I believe this was my somewhere around the beginning of my sporadic communication with Dr. Pollack. I had expected that there would be some sort of explanation for the source of calcium. I don't know of one. I think it's fusion. Here's one of the messages.
Dr. Pollack,
I would appreciate it if you could take the time to assess my idea regarding water. I believe that organic life creates calcium from water. This idea is entirely in conflict with the current atomic model, but it seems to me that the only other alternative is even more improbable. I can’t find the sources to the 2 articles that led me to this conclusion, but I recall the essence of them.
There was an experiment performed, I believe by a university most likely located on Chesapeake Bay involving the Atlantic Blue Crab, Callinectes Sapidus. The goal of the experiment was to delay the forming of a new shell after the crabs shed the old one. The object was, if I recall, to artificially extend the period that the soft shell crabs could be sold fresh. Since the shell is mostly calcium carbonate, the crabs were placed in decalcined water. This had no effect. The experiment was repeated with desalinated water, which again, was ineffective. A third and final iteration used deionized water. This had an effect, but not enough to make it practical.
The other article stated that all the known calcium deposits were indicative of organic structure. After some limited research, I found this to be not entirely true. There are some rather rare igneous ‘deposits’, but this could be due to chemical conditions after the creation. So, in this case, it seems to me, that either organic life would almost immediately and almost totally consumes calcium, or that organic life creates the calcium.
Further consideration of the crab experiment seems to indicate the latter. Perhaps my view is fatally flawed by a lack of knowledge, but the crabs in the experiment had nothing other than water to work with as a source of material. The idea that the calcium may have been scavenged from the rest of the crab’s body doesn’t seem to add up, either. First the crabs, double in weight and volume during the new growth, so it is not an adequate source. Second, like humans, most of the calcium in their bodies is in the shell. 97& of the calcium in the human body is in our skeletal system: teeth, bones, cartilage, ligaments and tendons. The remaining 3% is in the nerves, muscles and bodily fluids, most notably the blood to act as a pH buffer for biologic processes.
I believe that the retardation of the shell regrowth is due to the requirement for the water to be structured for biotic use. I also note that the crabs molt in the spring, so it may be that the growth is triggered by an increase in the amount of infrared radiation as this affects the exclusion zone that you note in your research. Perhaps a clue can be found by investigating the nature of the soft shell. Your work would lead me to be that the remaining shell is likely somewhat analogous to the nail bed underneath or finger nails, and it may be quite like the Naflon you have experimented with. So, my conclusion is that the actual mechanism is some sort of resonant restructuring of what science believes is an atomic model based on particles that don’t seem to care too much about human science.
I think this also holds the key to treatment of osteoporosis. Since the pH of human blood is optimally between 7.3 and 7.5 for normal biotic and metabolic function, any deviation must be prevented. It is my understanding that if the pH drops below ~7.3, calcium is leached from the skeletal system to maintain homeostasis. However, adding calcium to the blood through the diet or other direct means does not create new bone cells. This is only overloading the output ‘circuit’, rather than activating the actual mechanism that creates the cells, since bone growth requires phosphorus and silica among many other factors. Adding the calcium to the blood would result in precipitation of the calcium from solution, leading to calcium deposition, rather than ossification. The bones would become brittle. In the arteries, this would cause the ‘hardening, which would lead to atherosclerosis. this condition then would cause inflammation due to the peristaltic functioning of the arteries to pump the blood.
I will leave it at that for present, in respect for your time. thank you in advance for any feedback you may see fit to offer. It took quite some time for me to accept this possibility, so I don’t expect this to be easy to consider either rational or sane.
I'll publish his response in the next post.