During a community gathering, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., made a bold claim about a potentially harmful activity involving the Defense Department’s research and development team. Kennedy’s comments were in response to a query from a participant named Emily, who expressed concern over what she termed ‘stratospheric aerosol injections’ frequently administered in the U.S.
She specifically made references to a cocktail of chemicals – bromium, aluminum, and strontium – to back her claim that these substances were being discharged into the skies on a consistent basis. Provoked by her worry, Emily quizzed, ‘Yes, how do we put an end to it?’ In response, Kennedy discounted the involvement of his agency in such deeds, pointing fingers instead at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
He further commented that the source of these emanations was now primarily through the jet fuel used by airplanes, stating, ‘these matter are infused in the fuel for jets. I commit to employing all in my authority to curb this.’ Kennedy’s revelation seems to align with the longstanding ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy theories, which suggest a fouling of the atmosphere by toxic chemicals purportedly released by the government’s airplanes.
In our effort to understand the viability of Kennedy’s assertion, we undertook a study into the constituents of jet fuel. We ascertained that planes, in their regular operations, do not discharge jet fuel as part of a defense program. In fact, the trail of clouds that ensues during flight, also known as contrails (short for condensation trails), are essentially ice crystals, and not jet fuel emissions.
Jet fuel, on the other hand, is predominantly a combination of hydrogen and carbon compounds with minute traces of additives. Only under extraordinary circumstances, usually emergencies, would planes dispose of jet fuel at such heights or in isolated regions. Emily raised the subject of ‘stratospheric aerosol injections’, presumably referring to the scientific premise of disseminating reflective aerosol particles into the stratosphere with a view to deflect sunlight and thus mitigate global warming.
However, atmospheric science experts, who are well-acquainted with this notion, maintained that they have no knowledge of any ongoing interventions implicating the sky with such injections in substantial amounts. One such expert refuted any existence of evidence in the public domain that corroborates the concept of deliberate material discharge in the stratosphere on a large scale. Rocket exhaust is the only exception, though the amounts are relatively small.
Interestingly, Kennedy drew a connection between the substances mentioned by Emily at the meeting, including aluminum and strontium, and jet fuel. Additionally, Emily referred to ‘bromium’, a term not established as a chemical element. Actual chemical elements include barium and bromine. Contrary to Emily’s claim, neither of these elements is found in jet fuel.
The core components of jet fuel are hydrocarbons, supplemented sparingly with certain other additives. Elements such as aluminum, strontium, bromine or barium are undesirable contaminants in the fuel system, which if present would exist only at very feeble concentrations – so low they would likely evade detection by most analysis methods.
According to an Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet from the year 2000, jet fuel undergoes stringent purity analysis before being put to use in aircraft. This process aims to limit impurities in the fuel being used for flight.
Kennedy’s assertion that DARPA is discharging chemicals present in jet fuel into the air by means of spraying echoes the widely discredited chemtrail conspiracy theory. However, Kennedy did not present any substantial evidence to substantiate his assertion, which consequently should be treated with considerable skepticism.
To evaluate its veracity, we had to consider the absence of concrete evidence supporting Kennedy’s statement. Like many similar conspiracy theories, it appears to be baseless and without substantial proof. Therefore, we find it fitting to assign it our most severe rating of ‘Pants on Fire!’.
To reiterate, while the conversation of potentially harmful activities within government bodies is crucial, it’s also important to approach these subjects with facts as guiding principles. Suspicion and worry may spark the discussion, but unsubstantiated claims do not further the integrity of the dialogue.
In conclusion, as responsible citizens, we should encourage transparency from government entities, but it is just as essential to come armed with verified information and a deep-seated skepticism of unfounded conspiracy theories. Engaging in baseless conjectures can stymie the progress towards truth and accountability.