Further Evidence of Coal Fly Ash Utilization in Tropospheric Geoengineering: Implications on Human and Environmental Health

Full text

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: mherndon@san.rr.com;
Journal of Geography, Environment and
Earth Science International
9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
ISSN: 2454-7352
SCIENCEDOMAIN international
www.sciencedomain.org
Further Evidence of Coal Fly Ash Utilization in
Tropospheric Geoengineering: Implications on
Human and Environmental Health
J. Marvin Herndon
1*
and Mark Whiteside
2
1
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.
2
Florida Department of Health in Monroe County, 1100 Simonton Street, Key West, FL 33040, USA.
Authors’ contributions
This work was a joint effort between the authors that is part of an ongoing collaboration aimed at
providing scientific, medical, public health implications and evidence related to the near-daily, near-
global covert geoengineering activity. Author JMH was primary responsible for geophysical
considerations. Author MW was primarily responsible for medical and public health considerations.
Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JGEESI/2017/31417
Editor(s):
(1) Teresa Lopez-Lara, Autonomous University of Queretaro, Qro, Mexico.
(2)
Mohamed Nageeb Rashed, Department of Chemistry, Aswan University, Egypt.
Reviewers:
(1) Giovanni Ghirga, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE), Rome, Italy.
(2)
Thipsuree Kornboonraksa, Burapha Univeristy, Thailand.
Complete Peer review History:
http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/17702
Received 5
th
January 2017
Accepted 30
th
January 2017
Published 3
rd
February 2017
ABSTRACT
We disclose a fourth independent line of evidence, based on the co-precipitation technique,
pointing to coal fly ash as the material utilized in tropospheric geoengineering, and describe some
of the adverse environmental and public health risks associated with its persistent application.
During a snow storm, the fluffy snow traps geoengineering-aerosol-particulates and brings them
down with the snow. The results of the ICP-MS analytical measurements of the snow-melt
particulates we tested are consistent with three independent lines of evidence that coal fly ash is
the main aerosolized particulate used for tropospheric geoengineering. Coal fly ash tropospheric
geoengineering inhibits rainfall to change weather/climate which disrupts habitats, including arable
habitats. Long periods of artificially induced drought can wreak economic disaster on farmers, and
shift the delicate balance in nature, weakening natural defenses and giving a boost to aggressive
Short Communication

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
2
pathogens. Coal fly ash when exposed to water or body fluids can release a host of toxic chemicals
including neuro-toxic aluminum in a chemically mobile form and carcinogens such as arsenic,
hexavalent chromium, and the radioactive elements, uranium, thorium and their daughter products.
The only safe geoengineering is no geoengineering at all.
Keywords: Aerosols; tropospheric spraying; weather modification; climate modification; climate
change; coal fly ash; geoengineering; particulate pollution.
1. INTRODUCTION
Currently there is much discussion in the
scientific community as to the possibility of
geoengineering our planet at some time in the
future, where geoengineering is taken to mean
the deliberate large-scale manipulation of Earth’s
environment for the purpose of weather and/or
climate modification. Yet the academic debate is
constrained to a futuristic hypothetical domain of
stratospheric geoengineering, notably without
reference to the ongoing tropospheric weather/
climate modification that has progressed covertly
with increasing scope and intensity since the late
1990s [1,2]. In recent years, tropospheric
weather/climate modification activities have
become a near-daily, near-global occurrence
witnessed by millions of people [3-5]. But there
have been no explanations from officials as to its
purpose or the risks posed to human and
environmental health. Moreover, through an
organized campaign, the public has been
deceived as to the existence, operations, and
risks [6]; there is precedent for this public and
environmental health deception.
During the 1950s and 1960s, more than one
thousand nuclear-device tests were conducted at
the Nevada Test Site (USA), which involved
detonating more than one hundred nuclear
devices aboveground [7]. Thousands of military
personnel, without being told of the potential
health risks, were deliberately exposed to
nuclear blasts, including “war game” maneuvers
that took place directly beneath the atomic
clouds [8,9]. Local residents were never clearly
informed of the risks or provided with ways to
minimize those risks [8].
