Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daymare17

Biological Transmutation, Fact or Fiction?

Recommended Posts

I just found this very interesting article. Does cold fusion and fission really occur everyday in living organisms?

 

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/MOLECULAR-MODELLING/1997-October/001009.html

 

A number of chemists report that plants, animals and human beings

ROUTINELY TRANSMUTE MID-RANGE ELEMENTS (for example, potassium into

calcium or magnesium into calcium) AS PART OF THEIR ORDINARY DAILY

METABOLISM. These transmutations obey rules such as: Mg + O => Ca; K + H

=> Ca. This is revolutionary since, according to current physical theory,

the energy levels required for such transmutations are billions of times

higher than what is available in biological systems. Equally inexplicable

fission reactions such as Ca => Mg + O; Ca => K + H are also reported.

But revolutions in physics have repeatedly occurred, such as the quantum

revolution in which the radical property of non-locality, previously

considered impossible, is now accepted by physicists (see Aspect and

Grangier 1986, Bransden and Joachain 1989, p.671-681, Chiao et al 1993,

Squires 1990, p.173, Rae 1986, p.25-44, and Penrose 1990, p.369).

What I am presenting here is not the "cold fusion" of Fleischmann and

Pons which, as far as I know, lacks clear evidence of actual fusion. Even

if the Fleischmann and Pons effect turns out to be actual fusion, it is

only the fusion of isotopes of the lightest element hydrogen under special

laboratory conditions which is quite different from the UNEQUIVOCAL FUSION

AND FISSION OF MID-RANGE elements found in biological transmutation reports.

 

Now let us examine the evidence for biological transmutation. Crabs,

shellfish and crayfish have shells made largely of calcium. A crab 17 cm

by 10 cm has a shell weighing around 350 grams. Periodically these animals

shed their shell and create a new one. This is called molting. When

molting, a crab is very vulnerable and hides away from all other creatures

so it can not get calcium by preying on other creatures. According to

French chemist C. Louis Kervran of the Conseil d'Hygiene in Paris, sea

water contains far too little calcium to account for the rapid production

of a shell (the calcium content of sea water is about 0.042% and a crab

can form a new shell in little more than one day). If the entire body of a

crab is analyzed for calcium, it is found to contain only enough calcium

to produce 3% of the shell (even taking into account the calcium carbonate

stored in the hepato-pancreas just before molting).

Even in water completely devoid of calcium, shellfish can still create

their calcium-bearing shells as shown by an experiment performed at the

Maritime Laboratory of Roscoff: "A crayfish was put in a sea water basin

from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal

made its shell anyway." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

"Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed

that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although

on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no

calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

Sea water contains a sufficient amount of magnesium to form a shell if

we accept Kervran's proposition that crabs routinely transmute magnesium

into calcium; Mg + O => Ca.

It would be interesting to put a crayfish in water devoid of both

calcium and magnesium and see if it can still create its shell.

 

Normal egg shells produced by hens contain calcium. Kervran (1972,

p.41) reported an experiment in which hens were confined in an area in

which there was no source of calcium and no calcium was present in their

diet. The calcium deficiency became clearly manifested after a few days

when the hens began to lay eggs with soft shells. Then purified mica

(which contains potassium) was given to the hens. Kervran (1972, p.41)

described what then transpired: "The hens jumped on the mica and began

scratching around it very rapidly, panting over it; then they rested,

rolling their heads on it, threw it into the air, and began scratching it

again. The next day eggs with normal shells (weight 7 grams) were laid.

Thus, in the 20 hours that intervened, the hens transformed a supply of

potassium into calcium. ... An experiment of this kind, using the same

mica, was undertaken with guinea-fowls over a period of forty days. The

administering of the mica was suspended three times and each time a

soft-shelled egg was laid ... ."

