My new Question

[Kumar]

DaveW,

Thanks for simple explaination for me. It means cosmic radiations/rays(other than sun light) can effect human body. Considering this effect, can it be substancial effect in short or long term on human bodies? Can it be a benificial effect & differ in person to person?

Regards.

Goshawk, There can be differance in opinions. When anything is in practical use, we should go on trying to know it. Btw, what is the biological role of silicic acid(silicon) in human body. Is it chemical or Can it only be structural? What can be the use of its absorbing property? How we can link its uses in human body alike in plants & earth combined with HF (may be of low grade). You may refer HHBB for some possible referance/clues as told by me. I discuss those things which have either some logic, long time existed, or which I have experianced. I can't explain in current tech. & gramatical accurate language, therefore discussing with you here.

 

[Zep]

Kumar,

It would help you greatly in these discussions if you gave up trying to relate all these supplied facts to homeopathy and such like. Time and again you have been told that homeopathy has no basis in fact. Time and again you have been shown that homeopathic theories make no sense at all, even without having to apply any science.

It is just not possible to bend science towards homeopathy - it doesn't bend anywhere. What is discovered by science is what is reasonably proven to be SO. Whether we like it or not, whatever we might like to believe, science facts just ARE.

Please get this straight - silica is silicon dioxide, an inert substance that does not react with other substances except under very extreme conditions. Silica is what quartz, sand and glass are made of. Silicon is an element in the periodic table. It exists in trace amounts in the human body, as do the elements calcium, iron, copper, phosphorus, etc. BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! THERE ARE NO BITS OF GLASS OR SAND IN YOUR BODY! NONE! GIVE THIS IDEA UP! IT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

It's no wonder Goshawk does not want to talk to you any more about this. You start out discussing stuff well, but you then keep trying to come back to the same old thoroughly debunked theories. If you keep doing this you will get a reputation for being a troll - someone who comes here just to make an argument and not to discuss things at all. Trolls are not welcome on JREF, as you know. I wouldn't want to see that happen to you.

 

[Kumar]

Zep,

"Silicon is an element in the periodic table. It exists in trace amounts in the human body, as do the elements calcium, iron, copper, phosphorus, etc."

Frankly, it is mentioned in homeopathic litretures as Silicea(made up of silicon). It is often confused as Silica quartz. Starting material of silicea is Silicic acid. Although it is also said in homeopathic litreture that Silica looses its inertness on trituration & potentization process(?). However, it do not make any sense when silicon is a trace mineral in body, we can talk about that form in which it is present in human body. Is it silicic acid/orthosilicic acid? Moreover, silicon reacts with fluorine(another trace mineral). The reaction with fluorine takes palce at room temperature. http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/chem.html
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/biol.html

Inspite of inertness, is it possible if it may act as a structural material of body like it acts in plant? Its absorbing qualities & other properties may be having some role.

 

[Kumar]

Let us forget Silicea, homeopathy etc. --which irritates you as Zep has indicated. Frankly, I also want to clear myself about its working logic or science. We can't say that nothing is hidden as yet & all the the secrets of nature/God are already known to us in full. We therefore tries to find out the same esp. when anything is existing in mass public--may it be a spritual or science.

Now pls tell me that: if any mineral/body trace element/body substance(organic or inorganic) in its minute/tiny molecular or compound form or in ionic form--can be absorbed across the mucus membrane in mouth before the stomach OR across the skin?? If it can be absorbed than what will happen to it after its this type of absorption? Is there any differance between this absorption & through the intestines?

We take various minerals & trace elements in molecular & compound (salt & mixed in food) form but we may mostly use then in ionic form. How these are converted in ionic form & if some energy is released/used in their disassociation & reassociation in ions & molecules respectively. You can tell about any one eg; NaCl.

 

[Zep]

Zep,

"Silicon is an element in the periodic table. It exists in trace amounts in the human body, as do the elements calcium, iron, copper, phosphorus, etc."

Frankly, it is mentioned in homeopathic litretures as Silicea(made up of silicon). It is often confused as Silica quartz. Starting material of silicea is Silicic acid. Although it is also said in homeopathic litreture that Silica looses its inertness on trituration & potentization process(?). However, it do not make any sense when silicon is a trace mineral in body, we can talk about that form in which it is present in human body. Is it silicic acid/orthosilicic acid? Moreover, silicon reacts with fluorine(another trace mineral). The reaction with fluorine takes palce at room temperature. http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/chem.html
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/biol.html

Inspite of inertness, is it possible if it may act as a structural material of body like it acts in plant? Its absorbing qualities & other properties may be having some role.

