Ti o2- stratospheric aerosol injection- geoengineering 2013
TiO2- Stratospheric Aerosol Injection- GEOENGINEERING- Mini Ice Age 2013 Killing us softly with
Titanium Dioxide TiO2
RESEARCHED AND COMPILED BY:
ROBERT S. HARDT
NUTRI-EPIGENETIC BIOCHEMICAL ANALYST
“Let your food be thy medicine!”…. Hippocrates
Nano sized Titanium Dioxide TiO2, to be used for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Geoengineering, to Combat
Global Warming, Paul Crutzen pdf - Google Search
Climate change can be mitigated by the use of man-made clouds
www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/eodg/mphys_reports/2011_Wilkins.pdf - Cached
been made, with particular interest in H2SO4, TiO2 and Al2O3 aerosols. ... As Al Gore so neatly puts it, “The
warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for ... Geoengineering techniques are possible
candidates as emergency ......  Crutzen, Paul J. "Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections:
A ...The leading method is known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and effectively ... 2591988 - April 8,
1952 - Production of TiO2 Pigments - Referenced in 3899144 ..... Exotic directed-energy
weapons,Geoengineering, Global Warming Weather Modification ...... Direct delivery of precursors is proposed by
If reducing carbon emissions can’t stop global warming—and so far, it isn’t—why not throw paint at the
That’s the provocative—and totally serious—proposition being recommended byscientific researchers, who are
studying whether using Aircraft “to lift and disperse stratospheric aerosols” could “scatter the sun’s light back into
space” and “work as a ‘plan B’ for climate remediation.”
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been in the last 400,000 years, as a result of
mankind producing CO2 at an ever-increasing rate,” Davidson reports.
There is “broad consensus” by climate scientists that the current trend will eventually have “dire
consequences” in the form of more severe and more frequent droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes and
rising sea levels, he adds.
CO removal is possible but would take too long, Davidson says, leaving scientists now searching for a “Plan B” to
be “switched on quickly if matters go badly wrong.”
Blasting paint particles into outer space, he contends, could be that Plan B.
What Volcanoes Teach
It’s not so crazy. Dispatching particles into the atmosphere is a type of “solar radiation management” that could
scatter the sun’s rays back into space, rather than having them fry tera firma, Davidson explains.
Davidson cites research by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, who suggested that the effect would be similar to
that of a large volcanic eruption, which has been found to provide global cooling “of up to 1°C for a few
But because no one wants a poisoned atmosphere that smells like rotten eggs, Davidson has turned to
Not only is the popular paint pigment safer than SO2, but it is in wide supply and, thanks to “well-
established coating technologies,” its light-scattering properties have been well established and it can be
tailored to a wide variety of applications. TiO2 is highly refractive, stable in air and non-toxic, Davidson
Davidson says his consulting firm, Davidson Technology, is seeking a patent on a process that would
employ titanium dioxide in some sort of coating form for possible use in the stratosphere.
(The patent, which was not detailed, has become embroiled in a dispute with other UK researchers who
are working on a similar system, reports said this week.)
Davidson figures it would take about three million tons of TiO2 particles to get the job done. “If the
particles remain in the stratosphere for two years, then 1.5m t/y must be lofted, equivalent to an annual
average coating of 1 nm on the earth’s surface,” he writes.
“Such coatings would need to be stable for several years under the harsh UV illumination in the
stratosphere,” he notes. “Hydrophobicity may also help to avoid ice nucleation on the TiO2 particles.”
TiO2 Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Geoengineering, to Combat Global Warming, Paul Crutzen pdf - Google
Production of TiO2 Pigments - Referenced in 3899144 2614083 - October 14, .... 1991 - Stratospheric
Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming .... BELOW Patent. ...... Direct delivery of precursors is
proposed by Paul Crutzen.
EMP Attack, Edward Teller, - Google Search
Nano TiO2 photoplastic electromagnetic semiconductor - Google Search
Nano TiO2, Titranium Dioxide, laser and particle beam weapons - Google Search
DOD, DOE, Nano TiO2, Titanium Dioxide, Laser ! Maser ! Particle beam weapon ! Sonic weapon ... - Google
Penetrating weapon applications: Topics by WorldWideScience.org
Therefore, new micro- and nano-engineered tungsten alloys may soon out- perform ... Early laser weapons
research sought a clean radiation-free bomb to replace the ...... Pulsed power for particle beam accelerators in
military applications ...... Ultrafine metal oxides, such as titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are widely used
Titanium Dioxide, aluminium oxides and barium-chlorides protect semiconductor technologies - Google Search
Titanium and titanium dioxide are used in aerospace applications (in jet engines, airframes and space and missile
applications). It is also used in armor, chemical processing, marine, medical, power generation, sporting goods
and other non-aerospace applications.
'Solar Radiation Management' or Manhattan Project 2.0?
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:02 CDT
Shielding Electronics from Electromagnetic Pulses
Every technology on the market today is based on alternating current technologies in relation with semiconductor
technologies and if these were seriously threatened this would mean, in the final analysis, that everything that we
nowadays need to live, work and recreate ourselves, could be destroyed.
-- Uwe Behnken --
University of Los Andes (ULA) senior lecturer in political sciences, Jutta Schmitt writes: It's intriguing. Just barely a
week after the Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies had taken place in Pacific Grove,
California, we heard honorable knights for the defense of global climate integrity, such as the American Enterprise
Institute's Resident Fellow and Co director of the AEI geo-engineering Project Lee Lane, advocate a global
imposition of geo-engineering technologies on behalf of the advanced, industrialized states of the world in the firm
conviction, that "geo-engineering experiments shouldn't require global agreement," because these would in any
case be guided by the shining light of the government of the United States and its noble constitutional obligation
to promote the welfare of the American people. This is how Lane evokes 'American national interest,' this magic,
self-sufficient concept that justifies the use of any means in order to obtain, that is, impose the desired objective.
• Why declare geo-engineering experiments a matter of 'national interest' (read: national security interest)?
• Why not declare the well-being of the planetary climate and overall ecosystems a matter of national or
planetary security interest for that matter, and subsequently demand the immediate discontinuance of irrational
profit production and unbound consumerism, which got us into this mess in the first place?
• Why this sudden, violent interest in geo-engineering experiments by scientists, international climate panels,
United Nations entities, policy centers, research facilities, scientific communities and even Think Tanks with
their scores of fellows and scholars?
• Why did we not see the same violent interest with regard to a binding commitment at the Rio, Kyoto or
Copenhagen Earth Summits? And why call for the global imposition of geo-engineering technologies on behalf
of the 'advanced, more industrialized states' of the world?
• Furthermore, if geo-engineering experiments are all of a sudden being considered imperative, why does the so-
called scientific community, as well as civil and military authorities in various countries of the world deny the fact
that one of the proposed climate intervention techniques, pertaining to Solar Radiation Management, has
already and progressively been implemented on a considerably large scale since years?
