Low Toxin Diet Sunday Silliness with the Periodic Table

[cfeehan]

I've been fascinated with the *possibility* of elemental transmutations since I read Kervran's book many years ago. I think it's one of those areas where we just don't have enough data / methods to study it. Maybe one day. But it's an interesting idea to try on as a thought experiment - can animals (and humans) turn one element into another?

Biological Transmutations | Bionutrient Food Association

bionutrient.net

We probably won't get any firm answers on this subject for quite awhile, but it has made me look much more closely at the periodic table. I decided to take a look and examine some of our favorite "Low Vitamin A / Low Toxin" supplements.

There's an interesting relationship around the number '8' and these elements which are often paired together. These are exactly 8 places away from each other:

• Magnesium, Mg (12) and Calcium, Ca (20)
• Sodium, Na (11) and Potassium (19)

What I remember from basic chemistry is that 8 is the number of electrons that makes a closed shell. When you look at the electron shell model of these elements, they are very similar. One just has an extra shell.

I then looked at these:

• Iron, Fe (26) is 8 places away from Selenium, Se (34). Are these two connected?
• Selenium, Se (34) is 8 places away from Molybdenum, Mo (42). Any connection here?

I then I noticed these, just for fun:

Copper and Zinc

• Copper, Cu (29) is right next to Zinc, Zn (30)
• Copper is reddish, Zinc is bluish-gray
• Extra Zinc helps chelate Copper

Iron and Cobalt

• Iron, Fe (26) is right next to Cobalt, Co (27)
• Iron is orange-red, Cobalt is dark blue
• Does Cobalt chelate Iron? Cobalt is in oats, barley, wheat. Maybe also beans?

So many interesting relationships to consider.

 

[Peater]

That's very interesting about zinc and cobalt. It sounds feasible.

 

[Nick]

There is a theory that the human biofield or etheric body is a kind of plasma.

The scientists from the Safire project were originally working on experiments to explore the Electric Sun model of stars (stars are definitely not nuclear reactors). They have since moved into bringing a medium temperature plasma reactor to market that is capable of transmutation of elements, first to be used to render radioactive fracking waste into safer elements.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNk0a5je9G8


If the plasma of stars can transmute elements, perhaps the human bioplasma is also able to. Life is a much more higher and more complex "technology" than any of the silly electronics or engineering that humans have invented.

 

[mosaic01]

Biological Transmutations | Bionutrient Food Association

bionutrient.net

It makes sense to me that sodium turns into potassium in the body with the help of oxygen. Sodium (11 protons, 12 neutrons) + oxygen (8 protons, 8 neutrons) = potassium (19 protons, 20 neutrons). Elemental sodium is extremely unstable and quickly reacts with something.

Also potassium has difficulties entering cells, while sodium has not. So what if the mechanism in nature is basically sodium entering the cell, turning into potassium with the help of oxygen, and then being released into the blood as needed?

 

[cfeehan]

It makes sense to me that sodium turns into potassium in the body with the help of oxygen. Sodium (11 protons, 12 neutrons) + oxygen (8 protons, 8 neutrons) = potassium (19 protons, 20 neutrons). Elemental sodium is extremely unstable and quickly reacts with something.

Also potassium has difficulties entering cells, while sodium has not. So what if the mechanism in nature is basically sodium entering the cell, turning into potassium with the help of oxygen, and then being released into the blood as needed?

Ooooh, now that's really interesting. Now just speculating, of course, but would you think that doing things to help CO2 generation, which should help oxygen utilization, help push that formula toward the potassium generating side?

 

[DanDare]

You cannot turn a stable element into another element outside of a star or nuclear reactor. Nobody is turning sodium into potassium in their body, or any element into any over element unless they are ingesting radioactive isotopes and they are decaying at their normal rate.

 

[Nick]

You cannot turn a stable element into another element outside of a star or nuclear reactor. Nobody is turning sodium into potassium in their body, or any element into any over element unless they are ingesting radioactive isotopes and they are decaying at their normal rate.