Public knowledge of the potential health risks of
aboveground nuclear explosions, especially from
radioactive fallout, was minimized by both the
military and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
[10]. The fear was that adverse publicity might
have caused protests and objections to such
testing. Misleading and deceiving people about
the health risks was the usual operating
procedure; even Nevada Test Site personnel
who had suffered exposure to radiation were
routinely told that they had received less
exposure than they actually had [8]. Moreover,
non-consenting Americans, including pregnant
women and just-born infants, were surreptitiously
subjected to radioactive substances [11,12].
The military and the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission also displayed little concern for
environmental health. In a remote region of the
South Atlantic Ocean, for example, the military
detonated five bombs, three of fission type and
two thermonuclear (hydrogen), so high in the
atmosphere that the ionosphere was disrupted.
This caused a disruption in communications
lasting for several days over the region.
Subsequently, a much larger thermonuclear
bomb was detonated sufficiently high in space to
disrupt the Van Allen belts for hundreds of years
[7,13].
The aboveground nuclear testing eventually cane
to an end as a result the public outrage over the
health risks to children from strontium-90
incorporation in their bones and teeth, which was
revealed by independent scientists [14].
Now, there is a new threat to environmental
and public health posed by tropospheric
geoengineering that had its beginnings in pursuit
of the technology for weather-warfare. Military
planners have long dreamed of controlling the
weather to provide optimum conditions for their
battle strategies while providing adverse
conditions for their enemies. The technique of
cloud-seeding with silver iodide or solid carbon
dioxide (dry-ice) was used during the Vietnam
War to enhance nucleation of rain to prolong the
monsoon season so as to inhibit movement of
troops and supplies. But causing rain more-or-
less on demand was only the first step; military
planners wanted to inhibit or delay rainfall, a
technique that could be used to cripple a
sovereign nation’s agricultural economy and
cause human suffering [5]
.
The methodology to inhibit rainfall is known from
pollution studies and involves spraying micron or

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
3
submicron pollution particles into the region
where clouds form to interfere with moisture
droplets coalescing to become sufficiently
massive to form rain drops. Since the late 1990s,
numerous witnesses have observed particulate
trails sprayed by jet-aircraft across the sky. Soon
after being released, the trails start to spread out,
sometimes briefly appearing similar to cirrus
clouds before further spreading to leave a white
haze in the sky (Fig. 1). There has been a
deliberate effort to deceive the public into
believing that the particulate trails are jet
contrails made of ice crystals [6]. But contrails
only form at low temperatures and high humidity
provided there is sufficient water vapor in the
aircraft exhaust [15]. Contrails rapidly disappear
by evaporation (sublimation) into invisible
gaseous water. Contrails do not routinely leave a
persistent white haze in the sky as does
particulate spraying, which in instances of heavy
aerial spraying takes on a brownish hue.
Fig. 1. Images of tropospheric particulate
trails in the sky. Top: Geneva Switzerland,
courtesy of B. Wright; Middle: Left, Chula
Vista, California (USA), courtesy of R. Beas;
Right, San Diego, California (USA), courtesy
of J. M. Herndon; Bottom: Sacramento,
California (USA) showing white particulate
haze, courtesy of D. Whitman
The identification of the particulate-pollutant
sprayed into the troposphere has never been
openly disclosed. So far, however, there are
three independent lines of scientific evidence that
the particulate matter is coal combustion fly ash
[3-5], the light ash that in Western nations
formally exited smokestacks of coal-burning
utilities, but now by regulations must be trapped
and sequestered. Coal fly ash is a major
industrial waste product worldwide and occurs in
micron and submicron size particles which are
readily available for geoengineering with minimal
subsequent processing. But coal fly ash contains
a concentrate of many toxic elements originally
present in coal.
