Coal Fly Ash “Is More Toxic Than Radioactive Waste”

By: Sayer Ji

While it is clear that weather modification programs focused on enhanced precipitation are being conducted across the country using silver iodide, as recently exposed by our contributor Dave Dahl’s documentary “Artificial Clouds,” and that the result is global changes in weather patterns, exemplified by the temperature changes observed after thepost-9/11 airplane grounding, the global geoengineering program appears to be a far greater threat to planetary health.

What Herndon’s research uncovered is that, “[T]oxic coal combustion fly ash is the most likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of the multifold consequences on public health.”

He arrived at this conclusion through the following methods:

“Two methods are employed: (1) Comparison of 8 elements analyzed in rainwater, leached from aerosolized particulates, with corresponding elements leached into water from coal fly ash in published laboratory experiments, and (2) Comparison of 14 elements analyzed in dust collected outdoors on a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter with corresponding elements analyzed in un-leached coal fly ash material. The results show: (1) the assemblage of elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and (2) the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical.”

Coal fly ash is a fine particle residue generated by coal combustion and is an extremely toxic material for the primary 3 reasons:

1)   Because of its nanoparticle range sizing not only can it enter more easily into human tissue through skin, oral, or pulmonary contact, but it may also have greater toxicity due to its ability to mimic hormones and/or pass through cell membranes and altering nuclear programs to adversely alter cell phenotype.

2)   It contains a wide range of heavy metals, including inorganic forms of aluminum and arsenic which are highly toxic to biological systems. It’s mercury content can range as high as 1 part per million.1

3)   It contains low-dose radioisotopes which can have profound, severe chronic adverse health effects several orders of magnitude higher than present toxicological risk assessments account for. Herndon states, “Coal fly ash has been described as being more radioactive than nuclear waste [24].”


As Herndon states, “The consequences [of coal fly ash exposure] on public health are profound, including exposure to a variety of toxic heavy metals, radioactive elements, and neurologically-implicated chemically mobile aluminum released by body moisture in situ after inhalation or through transdermal induction.”

Disturbingly, the EPA recently ruled that coal fly ash is not to be considered a “hazardous waste,”2despite overwhelming evidence that contains dozens of compounds that individually present a serious enough environmental and human health risk to be classified and regulated as hazardous to health.

When you consider that the EPA requires coal firing electrical plants to sequester the coal fly ash due to its known toxicity as a pollutant, the hypocrisy here is astounding. Of course, this ruling would protect those orchestrating the behind-the-scenes geoengineering agenda of using the electrical power industry’s toxic byproduct: millions of tons of coal fly ash, as a “beneficial” substance used to “combat global warming,” even though the end result is the same: releasing a highly toxic material directly into the troposphere.


  1. do you receive my emails to you, nomad? i’m never quite sure if your address starts with an -i- or an -L. if i am wasting my time, please do me the favor if saying that you’re receiving them, and are choosing not to respond.



    1. how are you, wendy? alas, i forget to check my email. will do so now.

      1. i’d meant to respond earlier to say that i’ve sent everal to both address versions to save you time. it seems that being comrades just isn’t in the stars for the two of us.

        but my best heart to you.

    2. ok. i see new post notifications. my email is

    3. Well. I don’t know about that. I’ve just been keeping a low profile lately. I certainly would have responded to your emails had I received them. Don’t know what happened. I also checked my spam box.

      1. then let me apologize for making a hasty conclusion. i’d figured i’d vexed you; i do have that effect on some folks, heh.

        anyhoo, in one, i’d sent this from the Playing for Change folks. it’s hawt.

        i’d sorta hoped you might have wanted to weigh in on my Bernie Sanders Interrupters post. 😉


    4. Quite a discussion going on there. I heard about the incident but don’t know enough about it to feel one way or the other. As for Sander’s candidacy, he would certainly be preferable to Hillary. Doesn’t matter. They’re Democrats. Their political credibility has been utterly destroyed in my mind. Obama has demonstrated to me what Democrats do even when they hold all the cards, as he did in 2009. Bernie’s not going to mess with Israel or the military. While he’ll probably be good for social issues and healthcare it will be only marginal if he doesn’t rein in the banks and wall street. I have no confidence that he would. But mainly I am not standing by a regime that enables genocide and drone murder. If he wins the nomination, short of some miraculous epiphany on Bernie’s part, I will not vote for him. Or any Democrat. Jill Stein is where I’m leaning.

      1. yes to all of it, although i dunno if i’ll even vote for a Prez candidate this year. but forgive my addlepated brain for having thought (in error) that you’d brought a link to paul street deconstructing ‘the bern’.

        peace to you,

      2. Ah,yes. I tried to follow some of the discussion there but I’m too far behind. It is enlightening though. I didn’t bring that link but here’s one discussing the difference between Obama/Clinton and Bernie. The author really pegs Obama. One of the best Obama critiques I’ve ever read.

      3. may be so, but zuesse is on board with ‘the bern’? sorry: fail. i won’t bother you further, i really have zero time to email. i thought you might like my ‘resistance art’ diary, though.

      4. Fail. I good choice of words. The failure is yours. A failure to understand. I have stated before that my links do not necessarily presume that I am on board with the author’s views or the political orientation of the website. I am presenting specific aspects of the article linked to. I will not say this again.
        “zuesse is on board with ‘the bern’”
        Well d’uh. Don’t you think I know that? That was not the aspect of the link that I was directing you to. I specifically pointed to his critique on Obama. That was what I found interesting/informative/enlightening.

        As for having no time for emails, that is neither here nor there. From my end this is commentary on my blog. I reserve the right to reply to comments on my blog at my own discretion.

      5. i seem to be pissing people off left and right with my failure to communicate, what i’d meant to convey was that A, who owns washingtonsblog, would not likely be on board with bernie at all. i was so surprised that i had to go back to the beginning to see who had authored the piece.

        that’s all

      6. No probs. I’m just chillin. But taking note of something in the ether. I just had a dust up with the self same zeusse and a couple othet guys at washington’s blog. Might be something in the air. Might just be me.

        Wendy. Zeusse told me to go to Stormfront! LOL!

      7. times are fraught, for certain. but stormfront? how dismissively rude. i couldn’t tell who you are there, but…that’s harsh. yikers!

      8. thanks. i don’t mean to send you off on tangents but it was totally out of the blue on a comment i made 4 months earlier! he had declared FDR was justified in deceiving us into WW II.

        I said:

        nomadfiles 4 months ago
        A justified false flag. Amazing. [quoting Zeusse] ” Being a nation’s leader entails the making of a few choices that are like this: an injustice sometimes needs to be done in order to prevent there being an even bigger injustice.” You mean like dropping the atomic bomb? Or droning wedding parties?

        he said

        cettel 5 days ago
        Yes, a justified false-flag. It was the only remaining hope for the possibity (which is all it was at the time) that Hitler would be defeated. I am amazed at the number of readers at this site who wish that Hitler had succeeded. Go to StormFront, instead: you don’t belong here.

        (cettel is Zeusse)

        A couple of other people there attacked me for no apparent reason on another post. I guess that’s why I’m a little bit defensive lately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: