Solar energy and "chemtrails"

     A recent Fox News article about leaks from six nuclear tanks in Washington State had momentarily sent my thoughts back to a certain article I had written about before, the premise being that America shouldn't go to solar energy since Germany gets more sun exposure than North America. This sent my mind spiraling into a certain line of reasoning and logic which is probably false, but an interesting notion all the more.

     It seems as though there is much sentiment against solar power above nuclear; even when talking with very left leaning individuals, when asked about solar power, they always seem to think it's a good idea, but that it isn't necessarily marketable next to petroleum, coal, and nuclear. If German solar power is putting out, on average, twenty times the amount of energy a nuclear plant does, the cost of creating a solar plant must cost an arm and a leg! Alas, Germany seems to be the most sound economy in Europe during this recession, so we know that this can't be true since such a cost in this industry would have put Germany below France and England, the European Union would be in shambles, and the American Dollar would be worth much, much more than the Euro. (Note: Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has stated that Germany's economy is unsustainable. If we consider solar power's eventual environmental and economic sustainability, then we know it will one day leave the market; eventually electric power will become nongovernmental and non-corporate which means it yields no economic opportunity for anyone and that there will be nothing like it to replace it. If Germany does not address this issue in an environmentally and economically friendly fashion, then it follows that Germany's economy will one day fail. In essence, the Chancellor's stance on energy is not pro-petroleum, pro-nuclear, or pro-coal per se, or even that it is anti-solar, but it is on the economic ramifications of complete independence and that living “off the grid” will essentially become living “on the grid.” Be that as it may, practical application of solar power shows that it is the environmental and microeconomic answer to our problems, and it needs to be used, here, in America).

     Considering the dangers of solar power would surpass even the dangers of nuclear power— since we must obviously bury the dangerous, ozone piercing, ultraviolet rays to lie dormant for thousands of years— maybe it's best we just make due with what we have and what we know. However, this sarcasm started me off on another tangent of thought. . .

     I'm not sure if anyone remembers the conspiracy theory about “chemtrails”: exhaust-like trails from aircraft. If you know even the least bit about aircraft, you'll know that such an exhaust in the upper atmosphere is unlikely, so, naturally, you may ask yourself what it is. (Note: I am not citing anything thus far, so I may not be completely accurate, but my memory usually serves me well with these things). The thesis of the conspiracy assumes that the chemtrails contain inoculations and anti-viruses which a majority of people refuse to take (the most radical of the conspiracy assumes the trails contain mind-numbing or controlling solutions). In order to quell these alarming theories, the United States government came forth and stated that the chemtrails were an attempt to release aluminum oxide into the upper atmosphere to combat global warming. What aluminum oxide does, in theory, is act as a second “ozone layer”; it deflects/absorbs energy coming from UVB and UVC rays. If this is in fact what the chemtrails are for, it means that the damage CFC's (typically, in aerosol) have been doing to the ozone layer are worst than previously imagined.

     What aluminum oxide does to the human body, however, should be of more concern. It has been known to cause cancers and other developmental issues in infants and children such as autism and aspergers. If it wasn't enough that damage to the ozone layer has been causing subjection to UVB and UVC rays which cause cancer, we have essentially been dumbing down the world population by accident.

     It's evident, now, that the disregard of solutions to economic and environmental issues, such as solar, stem from the “accident” of trying to manufacture the solution rather than resurrect it. In essence, the only way to attribute intelligence to this “solution” is by discovering that the “solution” was worked out of malice; if we decide it was worked out of benevolence, unfortunately, this means it came from ignorance.

     In many less words, my working thesis is this: maybe we aren't making the right choices because of the consequences of our wrong decisions. Maybe we don't pick the correct solution because we are, in fact, growing stupider, as it were.

~Joe