The purpose of this article is to disclose a fourth
line of evidence pointing to coal fly ash as the
geoengineering-utilized material and to describe
some of the adverse environmental and public
health risks associated with its persistent
application.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Co-precipitation is a widely used chemical
separation technique useful for bringing down a
trace precipitate whose abundance is too low
drop from solution on its own or to be separated
efficiently by filtration or centrifugation. By co-
precipitation the low-abundance substance can
be efficiently gathered and dropped by
simultaneous precipitation of an abundant, and
preferably flocculent co-precipitate. For example,
traces of radium can be co-precipitated with
much larger amounts of barium sulfate [16] or
plutonium can be separated from seawater by
co-precipitation with much larger amounts of
ferrous hydroxide [17]. There are industrial
variants of co-precipitation, for example, used in
gold recovery [18], water treatment [19], and
dewatering [20], that involve adding substances
to cause coagulation and flocculation followed by
sedimentation/flotation.
The principles underlying the co-precipitation
technique provide the basis for another method
to ascertain the chemical composition of the
particulate-pollution matter used for tropospheric
geoengineering. The idea is that during a
snow storm, the fluffy snow will trap the
geoengineering-aerosol-particulates and bring
them down with the snow.
Fresh snow was collected during a snowstorm on
March 31, 2016 at Pearson, Wisconsin (USA),
and allowed to melt yielding initially 105 mL of
liquid in a clean plastic container which was
allowed to slowly evaporate. After most of the

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
4
liquid had evaporated, the sample was diluted to
50 mL with 5% HNO
3
solution and vortexed to
break the solids loose from the sides of the
container. Next the sample was digested per
EPA method 200.7/6010b. After digestion the
sample was diluted to 52.5 mL and analyzed by
Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
(IPC-MS) by Northern Lake Service, Inc.
Analytical Laboratory and Environmental
Services in Crandon, Wisconsin (USA).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 2 shows the elemental analyses, normalized
to barium, indicated by X’s, of the solid matter
brought down by the snow storm. The solid red
lines indicate the ranges of the corresponding
element ratios measured in 23 samples of
European coal fly ash [21]. The blue lines
indicate similar ranges for 12 American coal fly
ash samples [22]. The variation in the ranges of
the European and American coal fly ash result
primarily as a consequence of different relative
amounts of accessory elements that occur in
coal. Variation also occurs as a result of different
physical burner conditions. Note that the X’s fall
within or very near the ranges for the entire 22
element ratios determined from the evaporated
snow-melt. This constitutes a preponderance of
evidence that the snow had captured and
brought down aerosolized coal fly ash.
Statistical treatment of the measured elemental
ratios is inappropriate as the comparison is not
being made to one related set of data but to a
group of independent sets of potentially variable
populations. Nevertheless, there are two other
independent sets of data which lend confidence
to the coal fly ash data interpretation. These are
elemental analyses of dust collected with high-
efficiency air filters run outdoors for periods of
three months, indicated by up-facing triangles,
and fibers found on grass after snow had melted,
indicated by open circles [4,5]. Whereas these
three independent data sets are compared
directly with coal fly ash, there is yet another
different type of comparison. Analytical
measurements of element ratios in filtered
rainwater, presumably leached from aerosolized
coal fly ash, are compared with laboratory
leachate data on coal fly ash [3,4]. Those results
show that the aerosolized particulate matter has
the same water-leach characteristics as coal fly
ash.
The results of the analytical measurements of the
snow-melt particulates, as described here are
consistent with three independent lines of
evidence that coal fly ash is the main aerosolized
particulate. This is also consistent with the
economics and logistics of near-daily, near-
global tropospheric spraying. Coal fly ash is a
major industrial waste product that in Western
nations must be trapped and sequestered. As
trapped it is composed of micron and submicron
size grains. Coal-burning utilities possess the
necessary production facilities for electrostatic
trapping coal fly ash. These extant facilities might
even with little difficulty add cyclone classifiers
(separators) to further separate an ultrafine
product. These facilities are out of public view
and possess the transportation infrastructure
necessary for receiving coal deliveries, which
can as well be used to deliver coal fly ash to air
bases.
Fig. 2. Element-ratios determined for melted
snow concentrate are indicated by X’s: For
comparison: Red lines and blue lines,
respectively, are the measured element-ratio
ranges of European and American coal fly
ash samples, circles are element-ratios of
samples of fibers found on grass as snow
melted in Laona, Wisconsin (USA) on March
19, 2015, and up-facing triangles are element-
ratios determined on dust collected on high-
efficiency air filters operated outdoors for
three month periods [4,5]
Furthermore, for utilization of tens of millions of
tons per year, coal fly ash is much less costly

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
5
than manufactured ultra-fine particulates.