*sigh*

"Potentisation" does nothing, NOTHING, to anything. It makes water more watery, that's all. Any further discussion along that line is pointless.

The homeopathic literature is also mostly bunk because it is based in medical thought that has remained unchanged since about the time of Napoleon Bonaparte. You want to treat yourself like they did then, fine by me.

Silicon is NOT a trace MINERAL. It is a trace ELEMENT. Big difference.

Silicon, the ELEMENT, reacts with flourine, the ELEMENT at room temperature. So what? How much of each is in your body? Did you read this?

The surface of lumps of silicon is protected by a very thin layer of silicon dioxide, SiO₂. This renders silicon more or less inert to further oxidation by air even up to about 900°C... The surface of lumps of silicon is protected by a very thin layer of silicon dioxide, SiO₂. This renders silicon more or less inert to water and even steam.

 

[Kumar]

Zep, Just forget. We will discuss role of silicon & fluorine, trace element ... afterwords.

Pls reply the 2nd part;

Now pls tell me that: if any mineral/body trace element/body substance(organic or inorganic) in its minute/tiny molecular or compound form or in ionic form--can be absorbed across the mucus membrane in mouth before the stomach OR across the skin?? If it can be absorbed than what will happen to it after its this type of absorption? Is there any differance between this absorption & through the intestines?

We take various minerals & trace elements in molecular & compound (salt & mixed in food) form but we may mostly use then in ionic form. How these are converted in ionic form & if some energy is released/used in their disassociation & reassociation in ions & molecules respectively. You can tell about any one eg; NaCl.

 

[Zep]

Zep, Just forget. We will discuss role of silicon & fluorine, trace element ... afterwords.

Pls reply the 2nd part;

Now pls tell me that: if any mineral/body trace element/body substance(organic or inorganic) in its minute/tiny molecular or compound form or in ionic form--can be absorbed across the mucus membrane in mouth before the stomach OR across the skin?? If it can be absorbed than what will happen to it after its this type of absorption? Is there any differance between this absorption & through the intestines?

We take various minerals & trace elements in molecular & compound (salt & mixed in food) form but we may mostly use then in ionic form. How these are converted in ionic form & if some energy is released/used in their disassociation & reassociation in ions & molecules respectively. You can tell about any one eg; NaCl.

This is standard chemistry and biology, and can be found in a good textbook in a library. I suggest you find one.

From memory, only some substances can be absorbed through the skin. More are absorbed through the mucosa and intestines because they are designed to do so. And it depends on the substance you are talking about too.

How much energy is used in combining and ionising a salt? Try putting some plain table salt (NaCl) in pure water at room temperature and let it sit for a while. Eventually the salt will dissolve (ionise) and you should be able to measure the temperature gained or lost. I suspect it is only a very tiny amount, perhaps not even measureable at all.

Now let the dissolved salt sit until the water dries up. The salt should re-crystallise. How much heat was lost then, do you think?

Questions for you about this, seriously:

1. If you had the equipment, how would you accurately measure this heat gain/loss value? Describe a test procedure you think would be suitable to measure this value as accurately as possible.

2. Can you find the chemical equations that would show the EXPECTED heat exchange values that you would expect for such a test? If so, what are they?

3. Do you think your procedure could be applied to other salt solutions? Other solutions in general?

Have fun!

 

[Kumar]

Zep, I am asking the questions. I just mention the theme for asking these questions. Consider tissue salt's this type of absorption across the MM & skin. What will happen to then if absorbed? Can they then be converted in ions & releases/absorb some energy? If so, how & where this energy can be utilized? Can it be to the nerves or can it create some nerve impulses?

 

[Zep]

Zep, I am asking the questions. I just mention the theme for asking these questions. Consider tissue salt's this type of absorption across the MM & skin. What will happen to then if absorbed? Can they then be converted in ions & releases/absorb some energy? If so, how & where this energy can be utilized? Can it be to the nerves or can it create some nerve impulses?

Why can't I ask you questions? Haven't you got any answers? Don't you think that by looking into the questions I have raised you might find some answers to your own questions?

For a start, you have not even defined what "tissue salts" are, what they are made of, how "strong" they are, what they are dissolved in, etc, etc. So there is no way anyone can SENSIBLY answer your questions.

And the next thing: You simply cannot say that "tissue salts" work like you THINK they do, and then go off on some silly line of questions assuming that you were right. You have to complete your first steps first, which you have NOT done.

Try again, OK?

 

[DaveW]

DaveW,

Thanks for simple explaination for me. It means cosmic radiations/rays(other than sun light) can effect human body. Considering this effect, can it be substancial effect in short or long term on human bodies? Can it be a benificial effect & differ in person to person?