It's certainly very controversial, much like past claims of cold fusion, but if you want to see some recent evidence that brings this dogma into question look into the results that the Safire project are getting with their medium temperature plasma reactors.

 

[DanDare]

It's certainly very controversial, much like past claims of cold fusion, but if you want to see some recent evidence that brings this dogma into question look into the results that the Safire project are getting with their medium temperature plasma reactors.

Share with me a video if you have a good one in mine please

 

[mosaic01]

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, but here are three things to think about:

"1.Female chickens eat very little calcium, in general. Yet they produce a rather large egg shell made of calcium carbonate, mainly, each day of their adult life. One can measure the calcium “input” that a chicken eats, and then measure the calcium “output” in the eggshell.

2.Seeds transmute elements when they sprout. One can measure the mineral content of an unsprouted seed. Then one can measure the mineral content of the same species of seed after it has been sprouted in pure distilled water. The mineral content will shift.

3.Dr. Kervran analyzed the sweat of workers who worked in intense heat in the desert. They had to eat a lot of salt to remain healthy. However, their sweat was higher in potassium than in sodium."

https://www.drlwilson.com/articles/TRANSMUTATION.htm#EXP

I also wonder about the massive amounts of calcium that dairy cows put out each day into milk.

 

[Nick]

Share with me a video if you have a good one in mine please

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNk0a5je9G8
The video link works, the embedded frame does not. The forum won't allow me to post the link without turning it into a [MEDIA] element automatically.

 

[DanDare]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNk0a5je9G8
The video link works, the embedded frame does not. The forum won't allow me to post the link without turning it into a [MEDIA] element automatically.

Looks like complete bull**** to me.

The gaming PC and 6 monitor setup with file explorer windows and a few graphs on one or two of the monitors.
The bit where they accidently left in "that's enough chemistry commentary"
The list of instructions detailing when to move the beakers on and off the scale, then to use a 10ml pipette to fill up a 10ml beaker and move spatulas and things on and off scales... Lol
No clear objective, just random 'Oh look thorium has turned into lead'
"proprietry metal"
The reacor is a pipe held to a couple of other bits with threaded rods.
The bad acting
They are going on about the Sun (fusion) yet everything they refer to is fission, breaking larger atoms into smaller ones.
and so on
The focus on the guy building his new outbuidling or house
The complete lack of real enthusiasm
In another video they go to a 'conference' and the audience cannot be seen, and it sounds like there are no more than 5 other people in the room.

 

[Nick]

Looks like complete bull**** to me.

The gaming PC and 6 monitor setup with file explorer windows and a few graphs on one or two of the monitors.
The bit where they accidently left in "that's enough chemistry commentary"
The list of instructions detailing when to move the beakers on and off the scale, then to use a 10ml pipette to fill up a 10ml beaker and move spatulas and things on and off scales... Lol
No clear objective, just random 'Oh look thorium has turned into lead'
"proprietry metal"
The reacor is a pipe held to a couple of other bits with threaded rods.
The bad acting
They are going on about the Sun (fusion) yet everything they refer to is fission, breaking larger atoms into smaller ones.
and so on
The focus on the guy building his new outbuidling or house
The complete lack of real enthusiasm
In another video they go to a 'conference' and the audience cannot be seen, and it sounds like there are no more than 5 other people in the room.

I fail to see why a single item on your list points to it being bull****. The video is probably made for investors and I have no problem with that.

The only item you listed even worth responding to: the sun is not a fusion reactor, that is the real "bull****" theory. The electric star theory is significantly more robust than the nuclear reactor bull****. Stars are electrically powered by the galactic and intergalactic Birkeland currents. Whether or not there is any fission that occurs in the sun there is also research suggesting that several variables relating to solar and planetary cycles affect the rate of radioactive decay, so would not be totally surprising that the Safire project found that within a plasma reaction designed to mimic the electric star model of the sun there is a significant change in the rate of radiactive decay.

Next you will tell me that gravity is the organizing force of galaxies, even though in order to prop up this assumption scientists had to invent the ad hoc imaginary "dark matter" that has still never been observed despite the extremely well funded efforts.