Moreover, it has desirable properties for weather/
climate alteration. Coal fly ash retards the
nucleation of rain not only by interfering with
moisture droplet coagulation, but also by
absorbing moisture. Sprayed into the
troposphere, coal fly ash retards heat loss from
the Earth and warms the atmosphere. As the
typically dark ash settles on ice and snow it
absorbs heat and changes the albedo. All of
these properties suggest that one effect of the
ongoing tropospheric geoengineering, whether
intended or not, is to intensify the warming of the
planet. The aerosolized coal fly ash also
increases the electrical conductivity of
atmospheric moisture [21], which may be of
interest to those involved in electromagnetic
radiation activities.
During the era of aboveground nuclear testing,
the public was aware of the nuclear detonations,
although misled as to the environmental and
public health risks. The current troposphere
geoengineering differs, however, in that there is
a massive disinformation campaign to deceive
the public both about its existence and the
adverse consequences. It is therefore important
to improve upon the technique described in this
short communication and to apply it widely. One
improvement would be to simultaneously collect
a snow sample to melt for water testing
according to the published rainwater-testing
protocol [4]. The reason is that coal fly ash is
readily water-leachable and those results can be
compared to coal fly ash water-leach laboratory
measurements. Another improvement for future
investigations would be to use a portion of
the collected particulates for ICP-MS
measurements and use another portion for
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with
energy-dispersive x-ray analysis (EDX). Those
results could then be compared with similar
studies of coal fly ash.
Tropospheric geoengineering with aerosolized
coal fly ash, with its large number of toxic heavy-
metal elements, adversely affects environmental
and public health in a plethora of ways, that are
well beyond the scope of this communication.
Indeed, many of the adverse consequences
surely have not yet been envisioned. As the
scientific community has ignored the aerial
spraying and its likely consequences, we
herewith provide a brief overview of our
perceptions of those consequences which may
serve as a roadmap for future discussions and
investigations.
Life on Earth exists in complex and interrelated
interactions among diverse biota and their
physical environments. Half a century ago, in her
book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson called
attention to the senseless and pervasive damage
to Earth’s creatures and their environment
caused by widespread, reckless applications
of pesticides. Her book launched the
modern environmental movement [23]. The
environmental organizations that grew out of that
movement, however, apparently have not noticed
the new threat to virtually all biota, including
humans, from the tropospheric spraying of coal
fly ash, a threat potentially much more
devastating than that which Rachel Carson
addressed.
One major purpose of coal fly ash tropospheric
geoengineering is to inhibit rainfall either to
change weather/climate or to deliberately cripple
an agricultural economy and inflict hardship
and suffering [5]. Concerted tropospheric
geoengineering with coal fly ash disrupts
habitats, including habitats where humans have
found arable conditions. Long periods of
artificially induced drought can wreak economic
disaster on farmers, and shift the delicate
balance in nature, weakening natural defenses
and giving a boost to aggressive pathogens,
such as extreme-tolerant fungi. Added to soil
coal fly ash can alter the pH and release readily
leached toxins such as aluminum in a chemically
mobile form which is detrimental to many plants
and animals, including humans [24].
Coal fly ash is an unnatural product which when
exposed to water or body fluids can release a
host of toxic chemicals including aluminum in a
chemically mobile form. Aluminum is associated
with and implicated in human neurological
diseases, such as Autism Spectrum Disorders,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder [25-29]. Aluminum
is similarly involved in neurological disorders of
bees [30], rats [31], rabbits [32] and presumably
other creatures. Aluminum is also thought to
decrease male fertility [33]. Yet aluminum is but
one of a number of toxic heavy-metal elements
contained in coal fly ash that can be extracted by
water or by body moisture; these include, for
example, carcinogens such as arsenic,
hexavalent chromium, and the radioactive
elements, uranium, thorium and their daughter
products.