• The hard facts on the ground -- or in the sky, for that matter - don't go away by denying them. Solar Radiation
Management by 'injection of sulfate or other materials into the stratosphere' as proposed by the working
agenda of the past Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies and as seen, photographed,
filmed, documented, studied and analyzed during years by ordinary citizens, environmental activists, air traffic
controllers, radar technicians, alternative journalists, meteorologists, chemists and physicians, has been
occurring over North America and Europe since the nineties. The question is, if the massive blasting into the
stratosphere of a mixture of metals and polymers to form a haze-like layer in the skies in order to deflect solar
radiation is actually that good of an idea, given the extreme toxicity of the materials being sprayed and given
the fact that they finally do come down back to the surface of the Earth.
• Thus, to a far-sighted, ecological, nature-preserving mind it seems utterly illogical to resort to this kind of
measures which have a heavily contaminating effect on the overall environment -- air, water, soils, humans,
animals, plants, that is, life on the planet as such.
• For the sake of (relative) brevity, we will not go into detail to describe and explain Chemtrail Spraying in this
article, but instead encourage our readers to get active and do a thorough research on the Internet by
themselves. Suffice it to say here, that the until now publicly denied operations of ongoing Chemtrail Spraying
are, in fact, related to 'Solar Radiation Management,' consisting of the massive injection of a combination of
metallic and other particles -- microscopic in scale -- into the stratosphere. Interestingly and essential for us to
note, it was the late Edward Teller, member of the Manhattan Project and father of the Hydrogen Bomb, co-
founder and director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who proposed this geo-engineering
technique together with Roderick Hyde and Lowell Wood and who designed a variety of mixtures according to
the specific tasks they have to perform, among which figure the deployment of "electrically-conducting sheets"
or "metallic 'nets' of ultra-fine mesh-spacing" in the stratosphere. Equally interesting is the fact, that Teller
himself did not only doubt that society's carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for global warming, but
questioned global warming as such, when stating in a 1997 article, titled 'The Planet needs a Sunscreen,' that
"It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation -- America -- can consider spending
$100 billion a year on a problem that may not exist." He explicitly repeated this doubt in a 2002 co-authored
paper on 'Active Climate Stabilization.' So, by all means, why then seriously bother about the research,
development and actual deployment of 'geo-engineering techniques' such as spraying the stratosphere with
chemicals, in order to to 'fend off solar radiation' ?!
• Considering the counter-productivity of the whole concept of 'solar radiation management' -- deflecting solar
radiation by creating a layer of highly toxic, artificial 'clouds' may as well block and trap outbound heat from the
Earth and thus worsen 'global warming' -- the question arises, why it is actually being done.
• The very logics of global capitalism and capitalist globalization that dictates each and every consideration, each
and every action undertaken by the transnational corporations of this world and their political and military
executives on a national and international scale, and which impose their decisions on billions of people,
indicates that Solar Radiation Management is NOT being conducted to 'mitigate the effects of global warming'
but to address an immediate problem, as severe as that of global warming for the survival of human civilization
as we have known it, and which can best be described as the Electronic Achilles Heel of Modern Civilization.
• In a 2009 interview with Ludwig Glinz about 'Sferic Frequencies, Semiconductor Technologies and their
effective Preservation and Protection,' Uwe Behnken, founder of LiveNet Concept 2010 and long time activist
against Chemtrail Spraying, suggests that the massive injection of toxic substances into the stratosphere ever
since the nineties bears a direct relation to the protection of highly sensitive semiconductor technologies. "[..]
Natural electromagnetic pulses are known to everybody ever since the film 'The Day After' where we learnt
what happens if these are created artificially by means of the explosion of an atom bomb. If an atomic weapon
explodes, the electromagnetic pulse causes semiconductor technologies to stop functioning. The same
electromagnetic pulses can be registered in the event of elevated sferic frequencies or nuclear electromagnetic
pulses stemming from elevated sun activities, and from our perspective this is another reason why it is
undertaken to repel these sferic frequencies with the help of toxic substances, like aluminium oxides and
barium-chlorides so as to protect semiconductor technologies."
For a better understanding of this statement and its consequences, we'll briefly examine some basic concepts
related to semiconductor technology and the reasons for its growing vulnerability.
• All modern technology is based on semiconductor technology, used in the production of microelectronic
integrated circuits (microchips) on an ever more minute scale and with an ever greater number of in-built
'components' per unit, so to speak. No applied technology in our computerized age, be it in the realm of
production, energy, communication, trading, finance, transportation, scientific research and development,
space exploration and military operations, works without semiconductor technology. A semiconductor is a
material like silicon or germanium characterized by an "intermediate conductivity" which oscillates between
that of a conductor and an insulator and which displays a rapid variation of conductivity depending on
temperature. The current in semiconductors is either carried by the flow of electrons or by the flow of positively-
charged "holes" in the electron structure of the material. An external electrical field may change a
semiconductor's resistivity or 'behavior' for that matter.
• One of the problems related to semiconductor technology and as derived from some of its specific
characteristics is, that upon exposure to various types of particles of atmospheric radiation -- alpha particles,
various ions, protons, and neutrons which can 'hit' the device -- it can change state or alter its output, leading to
an error. This phenomenon is widely known by the manufacturers and has been called 'Single Event
Effect' (SEE), which, in turn, is classified in three basic categories: A soft error or 'single event upset' (SEU), a
soft or hard error or 'single event latch-up (SEL) and a hard failure or 'single event burnout' (SEB).
• In the Atmospheric Radiation Effects Whitepaper, prepared by Ken Vranich in 2007, this author discusses the
growing impact of atmospheric radiation effects on semiconductor devices, specifically the impact on avionics,
identifying natural atmospheric radiation as the overriding cause of Single Event Effects or device failures due
to the fact that semiconductor technology undergoes constant sophistication, which means it's being performed
on an ever more minute scale. The scale we are talking about is so tiny that the collision of neutrons with the
semiconductor material results in the deposition of a charge in this material and thus leads to an alteration of its
state or even to the destruction of the device. The author explains these characteristic errors and failures of
semiconductor devices as follows: "Single event upset (SEU) is a condition that causes corruption of data or
logic state in a device resulting in erroneous output. This is a soft error, meaning that data could be updated or
corrected or the part reset and normal functionality would be resumed. ... Single event latchup (SEL) is a
condition in some [type of semiconductors] where the energy deposited locally in a device by the single particle
has turned on parasitic transistors causing high current through the device. ... This SEL usually causes loss of
device functionality. ... Single event burnout (SEB) is a condition in a high voltage device (voltages of 500 or
600 volts) resulting from the energy deposition by a single particle leading to a feedback mechanism that
exceeds the breakdown voltage and therefore destroys the device. ... Single Event Effects can also cause
secondary breakdown in bipolar junction transistors (BJTs), resulting in burnout of the transistor ... "
The Atmospheric Radiation Effects Whitepaper deals essentially with the uncomfortable fact that the failure rate
in semiconductor devices has been increasing exponentially due to the steady advancement of semiconductor
technology, making them not only vulnerable to high-energy or fast neutrons, but also to low-energy or slow
(thermal) neutrons. The author estimates that it will take years until the big manufacturers of integrated circuits
will respond to this challenge and warns of the unprecedented consequences that this will have, in this case for
aviation electronics, concerning both commercial as well as military avionics and which may lead to the severe
limitation of operations or even grounding of aircraft, due to intolerably high processor failure rates. For a
combination of technical factors which the author does not specify, he identifies the military Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAV's), crucial in America's ongoing and future warfare operations around the planet, as the type of
aircraft most vulnerable to this threat, mainly because they are composed of so called 'commercial-off-the-shelf
equipment,' leading to what the author says is an "unacceptably high probability of 'loss of command and
• As for the natural causes of atmospheric radiation and their effects on semiconductor devices, the author
explains that the exposure to the range of potentially hazardous particles increases with growing latitude and
altitude, especially during times of elevated sun activity. As far as the latter is concerned, the author stresses
the importance of solar events which can heavily impact radiation levels and thus significantly increase Single
Event Effect rates: "The sun on an eleven year cycle produces varying sizes of solar flares. These flares send
out energetic particles that strike the earth and can affect the entire planet, but especially in the Polar Regions
where the earth's magnetic field is weakest. These particles can cause an increase in the radiation that an
aircraft sees by a factor ranging from 10-1000X. The next projected solar peak where these levels could occur
In this context and with regard to the growing vulnerability of semiconductor technology, in this case in aircraft,
the author explains that "using today's parts could translate into a 10-20% processor failure rate during a single
flight on an aircraft in northern latitudes during a moderate solar event," thus calling into question the "ability of
these products to perform as advertised." He concludes that "for avionics suppliers, this has the potential to
create an intolerable liability and field support issue. For the commercial and military end users, this can
translate into types of aircraft that would operate with limited mission capabilities or flight restrictions in certain
geographic locations and grounding during significant solar events."