 

[DanDare]

I fail to see why a single item on your list points to it being bull****. The video is probably made for investors and I have no problem with that.

The only item you listed even worth responding to: the sun is not a fusion reactor, that is the real "bull****" theory. The electric star theory is significantly more robust than the nuclear reactor bull****. Stars are electrically powered by the galactic and intergalactic Birkeland currents. Whether or not there is any fission that occurs in the sun there is also research suggesting that several variables relating to solar and planetary cycles affect the rate of radioactive decay, so would not be totally surprising that the Safire project found that within a plasma reaction designed to mimic the electric star model of the sun there is a significant change in the rate of radiactive decay.

Next you will tell me that gravity is the organizing force of galaxies, even though in order to prop up this assumption scientists had to invent the ad hoc imaginary "dark matter" that has still never been observed despite the extremely well funded efforts.

Well if one buys into the electric star bull**** theory, then obviously one is more likely to buy into the rest of the bull**** too.

I bet nothing will ever come of their experiments. They will never have a product that works. I will be proven right in time.

 

[Nick]

Well if one buys into the electric star bull**** theory, then obviously one is more likely to buy into the rest of the bull**** too.

I bet nothing will ever come of their experiments. They will never have a product that works. I will be proven right in time.

I am surprised someone on this forum would dismiss the electric star theory so easily out of hand. Do you give some weight to Ray Peat's judgment on what scientific theories are worth giving serious consideration? Because he explicitly endorsed the work of Halton Arp and clearly leaned towards preferring electric universe/plasma cosmology as the better model. Gerald Pollack, who's work (as a continuation of Gilbert Ling's) Ray thought was one of the most important things to draw attention to in science, is a regular contributor at Electric Universe conferences and has given a number of lectures that make it clear he takes their theories seriously.

I agree in that I doubt will they bring a product to market, whether or not they are transmuting elements successfully. Fracking companies do not care about the hazards of fracking waste unless the solution is cheaper than their current solution. Of course I cannot really know for sure if the transmutation is real but if so I honestly think there is enough money and prestige invested in maintaining the current paradigms in physics to prevent even economically viable but paradigm shattering products from being used. For example all it takes is for some "experts" to tell the fracking waste disposal people that this solution being marketed to them is impossible and they probably won't look at the evidence themselves, not wanting to be taken advantage of.

 

[DanDare]

I am surprised someone on this forum would dismiss the electric star theory so easily out of hand.

I am just so tired of responding to this kind of argument. Because I don't agree I must be discussing it out of hand, and I must think x, y and z also, and must not have properly considered it .
Yeah or I know better.

In the other thread about heliocentric model, I asked basically why one should automatically feel oppressed by not being at the center of the universe and his response: you have a mind virus. Lol.

I am not trying to upset anyone by being honest about my assessment of it. It isn't your theory so it isn't personal insult to say the theory, their reactor, the company and just about everything in that video was bull**** or a lot misguided. I hope people don't lose their money on it.

 

[Nick]

I am just so tired of responding to this kind of argument. Because I don't agree I must be discussing it out of hand, and I must think x, y and z also, and must not have properly considered it .
Yeah or I know better.

In the other thread about heliocentric model, I asked basically why one should automatically feel oppressed by not being at the center of the universe and his response: you have a mind virus. Lol.

I am not trying to upset anyone by being honest about my assessment of it. It isn't your theory so it isn't personal insult to say the theory, their reactor, the company and just about everything in that video was bull**** or a lot misguided. I hope people don't lose their money on it.

Well to be fair you called it the "bull****" electric star theory. Sounds to me something like dismissing it out of hand. It could be wrong or incomplete but I definitely don't think it's bull****, and neither did Ray Peat, Gerald Pollack, or any of the academics that I have any respect for who have spoken on the subject.

I do think it's fair to use the term bull**** for orthodox dark matter cosmology because it's a completely unfalsifiable ad hoc disaster.