Evidence indicates that coal fly ash has been
being sprayed into the troposphere for at least 15
years, and, because the covert nature of the

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
6
operation, there have been virtually no public
health and environmental health investigations in
the scientific literature, a situation the authors
believe the scientific community should no longer
ignore. Some guidance, however, is available
from extensive studies [34] of pollution particles ≤
2.5µ across, approximately the same particle
size range of aerosolized coal fly ash [35].
Pollution particles in that size range (PM
2.5
) from
epidemiological studies are associated with:
Alzheimer’s disease [36,37], lung cancer [38],
risk for stroke [39], risk for cardiovascular
disease [40], lung inflammation and diabetes
[41], reduced renal function in older males [42],
morbidity and premature mortality [43-45],
decreased male fertility [46], low birth weight
[47], onset of asthma [48], and increased hospital
admissions [49].
Scientists should be good stewards of our planet
and strive to improve the human condition. Such
a fundamental moral orientation makes it
imperative to be publicly forthright about the risks
entailed by technologies such as tropospheric
geoengineering. The health risks to humanity and
indeed all biota posed by such geoengineering,
however shielded by the demand for national
security and secrecy, must be rigorously
explored, at least by researchers privileged to
live inside democratic societies. Should the
academics that debate a futuristic hypothetical
domain of stratospheric geoengineering, notably
without reference to the ongoing tropospheric
weather/climate modification, wake up and look
at the evidence and the implications on
environmental and public health presented here,
they might experience a sobering reality.
4. CONCLUSION
We disclose a fourth independent line of
evidence pointing to coal fly ash as the
tropospheric geoengineering-utilized material
and described some of the adverse
environmental and public health risks associated
with its persistent application. The principles
underlying the co-precipitation technique provide
the basis for this new method to ascertain the
chemical composition of the particulate-pollution
matter used for tropospheric geoengineering.
The idea is that during a snow storm, the fluffy
snow will trap the geoengineering-aerosol-
particulates and bring them down with the snow.
The results of the ICP-MS analytical
measurements of the snow-melt particulates are
consistent with three independent lines of
evidence that coal fly ash is the main aerosolized
particulate, published in the scientific literature
between 2015-2016 [3-5].
One consequence of coal fly ash tropospheric
geoengineering is to inhibit rainfall to change
weather and/or climate. Concerted tropospheric
geoengineering with coal fly ash disrupts
habitats, including arable habitats. Long periods
of artificially induced drought can wreak
economic disaster on farmers, and shift the
delicate balance in nature, weakening natural
defenses and giving a boost to aggressive
pathogens.
Coal fly ash is an unnatural product which when
exposed to water or body fluids can release a
host of toxic chemicals including aluminum in a
chemically mobile form which is implicated in or
associated with human neurological diseases,
such as Autism Spectrum Disorders,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder. Aluminum is similarly
involved in neurological disorders of bees, rats,
rabbits and presumably many other creatures.
Coal fly ash contains a number of toxic heavy-
metal elements that can be extracted by water or
by body moisture; these include, for example,
carcinogens such as arsenic, hexavalent
chromium, and the radioactive elements,
uranium, thorium and their daughter products.
The only safe geoengineering is no
geoengineering at all.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. McNutt, M. Ignorance is not an option.
Science. 2015;347:1293.
2. Sikki T. A critical theory of technology
applied to the public discussion of
geoengineering. Technology in Society.
2012;34:109-117.
3. Herndon JM. Aluminum poisoning of
humanity and earth's biota by clandestine
geoengineering activity: Implications for
india. Curr. Sci. 2015;108:2173-2177.
4. Herndon JM. Obtaining evidence of coal fly
ash content in weather modification
(geoengineering) through analyses of post-
aerosol spraying rainwater and solid
substances. Ind. J. Sci. Res. and Tech.
2016;4:30-36.

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
7
5. Herndon JM. Adverse agricultural
consequences of weather modification.
Agrivita Journal of Agricultural Science.
2016;38:213-221.
6. Shearer C, West M, Caldeira K, Davis SJ.
Quantifying expert consensus against the
existence of a secret large-scale
atmospheric spraying program. Environ.
Res. Lett. 2016;084011.
7. Bertell R. Planet earth, the latest weapon
of war: A critical study into the military and
the environment. The Women's Press:
London; 2000.
