Photo by Joachim Süß on Unsplash
The fact that my spell checker doesn’t recognize “chemtrails” as a word should tell you something about their existence, but here we are…
On September 7th, a Facebook user in the UK posted a video of him removing a reddish-colored layer of sand off his car with a magnet. His claim? This dust is evidence of a large government conspiracy known as “chemtrails.” The video appears to have been removed, but a similar video by another user was posted to Twitter (now X™). I’m not linking them because that’s only going to drive traffic and if there’s one thing conspiracy theorists love, it’s an audience.
This event first appeared on my radar via Reuters Fact Check blog, a misinformation-busting website run by the one of the world’s biggest and most venerable news agencies. I’ll go ahead and spoil the ending for you, the story is fake- chemtrails are not responsible for an overnight coating of sand on a neighborhood in the UK. But the validity of this claim isn’t what I mean to address. Rather, I want to shine a light on how Reuters determined it was false.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the chemtrails conspiracy theory, it’s a claim that the governments are secretly releasing harmful chemicals into the atmosphere via jet exhaust. What exactly this chemical is and what its purpose might be is always left open for discussion but common claims involve sterilization, reduced life expectancy, and even mind-control.
Reuters’ Process
Here’s the original Reuters post if you’d like to follow along.
One of the most crucial techniques when studying outrageous claims like this is to consider the source. Who is telling you that the government is releasing harmful chemicals into your air via jet exhaust? Is it a trusted source such as a Harvard Research Group (who debunked the whole idea of contrails) or is it some guy on Facebook or Twitter (still now X™)?
Reuters engaged in something we call lateral reading, the process of checking multiple sources for the same story to see if everyone agrees on the facts or if you’re only seeing one viewpoint. It’s called lateral because one typically reads a website top-to-bottom, but this encourages readers to hop sideways into a new browser tab and check the validity of claims before continuing down the original page.
The other thing Reuters did was check with experts. This sand must have come from somewhere, right? So by consulting with an expert on sand- say someone like Professor Barbara Maher, director of the Centre for Environmental Magnetism & Palaeomagnetism, Lancaster University or Professor Richard Harrison, head of the University of Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences, both of whom corresponded with Reuters to offer explanations into the phenomenon they were witnessing.
The sand came from the Sahara and was blown a very long distance to the UK in a well-documented northerly wind pattern. Saharan sand contains multiple minerals that are magnetic, such as magnetite and maghemite and would appear reddish in color due to the relatively high amount of iron oxide present in most samples. Makes sense right? These are all well-understood and documented occurrences in our world and they don’t need a government cover-up to make sense of the situation.
Cutting Through the Noise
This dips into one of my personal favorite philosophical tools: Occam’s Razor. In short, Occam’s Razor suggests we not make things overly complicated.
Next time you read a story or see an image online that seems completely outlandish, remember to stop reading, open a new tab, and poke around a bit and see what other sources are saying about the story. Then consider the source is it a reputable source like a Harvard Research Group or the head of a university earth sciences department, or is it a stranger on social media? Then finally, as William of Ockham (and to a lesser extent, Avril Lavigne) reminds us, don’t go and make things so complicated.