• Considering the impact of sun activities and solar events on semiconductor technology, we can understand the
growing importance of solar event 'forecasts.' In May 2009, a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored by NASA, has revised the earlier peak prediction from 2007
which foresaw a peak in 2011, and estimates that Solar Cycle number 24 will peak in May 2013 with an
intensity expected to be below the average. According to NASA Science News, however,
• "Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather. ... The great geomagnetic storm of
1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we're predicting for 2013. The 1859
storm -- known as the "Carrington Event" after astronomer Richard Carrington who witnessed the instigating
solar flare -- electrified transmission cables, set fires in telegraph offices, and produced Northern Lights so
bright that people could read newspapers by their red and green glow. A recent report by the National Academy
of Sciences found that if a similar storm occurred today, it could cause $1 to 2 trillion in damages to society's
high-tech infrastructure and require four to ten years for complete recovery."
• This is more than a good reason for a really big headache and for mobilizing the world's best scientists in order
to research and develop methods capable of shielding modern electronics from the effects of atmospheric
radiation! Ken Vranich's observations and subsequent warnings regarding the decreasing reliability of
semiconductor technology in the realm of avionics have been discussed earlier by experts of the US military,
who fear that world-wide military operations could be dramatically endangered by an increasing dependence on
ever more sophisticated electronic devices.
• In this sense, Major Scott W. Merkle, in a 1997 paper titled 'Non-Nuclear EMP: Automating the Military May
Prove a Real Threat' and which addresses the man-made causes of Electromagnetic Pulses (EMP), first
describes the catastrophic consequences that the 'classic' scenario of the detonation of a high-altitude nuclear
bomb, for example above Nebraska, would have, whose electromagnetic pulse would render each and every
computerized circuit in the continental United States, southern Canada and northern Mexico, useless. In
describing the effects, Merkle cites a 1982 writing of no less a man than Edward Teller, regarding heavy
electromagnetic pulse radiation: "Today there is almost universal dependence on electronic computers. They
are used by first-graders as well as research engineers. Industry, communications, financial records, are all at
stake here. In the event of heavy EMP radiation, I suspect it would be easier to enumerate the apparatus that
would continue to function than the apparatus that would stop."
After revising the magnitude and probability of an EMP delivered by the detonation of a high-altitude nuclear
bomb, which "could conceivably pulse us back to, shall we say, a simpler time when operations orders were
done orally with a sandtable," Merkle proceeds to identify in general terms the threat coming from the
development of advanced non-nuclear EMP weapons which, he observes, has started off a new arms race.
(Although existent at the time, pulsed, directed energy beam weapons like HAARP systems are not explicitly
mentioned in this paper). Considering the ever growing dependence of the United States' military on
technological progress, Merkle regards the "pushing of the technology envelope" at all costs a serious problem,
as "one burst of EMP" will render the most sophisticated equipment inoperable, stripping the high-tech infantry
soldier of the 21st century naked and leaving him in the combat field without his "wondrous gadgets and
gizmos," to just name one example. Merkle thus concludes: "Non-nuclear EMP has the potential to reduce the
battlefield equation to very simple terms ... as the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System, All-
Source Analysis System, and most other "high tech" intelligence connectivity systems will not be working."
Finally and with regard to the same concern, an assessment of 'Electromagnetic Pulse Threats to US
Expeditionary Operations in 2010,' written by US Air Force Major Colin R. Miller, comes to the conclusion that
both, nuclear and non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons "represent one of the most ominous threats to
US National Security in the near term." Miller subsequently suggests three types of counter-measures: Firstly,
implementing specific protection or 'system-hardening' of semiconductor devices at the manufacturer level,
secondly, individual shielding of crucial, high-tech components against EMP, and thirdly, shielding larger
environments against EMP: "Shielding the environment is a cost-effective solution for EMP protection when a
large number of essential electronic devices are collocated. An Air Operations Center (AOC) provides a good
example. Incorporating a grounded metallic shield into the building structure and surge protecting power,
communications, and antenna lines could protect an entire AOC from EMP. Mobile systems require a different
means, such as a Faraday cage, which can protect individual components. A Faraday cage is simply a metallic
mesh built around an electronic circuit (such as a fighter aircraft flight control computer) that protects it from
Given the magnitude and severity of the exponentially growing threat for omnipresent, modern semiconductor
technology (and thus modern civilization as we have known it) from nuclear and non-nuclear electromagnetic
pulses, from both, natural and man-made sources as shown and documented in the paragraphs above, and
connecting back with Uwe Behnken's statement we've mentioned at the beginning and which upholds a direct
relation between the injection of toxic particles into the stratosphere and the protection of semiconductor
technologies, let us put the whole concept of 'Solar Radiation Management' or 'Solar Radiance Engineering' as
recently proposed by climate scientists, into a different perspective.
• Considering that the late Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen Bomb and first-hand expert of the EMP effects
that result upon their detonation in space, who in the late nineties and as mentioned earlier, doubted that global
warming is anthropogenic (caused by humans) and who even questioned global warming as such,
nevertheless suggested that the Earth needed a 'sunscreen,' purpose for which he had a specific mixture of
metals and chemicals developed at National Livermore Laboratories for the massive injection into the
stratosphere to 'cool' the earth with a 'sheet of superfine, reflective mesh,' the following questions / hypothesis
arise for further, urgent investigation and research: 1. Is 'Solar Radiation Management' or 'Solar Radiance
Engineering' -- supposedly designed to mitigate the effects of global warming -- a smokescreen for the general
world public behind which another objective is being pursued, that has nothing to do with 'global warming'?