One might suggest that the calcium in the egg shells was borrowed from

the bones of the hens. But if this is true, why were soft eggs laid when

the mica was withheld and normal eggs laid when mica was given to the

hens? In order to avoid the conclusion that the hens transmuted potassium

into calcium, one would have to show that mica somehow stimulates a

metabolic pathway in which calcium is removed from the hen's bones and

used in the production of the egg shells. This could be completely refuted

by feeding the hens mica (and of course absolutely no calcium) for such a

long period of time that all the calcium in their bones would have been

completely exhausted. If after that time the hens still produce

calcium-bearing egg shells, we must conclude that the calcium in the egg

shells is not being taken from the bones. At that point, we seem to have

no choice but to acknowledge the transmutation of potassium into calcium

within the hens.

 

Kervran (1972, p.52) described experiments performed in 1959 by the

French government in the Sahara desert. The government was interested in

determining the nutritional requirements of petroleum workers in the

extreme heat prevalent in the desert. In the first experiment, conducted

near a place called Ouargla, the total amount of magnesium ingested per

day per man was measured and compared with the amount excreted. It was

found that, on the average, each man daily excreted 117.2 milligrams of

magnesium more than he ingested. Thus, each day, each man lost on the

average 117.2 milligrams of magnesium. Now we must consider how much

magnesium is on reserve in the human body: it turns out that the body is

not able to mobilize more than 5000 milligrams of magnesium. Thus, at a

daily loss of 117.2 milligrams, it is clear that after 50 days the bodies

of the petroleum workers should have been completely depleted of

magnesium. But the experiment was conducted for 180 days and each day each

man excreted on the a verage 117.2 milligrams more than he ingested.

The second experiment lasted for 240 days and was conducted near

Tindouf which has a drier climate. This time each man excreted each day an

average of 256 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested. Under these

conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted

of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter. It seems

difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create

magnesium.

 

Biochemist H. Komaki of the University of Mukogawa in Japan reported

that a number of different families of microorganisms such as Aspergillus

niger and Saccharomyces cerevisiae create potassium during growth. (Komaki

1965, 1967)

 

Kervran described a germination experiment using ryegrass seeds (type

Rina) performed in 1971 by the Laboratory of the Societe des Agriculteurs

de France (Kervran 1972, p.107). Out of an initial group of 2000 seeds,

1000 were set aside as a control batch and the other 1000 were germinated.

The control batch weighed 2.307 grams before drying and 2.035 grams after

drying. These 2.035 grams were analyzed and found to contain 3.02

milligrams of magnesium, 6.97 milligrams of potassium, 6.00 milligrams of

calcium and 0.021 milligrams of copper. The magnesium, calcium and copper

contents were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy and the

potassium content was determined by flame emission.

The 1000 seeds to be germinated were germinated for 29 days in Petri

dishes under a plastic sheet to insure that no dust could get in. Aside

from 430 milliliters of Evian water, absolutely nothing else was supplied

to the seeds during germination. 430 milliliters of Evian water was found

to contain 10.32 milligrams of magnesium, 0.39 milligrams of potassium,

33.11 milligrams of calcium and 0.00 milligrams of copper.

After the 29 day germination period, the plants were converted to ashes

under high temperature and the ashes and residual Evian water in the Petri

dishes were found to contain 3.20 milligrams of magnesium, 16.67

milligrams of potassium, 36.50 milligrams of calcium and 0.10 milligrams

of copper.

Before germination there were 6.97 milligrams of potassium in the

seeds. During germination 0.39 milligrams of potassium were added to the

growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei can not

be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there

should be 6.97 + 0.39 = 7.36 milligrams of potassium in the plants and

residual Evian water. But this was not the case. After germination the

plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 16.67 milligrams of

potassium. Thus 9.31 milligrams of potassium were apparently created

during germination.

Before germination there were 3.02 milligrams of magnesium in the

seeds. During germination 10.32 milligrams of magnesium were added to the

growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei can not

be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there

should be 10.32 + 3.02 = 13.34 milligrams of magnesium in the plants and

residual Evian water. But after germination the plants and residual Evian

water were found to contain only 3.20 milligrams of magnesium. Thus 10.14

milligrams of magnesium were apparently destroyed during germination.