Regards.

Well, yes, but...
What I understand to be typical "cosmic" radiation is electrically neutral with low cross sections for almost all materials (ie, the target looks very small to them). In additition, in their quest to detect this cosmic radiation, scientists build HUGE detectors and get very few events, meaning the actual amount of cosmic radiation that actually would have a chance of effecting a human being is ridiculously low. In order to cause biological damage, there would have to be a significant number of ionizing events (such as from a strong radiation field), which you just don't see from cosmic radiation.

If, somehow, you had doses from a source much stronger than cosmic radiation could provide:
The effects from an acute dose of ionizing radiation are typically radiation sickness/poisoning (causing various effects dependent on the dose), essentially a chemical reaction from the changes in the atoms effected by these ionizing events.
The effects from a chronic dose are thought to be an increase in the probability of cancer, but the studies (last I heard) are still pretty sparse due a lack of subjects. These effects do not change based on the person, just on the dose.

 

[Zombified]

Actually cosmic rays are charged particles - highly ionized atomic nuclei.

Some of the particles produced in the atmosphere from cosmic ray collisions with atoms are neutral, like pi-zeros, which decay into pairs of gamma rays, and neutrinos, which are produced by the decays of charged pions (pi-plus and pi-minus) as well as the muons they decay into. There are other, heavier mesons both charged and uncharged, but they follow a similar pattern.

I'm guessing the detectors you're thinking of are for detecting neutrinos produced by cosmic rays, like SuperKamiokande. Neutrinos are uncharged and have a *very* small cross-section for normal matter: the majority go straight through the earth, although the cross-section gets larger as the energy goes up. This is because they interact only through the weak nuclear force.

There are other detectors designed and measure whole showers, by detecting the muons, or flashes of light in the upper atmosphere. There are also satellite-borne detectors of the primary particles which are just slabs of plastic that get pitted by the cosmic rays striking them.

In any case, cosmic radiation is a relatively small source of radiation, just part of the overall background.

 

[Kumar]

DaveW, Zombified,

Many thanks for informations. I found few intresting articles:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html

http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-14.htm

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/risks_radiation_humans_space.html

Anyway your studies shows that these cosmic rays(secondary particles) can have effects but will not effect due to cosmic radiation is a relatively small source of radiation. In order to cause biological damage, there would have to be a significant number of ionizing events (such as from a strong radiation field), which you just don't see from cosmic radiation. At high altitude & in granite/stone houses we gets more radiations. I don't know why our old religious builiding are made up of rough granite stones & other stones which are higher in radiations ( with high Silica contents). Temples are made high on mountains & old saints have prefered to meditate high on mountains. We do feel higher radiation effects on mountains & in rough granite buildings & upto some extent we like them.

 

[DaveW]

Thanks for the clarifications, Zombified.

 

[Correa Neto]

Kumar,

Don´t try to make links that you are not certain that exist.

SiO2 AKA silica IS NOT radioactive per se. Silica polymers, formed by (SiO4) -4 tetrahedrons compose a mineral group called silicates, that comprise the most common rock-forming minerals, regardles of being igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic. The elements that are linked to the vertices of these tetrahedrons MAY be radioactive, but Si and O are not.

Granitic rocks do ehxibit a bigger background radiation than basaltic rocks, but this is not originated by the elements Si, O or by any combination of them. These rocks create terrains with larger background radiation because their chemical composition is rich enough in radiocative elements such as U and Th to allow the formation of minerals such as a allanite and monazite. Black shales have very little quartz (they are composed mainly by clay minerals) and may have U concentrations much bigger than an average granite. There are not a lot of temples built with black shales. Silica-depleted igneous rocks rich in K and Na may also have more U and Th (among others) in their compositions than a run-of-the-mill granite. There are not a lot of temples built with potassic or sodic rocks.

Please, don´t forget the many churches built with marble, as well as the many religious buildings made in concrete, wood and even clay. Before the advente of concrete, castles, temples, houses are built with the rocks that are availiable close to the building site, more durable, with a larger cargo resistance and, if possible, also good-looking. Granitoid rocks (and their metamorphic equivalents) are abundant and fullfill the other requisites. Even if you dont have these rocks around, you´ll try to get some, if you can.

If, black shales and potassic rocks created such a good feeling, people would use them a lot. Even if just to cover walls made of something else. Or build their temple with them where they are abundant. And they don´t.

BTW, what are your basis to state that "We do feel higher radiation effects on ...snip... rough granite buildings & upto some extent we like them."?