• 2. Has the massive blasting of metallic particles into the stratosphere been designed to create and uphold a
permanent 'metallic shield' in the form of a 'superfine mesh' as suggested by Teller, to build the equivalent of a
huge kind of 'Faraday Cage' over certain regions of the Earth in order to protect semiconductor technology from
being rendered useless by major, natural or man-made, nuclear and/or non-nuclear, electromagnetic pulse
• 3. Is the bringing-out and upholding of this superfine mesh of metallic particles coupled with HAARP
technologies, and if so, in which way?
• 4. Other than shielding technology, which military applications derive from a superfine mesh of metallic particles
in the stratosphere, that have electrically-conductive properties?
• 5. Considering that until now the vast part of experimental injection of particles into the stratosphere seems to
have taken place above NATO countries (16), could it be derived from this that NATO is actively-preemptively
preparing for nuclear or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse events?
• 6. Are we seeing version 2.0 of the Manhattan Project, this time entrusted with the mission to develop a large-
scale shield to fend off the devastating effects of Electromagnetic Pulses, employing thousands of scientists,
experts, technicians, military and civil personnel without them knowing what purpose they are working for, by
keeping information deliberately fragmented and separate?
• 7. Is this the real reason why "geo-engineering experiments shouldn't require global agreement" but be
imposed on behalf of 'the advanced industrialized states of the world,' as advocated by scholars of US Think
Thanks that are not precisely known for their love for Mother Nature?
From the countries of the Global South, from Latin America, from Venezuela, we call for a global investigation
into these matters, for a global debate and for global, transparent and informed agreement with regard to
alternative ways to protect technology, the environment, all forms of life on the planet and planet Earth as suc
• We say NO to whatever techniques that, for whatever reason, deliberately modify any of the geophysical
subsystems of the Earth!
• We say NO to interfering with planet Earth's geophysical integrity!
• (1) http://blog.american.com/?p=11895
• (2) Edward Teller, Roderick Hyde and Lowell Wood, Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-
Based Modulation of Global Change, August 1997, pages 10,11. http://www.californiaskywatch.com/
• (3) E. Teller, The Planet needs a Sunscreen, reprinted by Hoover Digest, http://www.hoover.org/publications/
• (4) Edward Teller, Roderick Hyde and Lowell Wood: Active Climate Stabilization: Practical Physics-Based
Approaches to Prevention of Climate Change, April 2002, page 6, https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244671.pdf
• (5) http://www.lnc-2010.de/Linkpool/Sfericstandard.wmv
• (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_materials
• (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor
• (8) Ken Vranich, The Growing Impact of Atmospheric Radiation Effects on Semiconductor Devices and the
Associated Impact on Avionics Suppliers, http://www.kva-engineering.com/pdf/SEU_whitepaper_FAA_Con.pdf
• (9) Ibidem, pages 1, 2.
• (10) Ibidem, page 3
• (11) Ibidem, page 8.
• (12) http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/
• (13) Major Scott W. Merkle, Non-Nuclear EMP: Automating the Military May Prove a Real Threat, http://
• (14) Ibidem
• (15) Major Colin R. Miller (USAF), Electromagnetic Pulse Threats to US Expeditionary Operations in 2010,
• (16) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJPS9vo1pB8&feature=related
• JUTTA SCHMITT, M.A., Political Science, Philosophy & Sociology is an Assistant Lecturer (ad honorem) in
Political Science at the University de Los Andes (ULA) in Merida.
• ACTIVE CLIMATE STABILIZATION:
• Practical Physics-Based Approaches to Prevention of Climate Change*
• Edward Teller1,2, Roderick Hyde2 and Lowell Wood1,2,#
• 1Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6010 and
• 2University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA 94550
• We offer a case for active technical management of the radiative forcing of the temperatures of the Earth’s fluid
envelopes, rather than administrative management of atmospheric greenhouse gas inputs, in order to stabilize
both the global- and time averaged climate and its mesoscale features. We suggest that active management of
radiative forcing entails negligible – indeed, likely strongly negative – economic costs and environmental
impacts, and thus best complies with the pertinent mandate of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change. We propose that such approaches be swiftly evaluated in sub-scale in the course of an intensive
• Introduction. It’s not generally realized that the Earth’s seasonally-averaged climate is colder now that it’s been
99% of the time since complex life on Earth got seriously underway with the Cambrian Explosion, 545 million
years ago. Similarly, it’s not widely appreciated that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide – CO2 – are
only very loosely correlated with average climatic conditions over this extended interval of geologic time, in that
it’s been much colder with substantially higher air concentrations of CO2 and also much warmer with
substantially lower atmospheric levels of CO2 than at present; indeed, the CO2 level in the air is observed in
the geologic record to be one of the weaker determinants of globally- and season-averaged temperature.
• If, all of this thoughtfully considered, one wishes to maintain global climate at its current temperaturelevel – or
at the somewhat higher value characterizing the Holocene Optimum several thousand years ago, or at that
lower value of the Little Ice Age of three centuries ago, or at any other reasonable level – then purposeful
modification of the basic radiative properties of the Earth – active management of the radiative forcing of the
temperature profiles of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans by the Sun – is an obvious gambit. Indeed, it’s likely
the most overall practical approach to this particular issue.
• The remainder of this presentation will be concerned with how best to effect – to actively manage – the desired
changes in radiative forcing of the fluid envelopes of the Earth. “Best” will be determined from considerations of
practicality, e.g., the economic efficiency commanded by the UN Framework Convention, as well as minimal
interference with human activities, aesthetic considerations, collateral effects, etc. There is certainly no
pretense that there is some absolute or utterly objective means of determining this practicality; rather, the range
of examples given are merely illustrative of what might
• * Prepared for invited presentation at the National Academy of Engineering Symposium Complements to
Kyoto: Technologies for Controlling CO2 Emissions, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington DC 20007, 23-24 April 2002. Research performed in part under the auspices of the U.S.
Department of Energy under contract W-7405-eng-48 with the University of California, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors only.
• # Corresponding and presenting author. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 925-422-7286 Fax:
• be accomplished in the very near term, how much it might cost, and what some of its more obvious
‘externalities’ might be. Detailed supporting information may be found in our earlier paper.1
• Radiative Budget Control. It’s appropriate to note at the outset that basic concepts for purposeful modification
of the Earth’s radiative properties certainly aren’t original with us; they were proposed at least as long ago as
1979 by Dyson and Marland2 in the context of CO2-driven global warming, and perhaps most prominently by
the National Academy of Sciences global change study group in 1992, which pointedly noted what appeared to
them to be its surprisingly great practicality,3 and the similar findings by the subsequent study by the
Intergovernmental Working Group in 1995.4 What we’ve done in our studies, set in the context of the UN
Framework Convention’s Article 3,5 is merely to mass- and cost-optimize previous schemes as well as to offer
a few new ones, with a little attention given to how near-term studies of such optimized schemes for assuring
climatic stability might commence.