Before germination there were 0.021 milligrams of copper in the seeds.

During germination 0.00 milligrams of copper were added to the growing

plants. Assuming that atomic nuclei can not be altered, we expect that

after germination there should still be 0.021 milligrams of copper in the

plants and residual Evian water. But it turned out that after germination

the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 0.10 milligrams

of copper. Thus 0.079 milligrams of copper were apparently created during

germination.

Before germination there were 6.00 milligrams of calcium in the seeds.

During germination 33.11 milligrams of calcium were added to the growing

plants (from the Evian water). Assuming that nuclei can not be altered, we

expect that after germination there should be 39.11 milligrams of calcium

in the plants and residual Evian water. However, after germination the

plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 36.50 milligrams of

calcium. Thus 2.61 milligrams of calcium were apparently destroyed during

germination.

The following challenge can be made: no one knows how much potassium,

calcium, magnesium and copper was in the seeds before they were

germinated. It was assumed that the amounts of these elements was not

significantly different from the amounts of these elements in the control

batch. How do we know this is true? What should have been done is to start

with a 100 grams of seeds, mix them around thoroughly, weigh out 50

batches of 2.000 grams each, randomly select 25 of these as control

batches, determine the amounts of potassium, calcium, magnesium and copper

in these batches and note the maximum variation in these elements among

these batches. The remaining 25 batches can then be germinated and the

plants analyzed for element content. In this way we would have some

measure of the variation among different batches (both germinated and

control).

On the positive side, it can be argued that since the seeds of the

control and germinated batches were of the same type, the variation in

element content between these two batches was not significant. Some

support for this idea can be found in the data provided by chemist D. Long

of the Michaelis Nutritional Research Laboratory in Harpenden, England.

Long analyzed (using atomic spectroscopy) six batches of ryegrass seeds

(each of which weighed 5.4 grams before drying) and discovered that the

difference in potassium content between the batch containing the greatest

amount of potassium and the batch containing the least amount of potassium

was 0.054 milligrams of potassium per gram of dry seed weight. Similarly,

the maximum difference in magnesium content was 0.033 milligrams per gram

of dry seed weight, that of calcium was 0.091 milligrams per gram of dry

seed weight, and that of copper was 1.19 micrograms per gram of dry seed

weight. (Long 1971, p.7)

Kervran proposed that the plants performed the following nuclear

reactions: Mg + O => Ca; Ca => K + H. Kervran did not discuss the reaction

involving copper.

Based on experience derived from similar experiments, Kervran said

that if the seeds are germinated in doubly-distilled water, the amount of

transmuted material is much smaller and may fall within the range of

experimental error and therefore not be significant. The reason for this

is that each kind of plant is only able to transmute certain elements into

certain other elements. Thus the experimenter must provide the plant with

a certain amount of certain elements if he wants to observe a large amount

of transmuted material. For germinating ryegrass seeds, Evian water is the

perfect growth medium because it provides this particular kind of plant

with the elements it needs.

Kervran (1972, p.132) also described a series of experiments in which

wheat and oat seeds were germinated "on porous ashless paper saturated

with a fertilizing solution of salts dissolved in water. The solution was

free of calcium." In the case of wheat (Roux Clair) there was 3.34 times

more calcium in the plants than in the seeds; in the case of one kind of

oats (Noire du Prieure) there was 4.16 times more calcium in the plants

than in the seeds; in the case of another kind of oats (Panache de Roye)

there was 4.51 times more calcium in the plants than in the seeds. The

calcium content was determined by two independent methods (conventional

chemical analysis and atomic absorption spectroscopy); both methods agreed

closely. Kervran performed more than 20 such experiments, mostly on oat

seeds.

