>>18257180 (pb)
>if you dilute it enough, it ends up being less that the existing "background" concentrations
I get your point. I does not decrease my suspicions when there is such a lack of transparency.
Dane Wigginton of geoengineering watch seems to believe the quantities are huge. Enough to kill a lot of the trees out west, but others dispute that.
If I had the resources I'd love to test for these things. A lot of crap buried in farmlands I suspect, even if quantities deposited by air are relatively miniscule.