• The comparatively rudimentary atmospheric and oceanic circulation models currently used to predict
climate variability with time variously predict increases in mean planetary temperature between ~1.5 and ~5 K,
for doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial level of ~280 ppm to ~560 ppm (and
associated changes in the mean concentrations of atmospheric water vapor, other greenhouse gases such as
CH4 and N2O and aerosols of various compositions and sizes, Earth-surface and -atmosphere reflectivity and
radiative transport changes, etc.). Temperature changes of this magnitude-range would also be induced by a
change in either solar heating or terrestrial radiative cooling of the order of 4 Watts/m2 in the space- and time-
average, which is of the order of 2%. Thus, if sunlight is to be preferentially scattered back into space, or the
Earth induced to thermally radiate more net power, the characteristic surface area involved in changing net
solar input by a space- and time average of 4 Watt/m2 is ~10-2 Aproj ~ 1.3 x 1016 cm2 ~ 1.3 x 1012 m2 ~ 1.3 x
106 km2, where Aproj is the area which the solid Earth projects onto the plane perpendicular to the Earth-Sun
axis; if a change is to be imposed uniformly over the entire Earth, it must be four times this size (i.e., the ratio of
the Earth’s surface area to that of its disc).
• Radiative budget control on the scales of present interest thus centers on generating and maintaining
coverage of this 1-2% fraction of the Earth’s surface – or, alternately, its Sun-presented disc – with one or
another materials which substantially modify the transport of either incoming sunlight (i.e., insolation) or
outgoing thermal radiation emitted at-or-near the Earth’s surface over this area. If sunlight is blocked but
terrestrial thermal radiation of ~20X greater wavelength is allowed to pass on out into space, then the Earth will
cool by the desired amount – in the space- and time-average; conversely, if sunlight is allowed to pass through
to the Earth’s surface, but terrestrial thermal radiation is blocked from escaping into space, then the Earth will
warm by just the same amount – again, in the space- and time-average.
• 1 Teller E, Wood L and Hyde R, “Global Warming and Ice Ages: I. Prospects for Physics-Based
Modulation of Global Change,” UCRL-JC-128715 (Univ. Calif. Lawrence Liv’r. Nat’l. Lab., August 1997).
Also available as http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/.
• 2 Dyson FJ and Marland G., Technical Fixes for the climatic effects of CO2. Workshop on the Global
Effects of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels, USDoE Report CONF-770385 (USDoE, Washington DC, 1979).
• 3 Panel on Policy Implications of Global Warming, “Policy Implications of Global Warming: Mitigation,
Adaptation and the Science Base,” U.S. National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, Washington
• 4 Working Group II, “Climate Change 1995 Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change:
Scientific- Technical Analysis,” Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
RT Watson, et al., eds. (Cambridge University Press, 1995).
• 5 Section 3 of Article III of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states in part
that “policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits
at the lowest possible cost.” This is often referred to as the Rio [Framework] Convention.
• Before delving into the first-level details of some of the best ways in which to accomplish this, it’s
appropriate to point to the very important results of Govindasamy and Caldeira,6 who have shown that such
fractional removal of insolation uniformly over the entire surface of the Earth not only results in temperature
changes of the predicted amounts in the space- and time-average, but also preserves the present climate in its
seasonal and geographic detail, at least down through the mesoscales in space and time which are treated
more-or-less aptly by present-day global circulation models. These most notable modeling results – which are
quite contrary to previous hypotheses unsupported by modeling, but which have been confirmed by
subsequent work – indicate that terrestrial climate may be stabilized by addition or subtraction of insolation
along the lines that we propose not only “in the large” but also in the considerable spatial and temporal detail of
interest to the man-on-the-street who experiences the highest-frequency components of climate as the daily
weather in his micro-climate. Govindasamy and Caldeira also have offered a retrospectively plausible
mechanistic explanation for why this remarkableset of results, shown in Figure 1 below, might have been
• 6 Govindasamy B and Caldeira K, “Geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced
climate change,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, #14, 2141 (2000); Govindasamy B, Caldeira K, and Duffy PB,
“Geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance to mitigate change from a quadrupling of CO2,” Global and
Planetary Change (in press).
• Figure 1. The upper panel depicts the space- and time-averaged temperature change for a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial baseline, in degrees Centigrade. The lower panel shows
the same result, again for CO2 concentration doubling accompanied by a 1.8% reduction in insolation; no
significant temperature changes are seen. From Govindasamy and Caldeira.
• Ways-&-Means For Active Management Of Radiative Forcing. ‘Covering’ of the order of 1 million km2 of
the Earth’s area with something that substantially affects the sunlight falling on it – or the Earth’s thermal re-
radiation from it – might appear to be a rather ambitious task. However, since matter may be made to interact
quite strongly with radiation, if its composition and geometry are properly chosen, the principal challenge is not
the preparation or handling of the quantities of materials involved in this ‘cover’ but rather the ensuring that they
will stay in place for usefully long intervals. [The average ‘thickness’ of scattering material over this ~106 km2 is
at most 10-4 cm, so that the total volume is of the order of 1012 cm3 – that of a cube 100 meters on an edge –
and the associated mass is ‘only’ of the order of 1 million tons.] As a specific example and looking ahead to one
of our results, the present concern about global warming centers on the inputting of about 7 billion tonnes of
carbon into the atmosphere each year and several times this level several decades hence; the annual
deployment of barely 0.01% this mass of sulfur – roughly one ten-thousandth as much sulfur as carbon – in
appropriate form and location can be made to entirely offset the “greenhouse effect” of the ten-thousand-fold
greater mass of added CO2.
• We have examined such considerations in a little detail, and the summary of our earlier results1 is as
follows. From a basic physics viewpoint, materials vary strongly in their ability to interact with and thus to
manipulate optical-spectrum radiation, with resonant scatterers having the greatest mass efficiency by far, good
metals having about 10,000 times less specific radiative-interaction efficiency than resonant scatterers, and
typical dielectrics having about 1% the specific radiative-interaction power as do the best metals. Each of these
classes of materials offers distinct, independent, eminently practical ways-and-means of accomplishing the
technical management of radiative forcing; some of these are old, but several of them are novel. We’ll briefly
review a sampling of both old and new types.
• Positioning of scatterers of incoming solar radiation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere – specifically, the
middle to upper stratosphere – is a now-venerable approach that appears to provide the most practical
deployment, as operational lifetimes of such engineered scatterers can be as long as a half-decade; required
replacement rates are correspondingly modest. Thus, the stratosphere is where we propose to deploy all of the
insolation-modulation scattering systems that we propose for near-term study
• Insolation-reducing means demonstrated twice in the past two decades – by the eruptions of El Chichon
and Mt. Pinatubo, two large tropical volcanoes – and noted per se by the National Academy study illustrate the
simplest of radiative forcing-management, albeit in a grossly non-optimized manner:
• Rayleigh scattering by aerosols of dielectric materials. Each of these volcanic events eruptively injected
sufficient sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere to decrease temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere for 1-3
years by 10-30% as much as CO2 in the year 2100 is variously predicted to increase these temperatures.