8. Fradkin PL. Fallout: An american nuclear
tragedy. Johnson Books: Boulder,
Colorado; 2004.
9. Institute of Medicine N.R.C. Exposure of
the american people to iodine-131 from
nevada nuclear-bomb tests: Review of the
national cancer institute report and public
health implications. National Academy
Press: Washington, DC; 1999.
10. Miller RL. Under the cloud: The decades of
nuclear testing. Two-Sixty Press:
Woodlands, Texas; 1991.
11. Commerce H.C.o.E.a. American nuclear
guinea pigs: Three decades of radiation
experiments on u.S. Citizens; United
States Congress; 1968.
12. Goliszek A. In the name of science: A
history of secret programs, medical
research, and human experimentation. St.
Martin's Press: New York; 2003.
13. Hess WN. The effects of high altitude
explosions; NASA: Washington, DC; 1964.
14. Reiss LZ. Strontium-90 absorption by
deciduous teeth. Science. 1961;134:1669-
1673.
15. Schumann U. On conditions for contrail
formation from aircraft exhausts.
Meteorologisch Zeitschrift. 1996;5:4-23.
16. Doerner HA, Hoskins WM. Co-precipitation
of radium and barium sulfates. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1925;47:662-675.
17. Wong KM. Radiochemical determination of
plutonium in sea water, sediments and
marine organisms. Analy. Chim. Acta.
1971;56:355-364.
18. O'Connor CT, Dunne RC. The flotation of
gold bearing ores-a review. Minerals
Engineering. 1994;7:839-849.
19. Matilainen A, Vepsäläinen M, Sillanpää
M. Natural organic matter removal
by coagulation during drinking water
treatment: A review. Advances in
Colloid and Interface Science. 2010;159:
189-197.
20. Uduman N, Qi Y, Danquah MK, Forde GM,
Hoadley A. Dewatering of microalgal
cultures: A major bottleneck to algae-
based fuels. Journal of Renewable and
Sustainable Energy. 2010;2:012701.
21. Moreno N, Querol X, et al. Physico-
chemical characteristics of european
pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. Fuel.
2005;84:1351-1363.
22. Suloway JJ, Roy WR, Skelly TR,
Dickerson DR, Schuller RM, Griffin RA.
Chemical and toxicological properties of
coal fly ash; Illinois Department of Energy
and Natural Resources: Illinois; 1983.
23. Carson RL. Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin:
Boston, MA; 1962.
24. Sparling DW, Lowe TP. Environmental
hazards of aluminum to plants,
invertibrates, fish, and wildlife. Rev.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996;145:1-127.
25. Bondi SC. Prolonged exposure to low
levels of aluminum leads to changes
associated with brain aging and
neurodegenreation. Toxicol. 2014;315:1-7.
26. Good PF, Olanow CW, Perl DP.
Neuromelanin-containing neurons of the
substantia nigra accumulate iron and
aluminum in parkinson's disease: A lamma
study. Brain Research. 1992;593:343-346.
27. Prasunpriya N. Aluminum: Impacts and
disease. Environ. Res. 2002;82:101-115.
28. Rondeau V, Jacqmin-Gadda H,
Ciommenges D, Helmer C, Dartigues JF.
Aluminium and silica in drinking water and
the risk of alzheimer's disease or cognitive
decline: Findings from 15-year follow-up of
the paquid cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009;
169:489-496.
29. Yokel RA, Rhineheimer SS, Sharma
P, Elmore D, McNamara PJ. Entry,
half-life and desferrioxamine-accelerated
clearance of brain aluminum after a single
al-26 exposure. Toxicol. Sci. 2001;64:77-
82.
30. Exley C, Rotheray E, Goulson D.
Bumblebee pupae contain high levels of
aluminum. Plos One. 2015;10:e0127665.
31. Yellamma K, Saraswathamma S, Kumari
BN. Cholinergic system under aluminum
toxicity in rat brain. Toxicol. Int. 2010;17:
106-112.
32. Kowall NW, Pendlebury WW, Kessler JB,
Perl DP, Beal MF. Aluminum-induced
neurofibrillary degeneration affects a
subset of neurons in rabbit cerebral cortex,
basal forebrain and upper brainstem.