Kervran (1972, p.133) mentioned that the moon plays an important role

in the production of calcium. The above huge increases in calcium were

obtained in experiments in which the germination started at the new moon

and stopped on the second full moon (after 6 weeks). This is an important

consideration for those who attempt to duplicate these results. A lunar

influence on the metabolic activity of various plants and animals was also

reported by biologist Frank A. Brown. (Gauquelin 1969, p.131-133)

D. Long questioned Kervran's methods of analysis. Long (1971, p.9) said

that Kervran had made (in some of his earlier experiments) the mistake of

comparing the ash weight of the control batch with the ash weight of the

plants after germination. Kervran may have made this mistake in some of

his earlier experiments but he did not do so in the ryegrass, wheat and

oat germination experiments described above. In these experiments, he

rightly compared the weight of the control batch with the weight of the

seeds to be germinated. In other words, the weight comparison was done on

the two batches of seeds before one batch was germinated. This is the

correct procedure as acknowledged by Long himself.

Long germinated ryegrass seeds in deionized water and reported that he

was unable to observe a transmutation of elements. As discussed above,

this is to be expected since without a sufficient input of certain

elements, there is insufficient material to be transmuted.

A more serious criticism is Long's claim that he corresponded with

Kervran who advised him to germinate green lentil seeds (Leguminacae) in

water containing certain minerals. Long reported that although he did this

he was still unable to observe a significant transmutation of elements.

But Long did not attempt to duplicate the best of Kervran's germination

experiments, namely the ryegrass, wheat and oat experiments described

above. I hope that many scientists will do these experiments and report

the results to the scientific community.

In the 1950s Pierre Baranger, a professor and the director of the

Laboratory of Organic Chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris,

performed a large number of germination experiments and concluded that

plants routinely transmute elements. Baranger did his experiments

independently of Kervran. Baranger said: "My results seem impossible, but

here they are. I took every precaution. I repeated the experiments many

times. I made thousands of analyses for years. I had the results verified

by third parties who did not know what I was investigating. I used several

methods. I changed my experimenters. But there is no escape. We must

submit to the evidence: plants transmute elements." (Michel 1959, p.82)

I tried to get more information by writing letters to the Ecole

Polytechnique, the Societe des Agriculteurs de France and the Agronomie

Research National Institute, but I received no reply.

 

In 1975 chemists O. Heroux and D. Peter of the Division of Biological

Sciences of the National Research Council of Canada conducted a meticulous

experiment with rats (Heroux and Peter 1975). They measured the amount of

magnesium ingested through food, water (and even air) as well as the

amount of magnesium excreted in the form of urine and feces over three

periods of time: 69 days, 240 days and 517 days. In the case in which the

rats were fed a diet in which the amount of magnesium ingested was less

than the amount of magnesium excreted, it was expected that the total

amount of magnesium in the body would decrease. In fact, long before the

517th day of the experiment it was expected that there would be zero

magnesium in the body. However, when the rats were analyzed for total

magnesium on the 517th day, each rat contained, on the average, 82

milligrams of magnesium. The method used to determine the amount of

magnesium in the body, food, water, air, feces and urine was atomic

absorption spectroscopy.

Heroux and Peter verified the accuracy of their determinations by

giving samples to two other laboratories (the Division of Chemistry at the

National Research Council and the Department of Chemistry at McMaster

University); both of these laboratories obtained essentially the same

results as Heroux and Peter at the Division of Biology at the National

Research Council. Finally, other methods were used (such as destructive

neutron activation and spectrographic emission) and these methods yielded

results very similar to those obtained using atomic absorption

spectroscopy.

I do not advise the replication of this experiment since it involved

killing the rats in order to analyze their bodies for magnesium.

Experiments involving animal killing are not required since there are many

ways (as described above) to verify biological transmutation without such

killing.

 

Bibliography

 

Albert, D. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics."

Scientific American, May 1994, pages 32-39

 

Aspect, A. and Grangier, P. "Experiments on Einstein-

Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons."

In Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (edited by R. Penrose and

C. J. Isham). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986

 

Bohm, D. and Peat, F. Science, Order and Creativity.

