were told that airplanes were regularly spraying toxic aerosols in the skies above every major region of the world? That is exactly what a group of protestors were claiming outside of the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting that was held in San Diego from February 18-22. However, inside the convention center was a different story. The scientists gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various Geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world, all under the guise that the Earth has a man-made global warming problem that can be solved in-part by spraying aerosol aluminum and other particles into the sky to block the sun. When these scientists were asked about the possibility of existing aerosol programs; they stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been implemented to date. A little confused? Why would protestors gather outside of a meeting making claims that world-wide aerosol programs were under way if scientist were only now discussing the possibility of implementing these programs? Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?

Mauro Oliveira, the Webmaster of Geoengineeringwatch.org, was one of the protestors. He claimed that the program for Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG), AKA chemtrails, has been well under way around the world. As a matter of fact, Oliveira stated that witnesses from around the globe claim that heavy aerosol spraying is occurring almost every day over just about every city. He went on to explain the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

Another group of protesters had traveled over 10 hours from a small Shasta County community in Northern California. They became concerned about SAG when many from this community began to see dramatic changes not only in the sky, but also on the ground. Trees were dying, grass was not growing and many farmers were having difficulty getting any crops to grow on their farms. The crisis prompted biologists from the community to take action by testing the soil. The results were shocking. Aluminum, barium and other elements were found to be up to thousands of times higher than normal limits. Such high quantities lead to unhealthy PH levels in the soil which can be deadly to ecological life systems. These shocking results led to additional testing of Lake Shasta with samples from the Pit River arm tributary that tested over 4,610 times the maximum contamination level of aluminum allowed in drinking water in the state of California. Also, peer reviewed scientific studies conclude that bio-available aluminum, now found in huge quantities in rain world-wide, is very harmful to flora and thus the eco-system. Ironically, these are the same substances the scientists are considering implementing in the various potential “future” aerosol spraying campaigns that were being discussed at the meeting.

A large number of other protesters became interested in SAG after experiencing burning eyes, migraine headaches, anxiety, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and other health problems on days that airplanes were allegedly witnessed spraying aerosols in the sky. Deborah Whitman, Founder and President of the non-profit environmental organization Environmental Voices and also Producer of the documentary “Sky Lines” is no stranger to these symptoms. She has been hospitalized over 51 times on what she calls “heavy spraying days”. Whitman has committed her life to helping people who claim to be experiencing similar problems resulting from aerosol spraying and gets calls from all over the U.S. in response to her website and documentary. Her recommended health tips can be found at www.environmentalvoices.org. Other indicators that possibly validate the claim that SAG is connected to health problems are the respiratory mortality rate, which has risen from eight on the list of mortality to third in the past five years, and the fact that Alzheimer’s and other illnesses linked to aluminum have continued to rise around the globe at astronomical rates since the inception of the alleged spraying.

The AAAS meeting hosted some of the world’s leading geoengineering scientists. With years of education and even more experience in their respected fields, the scientists looked at geoengineering issues from many angles. Workshop subjects ranged from, the effectiveness of geoengineering to potential problems and even touched upon the issue of ethics. According to independent reporter Stewart Howe of Los Angeles, all of the scientists seemed to be looking for solutions to what they believe is the problem of global warming. Howe stated that the scientists appeared to be carefully weighing both the pros and cons of SAG when presenting potential campaigns to address the man-made global warming theory. Many were actually advocating alternative methods to combat this issue due to the potential risks of SAG that include droughts, ozone depletion, less solar power, decimated weather patterns, military use of technology and other various environmental impacts. Howe said, “after witnessing the aerosol spraying for years, I was surprised by the discourse among scientists.” Stewart went on to say that he believes that most of the scientists attending seemed to be separated from the knowledge of any current SAG deployment. As a matter of fact when asked about current SAG operations, leading geoengineering scientist Ken Caldiera replied that he was unaware of any current aerosol spraying operations and when prompted to explain the long lingering trails left behind planes, he stated that they are simply normal contrails from jets.

David Keith, another leading scientist and expert in the field of geoengineering, discussed the well-funded studies that have been conducted to predict potential future risks as well as benefits associated with geoengineering. Some of the potential benefits include a cooler planet, and the reduction of melting sea ice and rising sea levels. Keith discussed what aerosol particles would be most effective in achieving the stated goals of the SAG program. He went on to say that initially sulfur was considered, however, aluminum is more effective and can be used by adding ten to twenty mega-tons per year into the stratosphere. When asked about health related studies that have been conducted to predict the potential risks of adding the particles in our air, Keith stated that many studies have been completed and indicate few risks. However, when asked specifically about the use of aluminum as an aerosol, he said “we haven’t done anything serious on aluminum, so there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we haven't looked at." After the meeting, Keith showed consideration to the protesters by initiating a discussion about the SAG program outside where the protesters were standing. When confronted with concerns about SAG deployment from the group, he went on to say that he shared similar views and is against any deployment until proper research is completed to determine potential risks of aerosol spraying. He also went on to say that he is unaware of any current SAG operations, but, would be willing to look at any scientific proof if presented to him.

As the skies around our world continue to change, there is strong evidence that points toward current deployment of massive aerosol operations. Could it be that scientific data and studies are being used to implement pre-mature full-scale SAG programs with-out the knowledge of the top scientists who are involved with the research? If so, what kind of ethical considerations can we expect from the geoengineering community in the future? It is hard to believe that the strange white lines in the skies witnessed around the world and the toxic elements found in the soil, water and air are from an unrelated source. We the people, in partnership with the scientific community need to challenge not only the environmental and health risks associated with SAG but also the numerous world-wide allegations about current deployment. It is imperative that we become educated and involved in uncovering the truth of this alleged crime against both nature and humanity. The future of our planet depends on it. As concerns continue to grow around the world about this issue, additional information including meet-up groups can be found on various chemtrail and geoengineering websites.