Optimized formation and emplacement of sulfate aerosol is the most mass-costly – albeit a reasonably dollar-
economical – means of scattering back out into space the sunlight fraction needed to offset the predicted
effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the year 2100. Interestingly enough, such Rayleigh scattering of
sunlight, performed by stratospherically-deployed aerosols whose diameters are several-fold smaller than the
wavelength of light itself, will selectively scatter back into space the largely deleterious ultraviolet component of
sunlight while diminishing the light that we see – and that plants use for photosynthesis – only imperceptibly.
• From the human perspective, skies would be bluer, twilights would be more visually spectacular, plants
would be less stressed by UV photo damage and thus would be more productive, and children playing out-of-
doors would be much less susceptible to sunburn (and thus to skin dysplasias and dermal cancers as adults), if
this stratospheric Rayleigh scattering system were to be deployed. We’ve estimated the dollar-outlay cost of
such active management of radiative forcing on the year-2100 scales to be about $1 B/year, and no one to our
knowledge has taken issue with this scooping-level estimate since we offered it a half-decade ago. Indeed, the
National Academy study implicitly acknowledged the practicality of this type of approach, although it considered
only thoroughly non-optimized dielectric aerosol scattering. Incidentally, such costs appear to be an order-of-
magnitude less than health-care savings in the U.S. alone due to avoidance of UV skin damage – and far less
than increased agricultural productivity due to avoidance of crop photo damage in the U.S. alone;7 thus, the
cost to the U.S. taxpayer of implementing this system of benefit to all humanity would appear to be quite
negative: its economic benefits would greatly outweigh its economic costs.
• As already noted, metals are greatly superior to dielectrics with respect to the specific efficiency with which
they scatter radiation, and the several novel particular means which we’ve considered for the use of metals in
management of radiative forcing indeed reflect a 10-100-fold mass savings, relative to dielectric aerosols. The
geometries of metallic scatterers, as might be expected, center on metal dipoles and metallic screens, with
dimensions selected to be comparable to the reduced wavelengths of the portion of the solar spectrum desired
to be scattered. The physics of metallic scatterers – which, to be sure, also include small, thin metallic-walled
superpressure balloons – suggest that they could most effectively scatter back into space the UV portions of
solar insolation, just as do dielectric scatterers.
• These more highly engineered scatterers have significantly higher specific costs-to-emplace in the
stratosphere than do dielectric aerosols, but their far lower masses result in estimated annual costs to address
the reference year-2100 problem which may be as much as five times less than approaches of comparable
power based on dielectrics: of the order of $0.2 B/year.1 Since they also would diminish the intensity of a
portion of the solar spectrum which is net-damaging to both plants and animals, their ‘side-effects’ are
comparably beneficial to those of dielectric aerosol Rayleigh scatterers; again, the net economic cost of
deploying such a climate stabilization system would be substantially negative.
• 7 There are approximately 6,000 cases of fatal melanoma in the U.S. each year alone, most all of which
are attributed to solar UV-B and -C exposure, along with approximately 1,000,000 cases of UV-B/-C-induced
erythema (sunburn) so severe as to require professional medical treatment; a per capita cost of a melanoma
fatality (medical care + economic loss-of-life) of $500 K, plus a per capita (medical care + time-loss) case-cost
of $300 for severe sunburn, represents a loss to the U.S. economy of $3.3 B/year; costs in the rest of the First
World are probably at least this large, so that the world-wide annual cost due to photo damage to human skin is
at least $7 B/year. U.S. crops currently have a market value slightly less than $100 B/year, and direct and
indirect (due to UV-B and –C and to ozone, respectively) photo damage may be very conservatively estimated
to be several percent (corresponding to a mean ground-level ozone concentration of 50-70 ppb), for a U.S.-only
cost of several times $1B/year; world-wide costs are likely to be at least 12 times larger,or several times $12 B/
year, as the U.S. accounts for less than 8% of global production of primary crops. Skin and crop photo damage
thus likely amounts a substantial multiple of $20 B annually, most of which could be avoided by scattering back
into space from the stratosphere the majority of the incoming solar UV-B and -C irradiation, as well as the ‘hard’
or blue ‘tail’ of the UV-A spectrum. In more recent work employing the IBIS terrestrial biosphere model in
conjunction with the CCM3 Community Climate Model, Govindasamy, Caldeira and Duffy (Global and Planetary
Change, in press) have modeling-estimated plant productivity changes associated with decreasing of insolation
so as to just offset a doubled atmospheric concentration of CO2 – and have found that it’s substantially
increased, essentially everywhere, mostly due to the fertilizing effects of doubled CO2, but also associated with
less heat-related water-stress on plants. The corresponding large gain in plant productivity – a near-doubling,
globally – has an estimated economic value of the order of $1 T/year in its agricultural component alone – and,
more importantly, implicitly provides a badly-needed margin of 21st century food production in the Third World.
Credit for these huge additional benefits from active climate stabilization isn’t taken in the estimate above of
net economic impact of active climate stabilization.
• Finally, resonant scatterers of sunlight offer huge gains in mass efficiency – although much of this gain
seems likely to be lost in ‘packaging’ these materials so that they’re at once harmless and unharmed in the
photo reactive stratosphere. Net, these novel materials appear to offer mass budgets a few-fold lower than the
most interesting metallic scatterers but have operating costs comparable to dielectrics for the resulting radiative
forcing management system. Once again, this novel type of climate stabilization probably would be aimed at
attenuating the near-UV solar spectrum, and thus would have economic costs were would be net-negative.
• Most all of these atmospherically-deployed scatterers remain ‘locked’ into the air mass-parcels into which
they are initially deployed and thus eventually descend from the stratosphere, mostly as a result of vertical
transport in the polar vortices at high latitudes. Once out of the stratosphere, they ‘rain out’ along with other
tropospheric particulate material. The quantities so deposited are tiny compared to natural particulate
depositions, e.g., wind-lofted dust and volcanic aerosol. The radiative forcing ‘magic’ results from the mid-
stratospheric deployment of these optimally-formed scatterers. Virtually no natural particulate – with the
exception of a small fraction of explosive volcanic ejecta – ever ascends so high, and thus is atmosphere-
resident for so very long or ‘works’ so hard in a radiative transport sense; tropospheric particulates usually
‘wash out’ within time-frames of a few days to a couple of weeks. Even volcanic aerosol particulate typically is
far too large to be mass-optimal, and
• also is loaded with chemical impurities which unfavorably impact stratospheric ozone levels; it’s of interest
in the present discussion only as an undoubted proof-of-concept of the several different types of engineered-
scatterer systems which we propose.