New York: Bantam Books, 1987

 

Bransden, B. and Joachain, C. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.

Essex: Longman Group U.K. Limited, 1989

 

Chiao, R., Kwait, P. and Steinberg, A. "Faster than light?"

Scientific American, August 1993, pages 38-46

 

Darnell, J., Lodish, H. and Baltimore, D. Molecular Cell Biology.

New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1990

 

Gauquelin, M. The Cosmic Clocks. London: Peter Owen, 1969

 

Heroux, O. and Peter, D. "Failure of balance measurements to

predict actual retention of magnesium and calcium by rats as

determined by direct carcass analysis." Journal of Nutrition,

1975, volume 105, pages 1157-1167

 

Kervran, C. Louis. Biological Transmutation.

New York: Swan House Publishing Company, 1972

 

Komaki, H. "Sur la formation de sels de potassium par

differentes familles de microorganismes dans un milieu sans

potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee, Paris, September 1965

 

Komaki, H. "Production de proteines par 29 souches de

microorganismes et augmentation du potassium en milieu de

culture sodique, sans potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee,

Paris, April 1967

 

Long, D. B. "Laboratory Report on Biological Transmutation."

Monograph of the Henry Doubleday Research Society.

Braintree, Essex, England, September 1971

 

Michel, A. "Un savant francais bouleverse la science atomique."

Science et Vie, Paris, 1959, pages 81-87

 

Penrose, R. The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Vintage Press, 1990

 

Rae, A. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1986

 

Squires, E. Conscious Mind in the Physical World.

Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1990

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to the moderators:

 

How can you move my post to pseudoscience when there is not even a single reply that tries to come with a rational explanation of why it is pseudoscience?

 

Isn't this simply a case of intellectual stubbornness?

 

"This cannot be true. Thus it is not true."

 

^-- A great method that has lead to many scientific breakthroughs.

 

*Sigh*

 

I did not come with any bombastic claims. I did not advertise. I simply asked whether biological transmutation is fact or fiction, as it says in the thread title. It would be prudent to let the forum biologists speak for themselves and discuss the topic in a friendly, scientific fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you move my post to pseudoscience when there is not even a single reply that tries to come with a rational explanation of why it is pseudoscience?

 

 

It's called the burden of proof. It belongs to you, not the moderators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crayfish example: Animals *do* store calcium, you know. And find me this from a *reputable* source.

 

Hens: Bullshit, I want to see a source on this. A *reputable* source. You cannot *possible* remove all calcium from an animal; this would kill it. No caclium, no muscle contractions, no heartbeat, no animal. If this guy claimed this, he's a liar, period.

 

Magnesium in desert workers: Again, how about a *real* source. Without an description of the exact method, the validity cannot be determined. Probably bullshit too.

 

Microorganisms: So why is a scientist in Japan publishing in a french journal?

 

Ryegrass: You yourself state the seeds were not randomly selected. Also note that only means are given, not variances. This is called "shitty experimental design" and "poor paper-writing skills".

 

Wheat and oats: Again, lack of sufficent data on methodology, an lack of sufficient information, from a source already known to be questionable (boneless chickens).

 

Moon: Oh, you have got to be ****ing kidding me. Again, try to provide some sort of *credible* reference for this. Until then, it's just a new form of astrology.

 

Long's experiments: You do realize that *repeatability* is part of science, right? If someone else followed this yahoo's method and got no result, it probably means Karvran either ****ed up, or flat-out lied (boneless chickens).

 

The other experiments: Again, insufficient detail, and the fact that the author was unable to get the data means there is no reason to believe it. In fact, where did the author even learn of these experiments if he couldn't get the papers?

 

Rats: Yeah, don't check my work, it's for the animals, really. Oh, and we didn't bother to figure out how much magnesium was in the rats to begin with, thereby totally invalidating the entire study.

 

-----------

 

This is good for a laugh, but that's about it.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.