RETRACTED: Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health
The chemtrail conspiracy theory is the belief that long-lasting contrails, which are condensation trails left by aircraft, are actually plumes of chemical agents being deliberately dispersed into the atmosphere. Proponents of this theory speculate on a variety of hidden purposes, most commonly solar radiation management and covert weather modification, though some claim the intent is population control or human experimentation.
The paper titled “Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health ” aimed to prove this conspiracy to be true. In it, the author reports a perceived increase in contrail activity beginning in 2013, allegedly from “tanker-jets,” and hypothesizes that these jets were dispersing coal fly ash, which is a byproduct of coal combustion. This assumption served as the foundation for the study, which compared the elemental composition of three sources:
● Rainwater samples collected in San Diego,
● Coal fly ash leachate (after 24-hour water extraction) from 23 European sources (as published by Moreno et al.),
● Particulate matter collected using a backyard HEPA filter in Los Angeles by a “concerned citizen”
The paper was retracted due to several major issues:
1. Incorrect Data Normalization
The author significantly underestimated the concentration of aluminum in coal fly ash. The study used a normalization value of 70,000 μg/kg, while the actual average reported by Moreno et al. (2005) was 140,000,000 μg/kg. This is off by a factor of 2000. This error propagated throughout the analysis, leading to distorted element ratio comparisons and invalid conclusions.
2. Failure to Consider Alternative Sources
The study did not account for common environmental contributors to the chemical composition of rainwater and air filter particulates, such as soil dust, sea salt, and industrial emissions. This omission further undermined the claim that the observed materials originated from coal fly ash.
3. Subjective and Speculative Language
The paper employed language that was considered speculative and insufficiently objective for a scientific publication.
