RE:Content of EG

Forrest Fulkerson ( ffmon@axiom.net )
Tue, 4 Jun 1996 04:40:44 -0600

>Forrest Wrote:
>
> >The ICP/MS analysis stated that so many ppm of certain metals (parts
>>per million or mg/Kg of sample) were present; Uranium 2.16, Lead 17.1,
>>Arsenic 1.32, Titanium 2790, and Thorium 9.94 ppm. The 2 Oz Bottle of
>>Etherium Gold contains the following actual milligrams of heavy metal:
>>Uranium .123 mg, Lead .969 mg, Arsenic .0748 mg, Titanium 158mg, and
>>Thorium .563 mg. If the average body weight of 150 lbs is considered then
>>a ppm of heavy metal mg/ body weight Kg is: Uranium 0.0018 ppm or 1.8 ppb
>>(part per billion), Lead 0.014 ppm, Arsenic 0.001 ppm, Titanium 2.322 ppm,
>>and Thorium .008 ppm.
>> These values are the worst case scenerio in that all the heavy metals
>>in the ICP/MS report were considered non monoatomic and fully adsorbed and
>>retained by the body. This is unlikely to happen in real life, but new
>>lower values for levels of different heavy metals in our body are being set
>>by gov't agencies. I don't happen to have the values handy so if anyone
>>were to be so kind as to help me with the values, I would appreciate it.
>
>This would seem to assume that the individual was going to consume the
>entire 2 oz at once, or at least in a very short period of time.
>
>Our source was recommending much lower doses of this stuff than many are
>taking. The recommended safe doses Thoth has given are 1/16th teaspoon
>diluted in a gallon of water, preferably Lithium water. Then to drink 4 to 6
>oz of this per day in two increments. There are roughly 12 teaspoons in 2oz
>of this material depending on which color you have. So 1/16th teaspoon would
>be about .0052 of what was listed above. There is 128 oz per gallon, so 6 oz
>would be .0468 of the gallon. So now we have .0468 of .0052 which is .00024
>of the amount of the elements present in the above lab report for each daily
>dose as recommended by Thoth.
>That would give us the following amounts each day.
>Uranium .0005184 mg
>Lead .0002325 mg
>Arsenic .0000179 mg
>Titanium .03792 mg
>Thorium .0001351 mg
>
>For the heavy metal ppm per mg/KG of body weight with the 150 lbs body
>weight again we have:
>Uranium .0000004 ppm
>Lead .0000033 ppm
>Arsenic .0000002 ppm
>Titanium .0005572 ppm
>Thorium .0000019 ppm
>
>If for some reason my math is off please advise.
>What are the recommended governmental standards? These figures would seem
>quite inconsequential if these doses were adhered to. These are the doses by
>which we were having some very powerful spiritual experiences. At these
>doses it works somewhat on homeopathic priciples.
>
>In addition we suspect (some testing would be in order to know for sure of
>course) that there is a unique action involved here that may prevent these
>from lodging in the body in a harmful way.
>
>
>Simeon and Maia
>Johannine Grove
>Crest In The Stone Mystery School

Dear Simeon and Maia,

As Joe has pointed out, and was known to me also but not previously
mentioned, heavy metals are cumulative. They never to leave the body, and
as a result, the field of mercaptans, or mercury capturing compounds, was
developed as an antedote for heavy metal poisoning ( As, Hg). So the time
factor is not as important as you might believe. You could eat some now or
all of it now,it does'nt really make a difference.
The parts per billion range or Micrograms/Kilogram is important in
some instances, although I still can't locate a book of exposure limits in
ppm or ppb. All my books mention exposure limits in mg per meter cubed.
Does anyone have access to OSHA 1910.1018 (As), OSHA 1910.1025 (Pb).
As for the unique action, there is something to taking quantities of
clay as an adsorbant for poisons in the digestive tract. This would mean,
however, that some of the target elements (monoatomic) would also not be
adsorbed. That is why I previously mentioned that the numbers were the
worst case scenerio.
But, given the accumulation of such metals over a lifetime, why add
more and accelerate the process? Are we willing to trust the accepted
exposure limits? For example, my NIOSH pocket guide to Chemical Hazards
claims that although OSHA has not established some elements as definite
carcinogens, they should be treated as such and reduce exposure to the
lowest feasible concentration (pg 342).

Thanks for your reply,

Forrest
ffmon@axiom.net