By Jay Reynolds(originally posted 4/5/2000)

SUMMARY

A web page entitled "MICROSCOPIC PARTICLE COUNT STUDY-
NEW Mexico 1996-1999 was presented by Clifford E Carnicom on March 23, 2000.
The Carnicom study purports to show increase in airborne particulate of 10 microns size(PM10). The Carnicom study was based on a preferentially selected data set designed to support his "chemtrail" hoax. My study of the larger statewide data set available shows a steady decrease over the same time period.

THE CARNICOM STUDY

The Carnicom study examined data of airborne PM10 particle counts for five stations in New Mexico comparing annual hourly mean counts for all stations during 1999 with similar data averaged over the years 1996-1998. While the data sets were not supplied, and their source was not accurately identified or presented at the above website, upon consultation, Carnicom supplied the source to be the State of New Mexico Environment Office, Santa Fe, NM.

Carnicom further explained that during the compilation of data for his study, he was unable to access data from the US EPA website. He has also mentioned that it would be beneficial to increase the size of the data set.

A LARGER VIEW

I have reviewed the Carnicom study and conducted a similar study which uses data which was available at the time the Carnicom study was presented. My study uses data from the US EPA website.
This data set is more than twice the size(420,480 observations vs. 175,200 observations) and thus presents a broader and more representative sampling than the Carnicom study. The specific data can be accessed at the following URLs:
============================
1999 PARTICULATE PM10 COUNT data set

1998 PARTICULATE(PM10) COUNT data set

1997 PARTICULATE(PM10) COUNT data set

1996 PARTICULATE(PM10) COUNT data set

===============================
Calculations were made using an average of annual mean hourly PM10 levels for the following counties: Bernalillo, Chaves, Dona Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, Lea, Luna, Otero, San Juan, Sandoval, Santa Fe, and Taos.

Averages for all counties (calculated in ug/m3) were:
1999- 18.89 ug/m3
1998- 18.62 ug/m3
1997- 20.11 ug/m3
1996- 24.39 ug/m3

The average of particle counts over the years of 1996-1998 is: 21.04.

The 1999 particle count at 18.89 represents a 10.2% DECREASE over the average of 1996-1998 particle counts, as opposed to the Carnicom study, which found a 16% INCREASE comparing the same years.

Significantly, for Santa Fe County, where Carnicom resides and frequently observes persistent contrails, particle counts are among the lowest in the state, and comparison of the particle
counts in Santa Fe over the same years shows a GREATER DECREASE(13.3%) than the
average decrease for the State overall.

Additionally, a non-specific comparison with other States will reveal that particle counts in New Mexico, on average, and especially compared to larger urban areas, are among the lowest in the nation.

Finally, within the State of New Mexico, the greatest particle counts are consistently found in Bernalillo(Albuquerque) and Dona Ana Counties, with the airspace of Dona Ana County being
coincidental with Las Cruces,NM, El Paso,TX, and Juarez, Mexico. It is well known that large populations and industrial activity are the source of most particle counts, and that lax environmental enforcement in Mexico is a large contribution to those levels along the border.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of airborne PM10 concentrations during 1999 with average concentrations during the years 1996-1998 shows a decrease of 10.2%. Examination of the study above shows no correlation of PM10 particle counts with reported sightings of increased persistent contrails over the State of New Mexico.

Citizens of New Mexico should be proud of the low particulate levels found in their State, and continuation of the downward trend in particulates will demonstrate continued improvement
that can be a source of continuing pride.

A well-known fallacy within statistical analysis occurs when relatively small samples are selected rather than the largest available data set. Carnicom's selection of only five counties out of the data set was premeditated deception, designed to promote the "chemtrails" hoax, and his study is still displayed at his website despite my refutation of it in the spring of 2000.

POSTSCRIPT

This study was originally posted at Clifford Carnicom's message board by Jay Reynolds writing as "Workinstif" on (4/5/2000). Immediately subsequent to that posting, "Workinstif"(Jay Reynolds) was banned from posting at that message board.