• Finally, deployment of one or more metallic scattering screens so diaphanous as to be literally invisible to
the human eye just inside of the interior Lagrange point of the Earth-Sun system and on the Earth- Sun axis
represents the absolute optimum of all means known to us for insuring long-term climate stability, and is rather
novel. Barely 3,000 tonnes of optimally-implemented metallic screen suffices to stabilize climate against worst-
case greenhouse warming through preferential scattering of near-IR solar radiation so that it just barely misses
the Earth, and the same-sized screen in a slightly off-axis position could be used to prevent future Ice Ages, as
well, by scattering ‘near-miss’ solar radiation back onto the Earth. Exactly how to execute the deployment of
such a long-term capital asset of the human race at the present time isn’t clear, however, and therefore its cost
• Conclusions. The foregoing considered, then, if you’re inclined to subscribe to the Rio Framework
Convention’s directive that mitigation of global warming should be effected in the “lowest possible cost” manner
– whether or not you believe that the Earth is indeed warming significantly above-and beyond natural rates, and
whether or not you believe that human activities are largely responsible for such warming, and whether or not
you believe that problems likely to have significant impacts only a century hence should be addressed with
current technological ways-&-means rather than be deferred for obviating with more advanced means – then
you will necessarily prefer active technical management of radiation forcing of the Earth to administrative
management of greenhouse gas inputs to the Earth’s atmosphere, for the practical reasons sketched in the
• Indeed, if credit is properly taken for improved agricultural productivity resulting from increased CO2 and
decreased solar UV fluxes – and human dermatological health benefits are likewise properly accounted for –
we expect that the net economic “cost” of radiative forcing management will be seen to be extraordinarily
negative, perhaps amounting to several hundred billions of dollars each year, worldwide, as suggested by the
results shown in Figure 2. The more spectacular sunrises and sunsets and the bluer skies will be non-
economic “collateral benefits.”
• Figure 2. Net primary (plant) productivity of the terrestrial land-masses, as modeled by the IBIS code with
slab ocean, used in conjunction with the Community Climate Model CCM3. The upper panel depicts the Earth
with a pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration (280 ppm), while the lower panel depicts the Earth with a
CO2 concentration 2X that of the pre-industrial one and with 1.8% less insolation, as in Figure 1. The lower
panel’s globally-aggregated land-plant productivity is nearly twice that of the upper panel, which implies an
agricultural crop value gain of the order of 1 trillion dollars/year for the enriched-CO2 case. From Govindasamy,
Caldeira and Duffy.
• Net Primary Productivity (NPP) Control (1 X CO2) Geoengineered (2 X CO2, 1.8% less sun)
• As noted above, active technical management of radiative forcing rather clearly will entail expenditures of
no more than $1 B/year, commencing not much sooner than a half-century hence, even in worst-case
scenarios.8 One thus might say, “Let’s just put a sinking-fund of $1.7 B into the bank for use in generating $1 B/
year forever, commencing a half-century hence, and proceed with the human race’s business as usual. All of
the Earth’s plants will be more productive for being much better-fed with CO2 and much less exposed to solar
UV radiation, kids can play in the sun without fear, and we’ll continue to enjoy today’s climate, bluer skies and
better sunsets until the next Ice Age commences.” The economic counter-argument to this approach isn’t really
obvious – and the ‘human impacts’ counterarguments seem even more obscure. Though it’s not entirely self-
evident, the ‘externalities’ of active technical management – including environmental costs – seem likely to be
small in aggregate magnitude, on the basis of preliminary examinations through the present time.
• We therefore conclude that technical management of radiative forcing of the Earth’s fluid envelopes, not
administrative management of gaseous inputs to the atmosphere, is the path mandated by the pertinent
provisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Moreover, this appears to be true by a very
large economic margin, one which may aggregate to not much less than a trillion dollars per year, world-wide,
as it permits fertilization of the world’s crops by greater atmospheric CO2 concentrations to occur without
climatic regrets. One of the most pressing problems facing the human race in the 21st century – how to
adequately feed the ~60% greater number of people demographically predicted to be alive a century hence –
thereby begins to look distinctly manageable. Note in Figure 2 that the areas of greatest gain in land-plant
productivity largely coincide with the areas of the planet in which the largest gains in human population are
projected to occur. With active management of the radiative forcing of the atmosphere and oceans, humankind
may be able to “air fertilize” its way around the basic food-production challenge of the 21st century, just as
intensive use of soil fertilizers have bought humankind several decades of food-production grace in the last half
of the 20th century.
• We have tabled four distinct, independent sets of technical options for implementing active management of
radiative forcing, three of which could commence operation essentially as soon as might be desired.
• These have been peer-reviewed in international conferences and ad hoc specialist workshops for a half
decade now. We thus suggest that the U.S. Government would be well-advised to launch immediately an
intensive program to address all of the salient issues in active technical management of radiative forcing,
including well-designed sub-scale experiments in the atmosphere. All such experiments, we point out, will
terminate naturally back onto the present climatic posture, moreover on known, relatively short time-scales.
Due to the obvious global impacts of any management scheme of any kind, the greatest feasible international
participation in this program should be invited.
• 8 Assuming a time-averaged discount-rate of 5%, the present value of an eternal cash-stream of $1 B/year
commencing its flow a half-century hence is about $1.74 B. This amount, put into the bank today at 5% interest,
will grow to $20 B by 2050, and that principal amount, in turn, will throw off the requisite $1 B/year of radiative
forcing management expenses until the end of time. This $1.74 B of present-day “expense” for the “privilege” of
to enrich the atmosphere with CO2 is equivalent to the amount of Federal gasoline tax collected every month or
so. If one wishes to be conservative and assume that the ‘true,’ inflation-corrected long-term discount rate is
only 3% and that full-scale mitigation of greenhouse gas inputs might have to be commenced as soon as a
third century hence, then one would need to deposit $12.4 B in present dollars in order to fund the operation of
the most expensive of the active radiative forcing management systems options at $1 B/year (in 2002 dollars)
for the rest of eternity, starting in 2035. This ‘eternal endowment’ amount for ‘perpetual care’ of the atmosphere
is of the order of one year’s receipts of Federal gasoline taxes. A threee-fold richer endowment would permit
eternally-sponsored atmospheric management to commence a dozen years hence, in the event that the
thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic collapses within this time-frame, as some experts currently
suggest may be happening.
Titanium dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DuPont Titanium Technologies Coatings Applications
Ti-Pure® R-902+ Titanium Dioxide
TiO2 pigment Industry: Distribution of market share
In mid-1996, world TiO2 capacity was 4,193,000 tons. The top four manufacturers were Dupont, Tioxide (ICI),
SCM Chemicals and Kronos (NL). These companies combined accounted for 57% of world capacity.
Dupont: - Production capacity of 909,000 tons representing 21.7% of world total. Majority of plants located
in North America (819,000t). Remaining capacity from plants located in Asia/Pacific (90,000t).
Health and safety
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the
talk page. (March 2011)
Titanium dioxide is incompatible with strong reducing agents and strong acids. Violent or
incandescent reactions occur with molten metals that are very electropositive, e.g. aluminium, calcium,
magnesium, potassium, sodium, zinc and lithium.
Titanium dioxide accounts for 70% of the total production volume of pigments worldwide. It is widely used to
provide whiteness and opacity to products such as paints, plastics, papers, inks, foods, and toothpastes. It is also
used in cosmetic and skin care products, and it is present in almost every sunblock, where it helps protect the
skin from ultraviolet light.
