An attack of the vapours: Tennessee bill endorses chemtrails conspiracy theory
An attack of the vapours: Tennessee bill endorses chemtrails conspiracy theory
Legislation targeting baseless concept to keep state’s skies clear essentially futile given politicians cannot control sky and wind
Legislation targeting baseless concept to keep state’s skies clear essentially futile given politicians cannot control sky and wind
The “chemtrails” conspiracy theory is enjoying its moment in the clearly visible, not blocked by government-released toxic chemicals, sun, after the Tennessee state senate passed a bill this month targeting the baseless concept.
Legislation banning the “intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances” swept through the Republican-dominated senate, and will now be considered by the Republican-dominated house, before then being weighed by Tennessee’s Republican governor. There is also a movement to pass a similar law in Pennsylvania.
The Tennessee bill, introduced in the senate by Republican Steve Southerland, does not use the term “chemtrails”. The language in the bill, however – there is talk of the government “intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere” – directly evokes a decades-old conspiracy theory.
Wait, can CO2 be considered a chemical? Did Tennessee Republicans just pass something to stop global warming? Are they now going after cow farts?
35The police are going to be very busy. There are a lot of cows in Tennessee. They fart a lot.
9
Should be of no surprise that overly religious people believe in conspiracy theories!
19Folks taught not to use critical thinking are bad at critical thinking, and now the weather.
2
Because there couldn't be any legitimate reason to do the things they're banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.
Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.
17I see no evidence for chemtrails specifically, but the US Navy did intentionally spray biological weapons on San Francisco and other cities in multiple states dozens of times to check how deadly different chemicals were, so it's not a terrible law to have on the books.
10Fucking fuck that Operation Seaspray is all kinds of fucked up.
And people wonder why we have COVID 5G tower conspiracy theorists today…
5That's the best documented one they have the name of but there's a more complete list that came out with the church committee with almost 300 different incidents of the navy and army spraying biological weapons in different cities all around the states and I believe dropping them from the air also. Not exactly chemtrails but not exactly not chemtrails.
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC In St. Louis in the mid 1950s, and again a decade later, the army sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide via motorized blowers atop Pruitt-Igoe, at schools, from the backs of station wagons, and via planes.
0
So... I haven't read the bill, but would that mean that flying, emergancy landings, driving and breathing would be illegal?!
I mean flying, driving and breathing produces CO2 and to do an emergency landing you have to dump fuel....
10Not that I believe in chemtrails, but if they were a thing, a law saying "you can't fly your jets over our state's airspace" is not especially enforceable. And considering the chemtrail conspiracy theorists think they're on every commercial aircraft, I guess Tennessee will have to close all of its airports.
9FAA: well I'm not gonna read that.
8So I haven't read the actual bill and I dearly hope they considered this: A law banning the intentional dispersion of chemicals would ban uhm ... well ... everything?
6Rail companies would be sweating if this affected any ‘corporate person’.
2
Reminds me of this classic:
1