The Military Routinely Disperses Aluminum-Coated Fiberglass Into the Air

In addition to the weather modification¹ going on around the world, militaries around the world are also routinely dispersing tiny bits of aluminum-coated fiberglass and plastic — known as “chaff” — into the air column, to shield aircraft and ships from enemy radar.² Not surprisingly, this has been done for decades, without clear evidence that it’s safe for humans and the environment.

According to a 1998 General Accounting Office report³ and a 1999 follow-up report⁴ by the Naval Research Laboratory, the environmental, human and agricultural impacts of chaff used in military training scenarios at the time were “negligible and far less than those from other man-made emissions,” but does that really mean it’s safe? As explained in a 2001 Navy Medicine paper:⁵

“Radiofrequency (RF) chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscure planes, ships, and other assets from radar tracking sources.

Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers (also referred to as dipoles) ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm. Chaff is released or dispensed from military vehicles in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of dipoles.

When deployed, a diffuse cloud of dipoles is formed that is undetectable to the human eye. Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions.

Training for military personnel, particularly aircraft pilots, in the use of chaff is necessary to deploy this electronic countermeasure effectively. As with most acquired skills, the deployment of chaff must be maintained by practicing in-flight release during training.

It is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces dispense about 500 tons of chaff per year, with most chaff being released during training exercises within the continental United States.”

Is Chaff Safe?

According to the Naval Medicine investigation, inhalation of whole, intact chaff fibers pose “no risk” to humans due to their larger size. “If inhaled, dipoles are predicted to deposit in the nose, mouth, or trachea and are either swallowed or expelled,” the paper states.⁶

Note the use of the word “predicted,” however. Predictions are not evidence. They’re basically guessing. Open questions also remain about what happens when the fibers degrade.

“Several investigations have demonstrated that Al-coated dipoles are resistant to weathering and breakdown under desert conditions,” the paper states.⁷

“A 1977 US Navy-sponsored a study found no evidence to indicate that chaff degrades significantly or quickly in water from the Chesapeake Bay nor did this material leach significant amounts of aluminum into the Bay.

A recent study by our group found no evidence that 25 years of chaff operations at the Naval Research Laboratory detachment at Chesapeake Beach, MD resulted in a significant increase in sediment or soil aluminum concentrations (Wilson et al 2000).

However, additional studies are needed to determine the half-life of chaff dipoles in various soils and environmental conditions and whether dipoles breakdown to respirable particles …

Although there is no definitive evidence from the epidemiological literature that chaff exposure is not harmful, there is epidemiological information available on workers involved in the glass fiber manufacturing industry. Data from these studies suggests that exposure to fibrous glass is not associated with increased risk of death from respiratory disease.”

The problem with that is that fiberglass workers are equipped with protective gear, including respirators, Tyvek suits and safety goggles⁸ — gear that normal people don’t wear when they’re out and about. All this tells us is that chaff is unlikely to cause harm to public health, provided people are wearing respirators, which they don’t.

Remarkably, not much beyond these three reports exist. While all admitted the need for continued research, none appears to have been published, so there’s really no telling what the real-world impact might be. That said, common sense tells us that air dispersed aluminum and fiberglass is highly likely to have some sort of impact on the environment and human health.

Geoengineering Has Been Going on for Decades

Aluminum and fiberglass are not the only toxins being sprayed across our skies. As detailed by Dane Wigington, founder of Geoengineeringwatch.org, weather modification, also known as geoengineering, in which various toxic metals and chemicals are dispersed at high altitude, has been going on for more than 70 years, and is increasing rather than declining.

In response to a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in August 2021,^9,10 which called for radical measures to prevent further global warming, the Biden Administration launched a research effort in 2022 to determine the most effective way to dim the sun.¹¹

One proposal involves injecting sulfur dioxide aerosols into the Earth’s stratosphere. The tiny reflective particles would bounce sunlight back into space instead of onto the Earth’s surface.¹² According to Harvard researchers,¹³ this strategy is not only “technically possible” but also “remarkably inexpensive,” having a price tag that is “well within the reach of several nations.”

Earth’s climate is largely controlled by how much solar radiation reaches the Earth and how much is absorbed by its surface or reradiated to space. Cloud coverage and greenhouse gasses are examples of factors that influence the reflectance of solar radiation.¹⁴

“If geoengineering proposals are to influence global climate in any meaningful way, they must intentionally alter the relative influence of one of these controlling mechanisms,” Britannica explains.¹⁵

The U.N. report mentions solar radiation management and greenhouse gas removal as forms of geoengineering.¹⁶ Sulfate aerosols fall into the solar radiation management category. By reflecting more solar radiation back into space, the aerosols lower global temperatures but also have a serious “side effect” — they lower average precipitation.

As a result, additional geoengineering techniques — such as thinning out cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere — would be necessary to counteract the decrease in precipitation. What could possibly go wrong?

Supercomputers have run models to predict how solar radiation management may affect different parts of the Earth, not only in terms of temperature but also rainfall and snowfall. Report author Govindasamy Bala, from the Indian Institute of Science, said “the science is there,”¹⁷ but it’s far from an exact one.

“I think the next big question,” Bala told Reuters, “is, do you want to do it? … That involves uncertainty, moral issues, ethical issues and governance.” As Reuters reported, “That’s because every region would be affected differently. While some regions could gain in an artificially cooler world, others could suffer by, for example, no longer having conditions to grow crops.”¹⁸