Monday, June 29, 2009
For 'chemtrail' theories, the sky is the limit
Tom Angleberger
The New River Valley-based reporter answers your questions Mondays in his column, What's on Your Mind?
Recent columns
Q: Recently I was in Floyd visiting friends when I noticed a plane flying over and what I thought was the contrail. Soon after, another plane flew over, and again I noticed the contrail. But these contrails did not disappear, instead they grew and grew. I mentioned this to my friend and he told me they were not contrails but instead were "chemtrails." I am hoping that you could tell us the scoop.
-- Bruce Rakes, Roanoke
A: In short, the chemtrails theory is that airplanes are dumping chemicals on us.
We're not just talking about crop-dusters and gypsy moth sprayers; we're talking about big jets leaving behind giant trails of chemicals that work their way down to the ground where we unknowingly breathe them in.
One chemtrails Web site I visited -- chemtrails911.com -- claims the chemtrails have been tested and confirmed to contain "bacteria, virus, human blood, and molds."
So, do you need to run for cover the next time you see a jet leaving a trail?
Dave Thomas says no. He's the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason and a chemtrails debunker. He said the chemtrails theories were popularized about 10 years ago on the Internet and a talk-radio show.
"All of the supposed hallmarks of 'chemtrails' ... can be easily explained as normal interaction of a variable atmosphere with hot, wet jet exhaust, which expands, cools and condenses as it flows around stabilizer wings," he said.
He goes on to point out that using jets to spray us just doesn't make sense.
"If the government wanted to poison citizens systematically, a low-altitude delivery vehicle like a crop-duster would work far better than scattering toxins at 30,000 feet."
One variant of the chemtrail theory, however, suggests that the government might want to spread some sort of anti-global warming stuff in the air. In that case, however, there doesn't seem to be much need for secrecy. In fact -- as Chemtrails911 notes -- the Obama administration has talked openly about this idea. The Associated Press reported in April that presidential science adviser John Holdren called such a step a last resort but said that it wasn't "off the table."
In the meantime, you'll have to decide for yourself whether you think the government really has a massive, secretly funded program of spreading chemicals with jets and what the purpose of it might be.
Q: If you break down the word "extraordinary," you get "extra" and "ordinary," which you'd think would mean the exact opposite, something like "especially ordinary," right?
-- Christine Lofgren, Roanoke
A: Webster's tells us that the prefix "extra-" means outside or beyond. Something extraordinary is beyond what is ordinary. An extramarital affair is a liaison outside of one's marriage. E.T. was "extraterrestrial" because he came from outer space.
Grammar Grumblings
Roanoke College professor Bill Hill sent me several grammar rules he'd love to get students to heed, including: " 'Alot' is not a word at all."
Apparently his students weren't the only ones. Our grammar guru, retired Virginia Tech English professor Virgil Cook, heard it "alot," too.
" 'Alot' instead of 'a lot' was one of the most common mistakes that my writing students made over my 39-year teaching career," he reported. There may not be a set-in-stone rule against it, he acknowledged, but "accomplished writers don't use the expression."
OK, but it's lots better than "lots."
Got a question? Got an answer? Call Tom Angleberger at 777-6476 or send an e-mail to woym@roanoke.com. Don't forget to provide your full name, its proper spelling and your hometown.
Look for Tom Angleberger's column on Mondays.
