"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:
Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, siliclic acid - any of these
ring
a bell?
Silica is also beneficial for bone growth and arterial
health,
amongst
other
things.
Silica is harmful and can cause inflamation if inside the
body. It
is
not
absorbed by the body.
Get a clue errol. Studies have shown that silica is a vital
nutrient, go
do
some homework in pubmed or one of your research books.
I did. It is a toxin. That's about it.
How about silicon dioxide?
Bottom line is that silicon is not a nutrient for humans. If I am
incorrect, show me *good* evidence.
WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any
physiological
role.
Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica and
silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the
biological inertness of these compounds."
Chicken
"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3ś9H2O) at a
level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were noted
after one to two weeks.
At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low
silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group
(p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g
and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).
The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of
the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner
cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented
group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it
plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle, 1972)."
From a 40-year old study. Big deal.
So if this information has been known for 40 how do you explain the lag in
having it known to the medical establishment?
--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." —William Pitt (1759-1806)