Neuroscience. 1989;29:329-337.

Herndon and Whiteside; JGEESI, 9(1): 1-8, 2017; Article no.JGEESI.31417
8
33. Klein J, Mold M, Cottier M, Exley C.
Aluminium content of human semen:
Implications for semen quality.
Reproductive Toxicology. 2014;50:43-48.
34. Kampa M, Castanas E. Human health
effects of air pollution Environmental
Pollution. 2008;151:362-367.
35. Tegen I, Lacis AA. Modeling of particle
size distribution and its influence on the
radiative properties of mineral dust. J.
Geophys. Res. 1996;101:19237-19244.
36. Calderon-Garciduenas L, Franko-Lira M,
Mora-Tiscareno A, Medina-Cortina H,
Torres-Jardon R, et al. Early alzheimer'd
and parkinson's diese pathology in urban
children: Friend verses foe response - it's
time to face the evidence. BioMed
Research International. 2013;32:650-658.
37. Moulton PV, Yang W. Air pollution,
oxidative stress, and alzheimer's disease.
Journal of Environmental and Public
Health. 2012;109:1004-1011.
38. Beeson WL, Abbey DE, Knutsen SF. Long-
term concentrations of ambient air
pollutants and incident lung cancer in
california adults: Results from the ahsmog
study. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998;106:
813-822.
39. Hong YC, Lee JT, Kim H, Kwon HJ. Air
pollution: A new risk factor in ischemic
stroke mortality. Stroke. 2002;33:2165-
2169.
40. Haberzetti P, Lee J, Duggineni D,
McCracken J, Bolanowski D, O'Toole TE,
Bhatnagar A, Conklin DJ. Exposure to
ambient air fine particulate matter prevents
vegf-induced mobilization of endothelial
progenitor cells from bone matter. Environ.
Health Perspect. 2012;120:848-856.
41. Potera C. Toxicity beyond the lung:
Connecting pm 2.5, inflammation, and
diabetes. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014;
122:A29.
42. Mehta AJ, Zanobetti A, Bind MAC, Kloog I,
Koutrakis P, Sparrow D, Vokonas PS,
Schwartz JD. Long-term exposure to
ambient fine particulate matter and renal
function in older men: The va normative
aging study. Environ. Health Perspect;
2016 (In press).
43. Dai L, Zanobetti A, Koutrakis P, Schwartz
JD. Associations of fine particulate matter
species with mortality in the united states:
A multicity time-series analysis. Environ.
Health Perspect. 2014;122:837-842.
44. Dockery DW, Pope CAI, Xu XP, Spengler
JD, Ware JH, et al. An association
between air polution and mortality in six u.
S. Cities. N. Eng. J. Med. 1993;329:1753-
1759.
45. Pope CAI, Ezzati M, Dockery DW. Fine-
particulate air polution and life expectancy
in the united states. N. Eng. J. Med. 2009;
360:376-386.
46. Pires A, De Melo EN, Mauad T, Saldiva
PHN, Bueno HMDS. Pre- and postnatal
exposure to ambient levels of urban
particulate matter (pm2.5) affects mice
spermatogenesis. Inhalation Toxicology:
International Forum for Respiratory
Research. 2011;23.
DOI: 10.3109/08958378.2011.563508
47. Ebisu K, Bell ML. Airborne pm2.5 chemical
components and low birth weight in the
northeastern and mid-atlantic regions of
the united states. Environ. Health
Perspect. 2012;120:1746-1752.
48. Tetreault LF, Doucet M, Gamache P,
Fournier M, Brand A, Kosatsky T,
Smargiassi A. Childhood exposure to
ambient air pollutants and the onset of
asthma: An administrative cohort study in
quebec. Environ. Health Perspect; 2016 (In
press).
49. Bell ML, Ebisu K, Leaderer BP, Gent JF,
Lee HJ, Koutrakis P, Wang Y, Dominici F,
Peng RD. Associations of pm2.5
constituents and sources with hospital
admissions: Analysis of four counties in
connecticut and massachusetts (USA).
Environ. Health Perspect. 2014;122:138-
144.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2017 Herndon and Whiteside; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/17702