Bio not provided
The pilot does an excellent job of educating the general public about the alleged "chem trails" from airplanes flying overhead. Now, some of you may want to grab another roll of aluminum foil to make a bigger tin-foil hat, but for the majority (I hope!) who have an IQ higher than a rock, please allow me to elaborate on the initial explanation.First, you die-hard, Liberal conspiracy-theorists... thank you for recognizing my genius. That said, as Mr. Reed explained the theory of LIFT, in regards to air displacement, common-sense should tell you & me that air temperatures get lower (colder) the higher you proceed. Taking off from an airport where the outside/surrounding (ambient) air temperature is, say 85 degrees Fahrenheit, but as your JET (remember what type of plane I just mentioned!) takes-off, and then climbs to a cruising altitude of say, 32,000', the outside/surrounding air temperature is going to be much colder than what it was at/near sea-level, as *most* U.S. airports are. Now, weather phenomena such as snow, rain, or inversions (masses of cold air sinking into valleys because cold air is denser -- hence more air pressure -- and heavier than warm air that likes to gently float up, up, and away) aside, comparing air temperature by elevation, the air temperature decreases approximately 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit for every 1,000' increase in elevation. I'm going to assume everyone knows "sea-level" starts at the point that land and sea are the same level of elevation on this lovely little globe we call "Earth". For the majority of places around the world, this elevation is -0-'. Stay with me, because we're going to expand our minds with a nifty principle called "mathematics". Ready? Okay, so if Point 'A' is the airport at sea-level, or -0-', and Point 'B' is your goal for cruising altitude of 32,000', then you must remember how much the temperature decreases for every 1,000', and consider that you've gone from -0- to 32,000' (divided by 1,000 = 32). Take the temperature difference, 5.4 degrees F x 32 = 172.8F. So if you started out at 85 degrees F, now you must subtract 172.8... 85 - 172.8 = -87.8 degrees F. Everybody knows... water (a liquid) freezes (becomes a solid state) at 32 degrees F, right? So -87.8 is nearly 3x colder than a freezing temperature.Thankfully, airliners and medium-heavy aircraft are insulated in the cabins in which we sit, so we don't have to worry about being human-popsicles because we choose to transport ourselves by aviation, but when you have super-cold air traveling through jet turbines, which are a combustion engine that generates heat from its moving turbines (fan-blades), that super-cold air is going to be instantly heated up, and just as quickly ejected through the exhaust system of those big 'ol jet-airliner engines. Now, it's been awhile since I've been in Airline 101 classes for a Private Pilot's license, and although my field of expertise is aviation, I'm not an air traffic controller and don't possess the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license to do so, but I vaguely remember light-aircraft, such as Cessnas generally fly up to 10,000'-14,000'. Using the same principles of mathematics, 10,000' x 5.4 degrees = 54. 85 - 54 = 31 degrees of Fahrenheit, while 14,000' x 5.4 = 75.6, so 85 - 75.6 = 9.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Both elevations are well-below freezing, but light-aircraft are not permitted by air safety regulations to fly at higher elevations because the aircraft fuselage (body) and engines, which are turbo-propellers, or turbo-props, can't survive the rigors of air turbulence like their larger counterparts, which are, again, "jets", a whole 'nother kind of aircraft. So, let's re-cap: commercial airliners are jet airplanes, and are flown by highly-trained, professional aviators. They fly at higher elevations than light-aircraft, and their engine composition is irrefutably different from turbo-props. When they fly through colder air temperatures, which are generally invisible unless in formations of clouds (for the most part!), the super-cold air gets heated and discharged back into the cold air and we see it as water vapor, conspiracy-theorists see it as "chem trails". Get it?
1 week ago on Ask the Expert: Why do Planes Keep Spraying Chemtrails into our Atmosphere?