Many sunscreens use nanoparticle titanium dioxide (along with nanoparticle zinc oxide) which, despite
reports of potential health risks, is not actually absorbed through the skin. Other effects of titanium dioxide
nanoparticles on human health are not well understood. Nevertheless, allergy to topical application has been
Titanium dioxide dust, when inhaled, has been classified by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, meaning it is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The
findings of the IARC are based on the discovery that high concentrations of pigment-grade (powdered)
and ultrafine titanium dioxide dust caused respiratory tract cancer in rats exposed by inhalation and
intratracheal instillation. The series of biological events or steps that produce the rat lung cancers (e.g.
particle deposition, impaired lung clearance, cell injury, fibrosis, mutations and ultimately cancer) have
also been seen in people working in dusty environments.
Therefore, the observations of cancer in animals were considered, by IARC, as relevant to people doing jobs with
exposures to titanium dioxide dust. For example, titanium dioxide production workers may be exposed to high
dust concentrations during packing, milling, site cleaning and maintenance, if there are insufficient dust control
measures in place. However, the human studies conducted so far do not suggest an association between
occupational exposure to titanium dioxide and an increased risk for cancer. The safety of the use of nano-particle
sized titanium dioxide, which can penetrate the body and reach internal organs, has been criticized. Studies have
also found that titanium dioxide nanoparticles cause inflammatory response and genetic damage in mice. The
mechanism by which TiO2 may cause cancer is unclear. Molecular research suggests that cell cytotoxicity
due to TiO2 results from the interaction between TiO2 nanoparticles and the lysosomal compartment,
independently of the known apoptotic signaling pathways.
There is some evidence the rare disease Yellow nail syndrome may be caused by titanium, either
implanted for medical reasons or through eating various foods containing titanium dioxide.
Use of nanoparticles in food increases; human health and environment endangered
by ANDREWSCHNEIDER on JANUARY 29, 2012
Just two years ago, nanotechnology was estimated to be a $10 billion business. Now, financial forecasters
predict that within three more years, the nano industry will grow to $1 trillion.
One of the most heavily used nanoparticles in this burgeoning business is titanium dioxide. It is also is one
of the most extensively tested manmade creations because its use is rampant as a whitening agent and
filler in a rapidly increasing number of foods, paints, coatings, cosmetic, personal care, and other consumer
It’s everywhere and most consumers don’t have a clue that they’re buying it.
For example, researchers at Arizona State University found TiO2 in hundreds of products including
Twinkies and other Hostess baked goods, in various flavors of Kool-Aid, in M&Ms, in Trident and Dentyne
gum, and in Mentos Mints, Hershey’s dark chocolate, Cadbury candy and Betty Crocker frostings.
A study released this week in ACS’s journal of Environmental Science & Technology broke down the
amount of nano TiO2 found in commonly used products
Food led the list, the study said, with the highest content of TiO2 in candies, sweets and chewing gums.
Some personal care products such as toothpastes and several sunscreens – even some marketed for
babies – contained 1 percent to more than 10 percent of TiO2. The study reported that most shampoos,
deodorants, and shaving creams contained the lowest levels of titanium.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which can only recommend worker safeguards to
OSHA, has strongly suggested that workers use care when they are exposed to nano TiO2.
The Food and Drug Administration has offered little guidance to consumers or the food industry on the
presence of the substance in food.
This angers many public health experts because animal studies have show that inhalation,
ingestion or absorption of nano TiO2 can cause cell damage, induce emphysema-like lung injury,
penetrate the blood-brain barrier, damage the liver and kidney and cause cancer.
There also is growing proof that this man-made nanoparticle of heavy metal presents a threat to the
environment. Researchers have found TiO2 is in sunscreen washing off bathers in pools, lakes or other
waterways. The weathering of paint can free it into the soil, and passage though the body can release it
into sewage treatment systems.
Testing has found that levels of the TiO2 exist even after being treated in sewage systems and as it moves
elsewhere in the environment as treated waste discharged to water supplies or applied as biosolids to
PLOS ONE: Nanosized TiO2-Induced Reproductive System Dysfunction and Its Mechanism in Female
Recent studies have demonstrated nanosized titanium dioxide (nano-TiO2)-induced fertility
reduction and ovary injury in animals. To better understand how nano-TiO2 act in mice, female mice
were exposed to 2.5, 5, and 10 mg/kg nano-TiO2 by intragastric administration for 90 consecutive days; the
ovary injuries, fertility, hormone levels, and inflammation-related or follicular atresia-related cytokine
expression were investigated. The results showed that nano-TiO2 was deposited in the ovary, resulting in
significant reduction of body weight, relative weight of ovary and fertility, alterations of hematological and
serum parameters and sex hormone levels, atretic follicle increases, inflammation, and necrosis.
Furthermore, nano-TiO2 exposure resulted in marked increases of insulin-like growth factor-binding protein
2, epidermal growth factor, tumor necrosis factor-", tissue plasminogen activator, interleukin-1#, interleukin
-6, Fas, and FasL expression, and significant decreases of insulin-like growth factor-1, luteinizing hormone
receptor, inhibin ", and growth differentiation factor 9 expression in mouse ovary. These findings implied
that fertility reduction and ovary injury of mice following exposure to nano-TiO2 may be associated with
alteration of inflammation-related or follicular atresia-related cytokine expressions, and humans should take
great caution when handling nano-TiO2.
Why is Titanium Dioxide in our Food? Microwave Control! and..Genetic Damage! according to U.C.L.A.
We have been enslaved for control by future electromagnetic weapons and tasers. A solution of water
and Titanium Dioxide will superheat in microseconds from directed energy weapons. Each human
or animal is now a target! We have heard about the effects of Fluoride in our water. But we remain
unaware of the greater dangers of Titanium Dioxide in our food. Titanium Dioxide is used in cosmetics
and vitamins and other drugs as a filler to construct tablets. But it is also used in skimmed milk, cheeses,
yogurts, mayonnaise, chocolate marshmallows, manufactured fast foods, tomato ketchup. It is fed to
animals that humans eat. Titanium dioxide accounts for 70% of the total production volume of pigments
worldwide. It is widely used to provide whiteness and opacity to products such as paints, plastics, papers,
inks, foods, and toothpastes. It is also used in cosmetic and skin care products, and it is present in almost
every sunblock, where it helps protect the skin from ultraviolet light. Titanium dioxide is a metal oxide with
unique properties. It rivals diamonds for hardness and is notable for excellent electrical properties. But why
in food? This chemical is not a nutrient; it is totally insoluble and amounts to eating ground glass!
The American Cancer Society has listed Titanium Dioxide among the five most carcinogenic
substances on the planet. It is considered a cause of Asthma, cancer, kidney disease, Alzheimer's
and fertility loss.
[link to eugenicsanddepopulation.blogspot.com]
Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, found in everything from cosmetics to sunscreen to paint to
vitamins, caused systemic genetic damage in mice, according to a comprehensive study conducted by
researchers at UCLA’s Johnson Comprehensive Cancer Center...