Fact Check: Rainwater Did NOT Contain Dangerous Levels Of Barium When Tested In 'Chemtrail' Investigative Report

Fact Check

  • by: Sarah Thompson
Fact Check: Rainwater Did NOT Contain Dangerous Levels Of Barium When Tested In 'Chemtrail' Investigative Report Miscalculation

Did rainwater collected in a man's backyard show dangerously high levels of barium in lab test results conducted for a 2007 TV station investigation about "chemtrails"? No, that's not true: The lab results for the test sample did not show an unsafe level of barium. The reporter made an error converting the units of measure used in the lab report to the units of measure used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This conversion error caused the barium levels in the sample to be misinterpreted as three times higher than the EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) when it was actually about 30 times lower.

The original news report on Shreveport, Louisiana's KSLA News 12 was posted on November 9, 2007, as an article and a broadcast segment. These are no longer on the KSLA website but the article -- without corrections -- was recorded by web.archive.org on November 16, 2007. A short segment of the newscast was posted on Facebook on July 13, 2022. It was captioned:

Still don't believe chemtrails are real and that it isn't out government poisoning us? It's not a conspiracy theory any longer.

Text added in the margin of the video reads:


This is how the video appeared on Facebook at the time of writing:
(Image source: Facebook screenshot taken on Thu Aug 04 18:22:34 2022 UTC)

The news story revolves around a water sample collected in the backyard of a concerned man. KSLA sent the sample to a lab for testing, and the results are shown (below).

(Image source: Facebook screenshot taken on Thu Aug 04 18:22:34 2022 UTC)

As the reporter goes over the results pictured in the video, the words he says do not match the numbers written in the lab report. The paper reads 68.8 ug/L (this is micrograms per liter, or parts per billion), but the reporter says:

KSLA had the sample tested at a lab. The results? ... a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million - more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA

Lead Stories reached out to the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water for clarification about the levels of barium considered safe and about the conversion of ug/L to mg/L. They replied by email on August 4, 2022:

EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations [NPDWRs] can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations

As visible in the table of regulated contaminants, the MCL [maximum contaminant level] for barium is 2 ppm [parts per million]. If drinking water supplied by a public water system were to contain 68.8 ppm (mg/L) of barium, it would certainly violate the NPDWRs. However, µg/L is much less than mg/L. 68.8 µg/L equals 68.8 parts per billion, which is comfortably below the safe limit of barium in drinking water.

In a September 1, 2008, blog post on skepticalinquirer.org titled "The Chemtrail Conspiracy," physicist Dave Thomas reviews the error converting µg/L to parts per million that resulted in this misunderstanding. He writes:

'KSLA News 12 had the sample tested at a lab. The results: A high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million, (ppm). That's more than three times the toxic level set by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.' I had to inform my angry correspondent of a problem--the actual video clearly shows 68.8 µg/L (micrograms per liter), or equivalently, 68.8 ppb (parts per billion). The reporter overestimated by a factor of one hundred, because he read the '68.8' as '6.8,' and also confused million with billion. The measured levels were far less than EPA limits.

Want to inform others about the accuracy of this story?

See who is sharing it (it might even be your friends...) and leave the link in the comments.:

  Sarah Thompson

Sarah Thompson lives with her family and pets on a small farm in Indiana. She founded a Facebook page and a blog called “Exploiting the Niche” in 2017 to help others learn about manipulative tactics and avoid scams on social media. Since then she has collaborated with journalists in the USA, Canada and Australia and since December 2019 she works as a Social Media Authenticity Analyst at Lead Stories.


Read more about or contact Sarah Thompson

About Us

International Fact-Checking Organization Meta Third-Party Fact Checker

Lead Stories is a fact checking website that is always looking for the latest false, misleading, deceptive or inaccurate stories, videos or images going viral on the internet.
Spotted something? Let us know!.

Lead Stories is a:


Subscribe to our newsletter

* indicates required

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Lead Stories LLC:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Most Read

Most Recent

Share your opinion