 

[Kumar]

Correa Neto,

Thanks for the informations. It was just a thought. There are differances in old & new buildings of religious places esp. after the use of marble. I can't say if it is proper to use non silicon/less silicon stones or materials in these places. However I visited several religious places made up from rough granite or stones other than marbles. I always feel heat/aura type energy under these as if giving good effects to me. Wooden places seems to give some peaceful/neutral effects. Marble places gives cool effects. The effect of heat by rough stones & neutral by woods was felt 'a good & healing effect' to me & others who visited with me but marble effect was liked temporary in summer but not allways & for long.

This is just my personal observation & can't comment what is for everyone?

 

[Zep]

So, Kumar, you have no actual measurements of any sort to start scientific discussion on the subject, just vague personal "feelings". By all means, if these places make you feel the way you do then it is not up to us to contradict you. But if you are looking for a scientific explanation as to why you feel like you do then you have got a lot of groundwork to do yet before you can even begin to make reasonable scientific hypotheses.

Consider this also: What if the places you went into were NOT religious in nature, and were just warehouses or something similar. Would you expect the same feelings? If not, why not?

 

[Kumar]

Zep, we are talking about one particular example not the main question. It is not only in religious places but everywhere with this type of structures like forts, tombs, old houses etc. In religious places it can be felt bit more enhanced- may be due to some differant reasons. When, I am telling similar religious places with two types of buildngs, it means I felt physical effect differantly due to differant structures otherwise Psyclogical feelings will same in both type of buildings.

Can we now conclude that there can be, practically, no cosmic effect of cosmic rays/radiations other than Sun-light on human's living bodies--physically, mentally, emotionally or otherwise??

 

[Correa Neto]

Kumar,

Give me a single good reason why " rough granite" would provide a different sensation than a polished one that could not be explained by aesthetics.

The effects you experienced are created by a combination of design and building techniques that are well know to good architets. You enter building #1 and get a certain feeling (say, awe), enter buiding #2 and have another one (say, cozy place). Design, color, space conception, illumination, air flow, all this will join and create these feelings. Building material will be important only if its apparent (unless they play a role on thermal insulation). So, the effects you felt were psichological.

"Oh, the temples are old, no universities by then" . No problem, the techniques are known since early times by trial and error.

Think about the following-

If you claim these feelings are related to emmisions from these materials, that you can perceive somehow, then you should be able to recognize between different types of stones (granites from marbles, for example) placed close to you without looking at them. And you should also be able to differentiate between rock and wood under similar conditions. Can you? Or you will say that you can only feel if theres a large volume of such materials near you? If this is so, then you should be able to differentiate terrains made of granite from terrains made of marble without looking at the landscape or outcrops. Can you?

Someone shows you two identical houses (same sizes, painted with the same color, same designs), but with walls built with different materials (concrete and wood). Would you be able to recognize the material that was used to build one them just by the feeling created by the alleged perception of radiation? Or you will say that a few mm-thick paint layer blocks the energy?

BTW, is wood radioactive? Or you can detect the weak energy created by the decay of carbon isotopes used to date organic material?

If you can do one of the above, apply to JREF. A million dollars are waiting you. Don´t forget my commision (10%) for the tip.

At last, don´t forget that "cosmic rays", as well as other forms of high-energy radiation, even in small ammounts can induce changes in DNA chains.

 

[Kumar]

Correa Neto

Thanks for nice posting. You may be right as no scientific data on effects of stones on humans is available. However it is widely accepted in astrological & alternative healing systems as
given here. But we can't discuss these here. You may be right but we do feel differantly & like/dislike wood & differant stones. Granite & marble stones are usually considered as hot & cold type giving effects respectively.

How your posting "At last, don´t forget that "cosmic rays", as well as other forms of high-energy radiation, even in small ammounts can induce changes in DNA chains." can alter my question;

Can we now conclude that there can be, practically, no cosmic effect of cosmic rays/radiations other than Sun-light on human's living bodies--physically, mentally, emotionally or otherwise??

 

[Goshawk]

Actually, there probably is a rational basis for there being a different ambience, a different "feeling", between a building (like a bank, say) made of granite and a building made of marble, but it has nothing to do with "cosmic rays" that the stone itself may be emanating.

Granite is considered less esthetically pleasing than marble, so a granite building will usually have all its granite covered up on the inside on the walls and floors, whether by plaster, tile, wooden wainscoting, or something like that. Whereas marble is considered more pleasing, so frequently the floor and some of the walls, and sometimes the supporting pillars, too, are left uncovered. Thus a granite building can seem warmer, because it doesn't have as much bare stone, it's got wood and plaster on the inside. And a marble building can seem cooler, because it does have more bare stone.