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.
Bookmarks