As a mother of six boys, who are now (or almost) 25yrs, 22 yrs, 19 yrs, 16yrs,11yrs and 10yrs old... I have to say this article is poorly written, inaccurate, and prejudicial towards the advertisement of the product which carries this blog.Point 1: 'poorly written' ...in reason #1 the author states, and I quote: "his spine and hips are unsupported to and there is simply nowhere for baby to sit.", end quote.This is poor grammar, punctuation, and a false statement. It should read "unsupported too," (or 'also' works instead of 'too', or neither at all)... but of course the baby has someplace to sit. He/she SITS and the sling is passed under their bottom, or buttocks. Think about when you carry or hold a newborn. Due to their size and weight, not to mention their need for head support, you cup the back of their head with your palm, and allow your forearm to support their spine. You are facing said newborn, they are approximately a foot away from you, and able to focus on you, which is good for establishing facial-recognition, as well as vocal recognition. Remember, they only SEE objects within a few feet of their face, so guess what... anything else is a blur, and NOT a stimulus that will overstimulate them. Within a few months, their eyesight improves, but they still lack the strengthened neck and abdomen muscles that allow them to hold their heads up unassisted, or to sit unsupported.As for inaccuracy #2, it comes when the author mentions the health risk of hip-dysplasia. Again, think of the bio-mechanics of holding an older baby (like the ones pictured). You hold them by placing an arm under their bottom, and their legs "dangle" over your forearm. This is not going to cause your babies' hip(s) to be displaced. Even putting a baby or toddler on your hip, and supporting their back/shoulders with your forearm, will not harm them. Grasping your child by the ankles and suspending them upside down, or swinging them in this position, may definitely cause injury! Holding babies in the seated position, whether facing you or facing away from you, is a personal choice, and one that should be made based on your activity. If you're vacuuming the floor, or walking the dog, front-facing is fine. Slap a burp cloth over the seam of the material supporting your baby's chest, and rock on. If you're grocery shopping or it's cold, face-to-face may be best. I mention grocery shopping because in many instances, babies, especially newborns, are attention-getters. That is to say, complete strangers will strike up a conversation with you, or peek into baby seats & strollers, and occasionally, God-forbid, reach in to touch your bundle of joy. A baby that is nestled within his mommy's or daddy's arms, embraced and protected, are less likely to have a human head pop into their little haven of peace.Inaccuracy #3 is in reason #2: "Makes it tough for the wearer to carry the baby and may not be so wonderful on your back either." Humans are capable of carrying burdens on the front or back of their bodies while they accomplish tasks, or travel from one location to another. Where the load is placed is, again, mostly a personal preference, but in either case, a body's natural reaction is to lean in the opposite direction of the additional load. It's not just natural, it's a physical requirement to remain standing or walking. It's 'physics'. When you increase the load a body has to carry, it takes greater effort, physically, for that body to move. It causes the bearer to counteract the weight by leaning their body in the opposite direction in order to remain 'balanced'. Therefore, if you carry on the front, either forward-facing or face-to-face, you will lean back to adjust for the additional weight, and vice versa if you carry your baby/child in a piggyback position. It isn't just the leaning that will cause back pain, but also the increased weight. Not so noticeable if your baby is <10 lbs, but as the weight of the baby/child increases, so does the strain. These issues are also true for expecting mothers (gaining weight), and for men and women who are overweight. Think about it. Ask your doctor.For the sake of brevity, the fourth and last inaccuracy I will note is found in reason #3: "Places your baby in an arched or hollow back position which places pressure on the spine." For the unfamiliar or uninformed, the term "hollow back" is laymen for excessive lordosis, which is the inward curvature of a portion of the lumbar and cervical vertebral column often-caused by anterior pelvic tilt, when the pelvis tips forward while resting on top of the femurs. This is a physical stress caused to the adult carrying the infant, rather than to the baby him/her-self. A newborn, infant, and baby all lack sufficient strength in their abdominal muscles to support their torsos in sitting positions until they start developing these muscles through activities like rolling over. Prior to this accomplishment, the back is naturally concaved, that is curved inward, because the baby was in that position during the fetal period (ninth week thru birth) of their development in utero, or otherwise, in the womb.Overall, this article is not even fit for the enjoyment of reading, and if I were a new mom-to-be/mommy, I would be too scared to pick up my baby for fear of hurting him! Ladies and gentlemen readers, kindly disregard this rubbish and if you're unsure, ask your pediatrician for advice in caring for your infant. - Christine Martinez
1 year, 4 months ago on Nine Reasons Not to Carry Your Baby Facing Out