I'm not "upset" and don't really care what you think obviously since I don't know you but I'd like to leave a record of responses for the kind of people I am actually hoping to talk to on the Ray Peat forum, people with the same critical approach to orthodox science that Ray had, so that they don't take your kind of fake skepticism seriously and get deterred from looking into these important ideas or get stuck at "Professor Dave" type fake skeptic debunking.

Sorry others for engaging here, the rest of the discussion of other open minded posters was much more interesting. Should have just let Dan remind us of the dogma that we all are aware of and moved on without comment.

 

[DanDare]

Well to be fair you called it the "bull****" electric star theory. Sounds to me something like dismissing it out of hand. It could be wrong or incomplete but I definitely don't think it's bull****, and neither did Ray Peat, Gerald Pollack, or any of the academics that I have any respect for who have spoken on the subject.

I do think it's fair to use the term bull**** for orthodox dark matter cosmology because it's a completely unfalsifiable ad hoc disaster.

I'm not "upset" and don't really care what you think obviously since I don't know you but I'd like to leave a record of responses for the kind of people I am actually hoping to talk to on the Ray Peat forum, people with the same critical approach to orthodox science that Ray had, so that they don't take your kind of fake skepticism seriously and get deterred from looking into these important ideas or get stuck at "Professor Dave" type fake skeptic debunking.

Sorry others for engaging here, the rest of the discussion of other open minded posters was much more interesting. Should have just let Dan remind us of the dogma that we all are aware of and moved on without comment.

Oh yes you don't sound upset at all lol


You are sharing absolute bull**** about a company claiming, without any evidence, they are transmutating elements, and you think YOU are the skeptical one...

And of course I am not ray peat enough for the ray peat forum.

 

[DanDare]

so that they don't take your kind of fake skepticism seriously and get deterred from looking into these important ideas or get stuck at "Professor Dave" type fake skeptic debunking.

Can't stand the guy.

If you are worried about 'fake scepticism' then make good arguments then instead of just getting your knickers in a twist.

 

[Nick]

Oh yes you don't sound upset at all lol


You are sharing absolute bull**** about a company claiming, without any evidence, they are transmutating elements, and you think YOU are the skeptical one...

And of course I am not ray peat enough for the ray peat forum.

I am truly not. I hope you are not either. Writing on the internet it can be easy to read unintended emotions into words.

I do feel like this discussion can't go anywhere interesting or useful from here. Neither of us know if Safire's claims are true. I just think they could possibly be credible, and you do not. You seem to imply that they are con artists, which I doubt mainly because I had already read unrelated research that would have predicted and explained their findings but of course I cannot definitively it rule out. Nor do I care enough to dig up that research to try to persuade you.

Can't stand the guy.

If you are worried about 'fake scepticism' then make good arguments then instead of just getting your knickers in a twist.

I wasn't really trying to make any argument at all originally, just making a connection I thought was interesting between two theories that could maybe be true but that you think are impossible, which is okay.

 

[DanDare]

I am truly not. I hope you are not either. Writing on the internet it can be easy to read unintended emotions into words.

I do feel like this discussion can't go anywhere interesting or useful from here. Neither of us know if Safire's claims are true. I just think they could possibly be credible, and you do not. You seem to imply that they are con artists, which I doubt mainly because I had already read unrelated research that would have predicted and explained their findings but of course I cannot definitively it rule out. Nor do I care enough to dig up that research to try to persuade you.

I wasn't really trying to make any argument at all originally, just making a connection I thought was interesting between two theories that could maybe be true but that you think are impossible, which is okay.

Nick, your writing is all over the place. The language you use suggests you are offended regardless of whether you assert otherwise. You attack me, in effect call me ignorant, accuse my scepticism of being fake, at least twice, suggest I am closed minded, dogmatic, not Peat enough and why? Because I said

' I think it's bull****'

And gave you reasons..


Regardless. If you wish to make an ACTUAL argument from this moment forth, share with me some evidence of transmutation from this reactor of theirs. And it you cannot, and you agree that there is none, which youu seem to, then what are you even arguing?

Would you only like people who 100% agree with you to comment?