Posted by Larry Hoover on November 14, 2005, at 14:11:42
In reply to Re: indium-micro-nutrient!! » nolvas, posted by john berk on November 13, 2005, at 10:45:56
> http://www.indiumease.net/
> Hi, i found alot of good information here!!
> i'm on day 2, i will keep you posted...johnI don't know what to make of quotations such as these, from the indiumease website:
"The Indium molecule is 2-3 Angstroms wide comprised of 49 Protons, surrounded by five Orbits of 66 Electrons."
Somebody has looked at a periodic table, and has tried to interpret the data there. An indium *atom* is 1.51 angstroms wide (relevance ?), but the indium (III) ion in indium sulphate (what is supplied in this product, in solution) is 0.81 angstroms wide. The nucleus does contain 49 protons, but it does not have 66 electrons. The atomic weight of indium averages 114.8 amu, so that means there is an average of (114.8 minus 49 equals) 66 neutrons in the nucleus. The indium (III) ion supplied in this product has 46 electrons, but so what? Indium has electrons in the 5th shell (5s2, 5p1), but only in the metallic state. The salt does not have those electrons. It does have 23 orbitals for its 46 electrons, but again, so what?
"Lasering or altering the fundamental Indium molecule gives an unknown, unnatural, unpredictable, possibly hazardous, fractured molecule that may have detrimental effects or cause free radical damage."
First off, indium is an element. It comes in atoms, not molecules. Lasering has no effect, and it cannot be altered or fractured unless it is involved in nuclear reactions (i.e. it would have to be radioactive). I don't know how indium could be unnatural or unknown, but it certainly could become involved in free radical damage. It's a carcinogen.
Here's one simple opinion:
http://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/news_events/QA/qa_072804.htmI'm sorry, but I can't find any evidence for using this stuff.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:577988
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20051025/msgs/578660.html