By David Cuthbertson
In October 2003 Professor Jean Paul Biberian, from the Luminy University, Marseilles, was proud to announce the duplication of biological transmutation experiments with the marine bacteria Marinobacter. He is a materials physicist with an interest in 'condensed matter nuclear reactions' (cold fusion) and with the experience, over the previous 4 years, of conducting preliminary transmutation experiments with germinating wheat, oats, Lactobaccilus and, most recently, the bacterium, Marinobacter.
The transmutation of one chemical element into another under the influence of biological organisms has been recorded ever since the days of the alchemists. However, since Lavoisier at the very end of the 18th century such claims have been consistently rejected by mainstream science, mostly for theoretical reasons. It is interesting that the scientist, philosopher and mystic, Rudolf Steiner in the 5th of his (biodynamic) Agriculture lectures stated that such phenomena may be measured using the 'purely external standards of analytical chemistry'. It was this indication (and the biological transmutation research of the 19th century chemist Herzeele) that inspired Professor Holleman (www.holleman.ch) to conduct his own research. After Holleman's death, the Professor Holleman Stichting was formed, whose aims are to further such research. As a result of contacting the Holleman Stichting, Biberian became the successful recipient of funds from the Triodos Fonds. This enabled further exploratory experiments to be conducted.
With the help of experienced microbiologist Dr. Valerie Michotey (Laboratoire de Microbiologie, de Geochemie et d'Ecologie Marines, CNRS-UMR 6117, Centre d'Oceanologie de Marseilles, Universite de la Mediteranee, Campus de Luminy, Case901, 13288 Marseilles cedex 9, France) the bacterial culture protocols were designed. The organism used was a Marinobacter species, strain CAB(DSM 11874), which originates from hydrocarbon-polluted marine coastal sediments (Lavera Gulf of Fos, France). It was chosen because Michotey was familiar with its culture (Rotani, J.-F., Gilewicz, M, Michotey, V., Tian Ling Zheng, Bonin, P. and Bertrand, J.-C. (1997) Aerobic and anaerobic metabolism of 6,10,14-trimethylpentadecan-2-one by a denitrifying bacterium isolated from marine sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 636-643). The pre-culture was made in ASW (artificial seawater) medium: 11.7g/L NaCl, 7.85g/L MgSO4, 0.75g/L KCl, 6.05g/L Tris, 3g/L NH4Cl, 1.47g/L CaCl2, pH 7.5) supplemented with 5g/l yeast extract and 5g/L of bactopeptone. The strain was grown in aerobiosis at 30oC for 24h. One hundred μl of this pre-culture was used to inoculate 4 sterile plastic flasks containing 5 ml of ASW medium supplemented with sodium lactate (11 mM). For negative control, 2 flasks were frozen at -20oC. The other flasks were incubated at 30oC for 48h in order to allow the bacteria to grow. After 48h, 5 ml of nitric acid was added to all 4 flasks.
The bacterial cultures and their controls were analysed using ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry), which is one of the best methods for analysing a wide range of chemical elements. Mass spectra peaks for Li, B, Na, Mg, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Mo were measured, though not all for every sample.
The following conclusions based on the analysis results have been drawn:
Because of the limited nature of these experiments, few conclusions can be made other than that a further intensive programme of research is required. Nevertheless, the high degree of variability observed for the experimental cultures is a feature that cannot be ignored. Professor Holleman found this to be a serious problem with his attempts to replicate the detailed experiments of the 19th century chemist Herzeele. Several questions arise:
In considering the first question, one must always remember that even the simplest of bacteria are capable of an enormous repertoire of responses to varying environmental stimuli. They are capable of etching even the most chemically resistant of plastic or glass containers, turning heavy metals (such as mercury and lead) into gasses, chemically binding otherwise soluble toxins into the toughest of solid precipitates onto, or even into, the very fabric of the container walls, in ways that would be considered impossible for the relatively inert nutrient medium upon which they feed, thereby catching out even the most cautious analytical chemist or pathologist. Normally this is only of minor importance, but in work such as this any deviations in chemical element concentration are crucial. Therefore, variation in results for such a relatively simple experiment, whilst not at all desirable, is to be expected.
Because of the huge variety and complexity of the chemical processes within living organisms, the possibility of error from the mass spectrometer falsely mistaking simple molecules for otherwise identical heavier chemical elements is always a possibility. An ICP-mass-spectrometer is designed to minimise such possibilities. However, errors are also possible with introduction of the sample into the spectrometer. The bacteria may not be evenly mixed throughout the culture flasks, and even if evenly spread throughout the flask, those in the centre may display a different biochemistry to those on the bottom, sides, or top of the culture. Also if a liquid sample was injected into the mass spectrometer, any insoluble precipitates may not find their way into the ionization chamber, or their distribution may be uneven.
The third consideration encompasses two further questions. Firstly, as stated above, living organisms are highly complex, showing a dynamic response to a wide range of factors, including their past culture history. Thus even if the above errors are able to be discounted, future biological transmutation experiments would still be required to be repeated, many, many times, under subtly varying conditions. A single flask of bacteria contains millions of individual organisms that dynamically respond to not only their physical culture environment, but also, each individual bacteria responds to its living neighbours as well.
Finally, it should be remembered that chemical elements exist in different forms, known as isotopes. Future, more detailed experiments should therefore analyse not just for the chemical elements but their component isotopes as well. Most isotopes are extremely rare in nature and a record of their distribution in the nutrient solution, and bacterial cultures would add valuable information towards unravelling this extremely important, but challenging phenomenon. It is interesting to note that the best research to date, conducted by Vladimir Vysotskii, Alla Kornilova, et al., in Kiev and Moscow Universities, has conducted just such carefully controlled and analysed experiments looking for isotopic transmutations under the influence of bacterial cultures, though, as yet, they too have had their results independently verified.
Table 1: First Experiment – without dilution | ||||||||||||||||||||
Element/ wave- length | T nutrient only | T nutrient only | T1 nutrient +bact frozen | T2 nutrient +bact frozen | B1 nutrient +bact 30°C | B2 nutrient +bact 30°C | Water | |||||||||||||
N average nutrient only | % diff within N | T1 % diff from N | T2 % diff from N | C1 average nutrient +bact frozen | % diff within C1 | B1 % diff from N | B1 % diff from C1 | B2 % diff from N | B2 % diff from C1 | E1 average nutrient +bact frozen | (N-E1) /N | % diff within E1 | ||||||||
Zn 213 | - | - | - | - | 1.1E+4 | - | 1.1E+4 | - | 1.1E+4 | 1% | 1.2E+4 | - | 11% | 1.7E+4 | - | 55% | 1.4E+4 | - | 16% | - |
Fe 238 | - | - | - | - | 5.1E+3 | - | 5.3E+3 | - | 5.2E+3 | 2% | 4.7E+3 | - | -9% | 1.5E+4 | - | 195% | 9.9E+3 | - | 53% | - |
Cu 327 | - | - | - | - | 3.3E+4 | - | 2.7E+4 | - | 3.0E+4 | 9% | 5.6E+4 | - | 89% | 4.7E+4 | - | 57% | 5.2E+4 | - | 9% | - |
Mn 260 | - | - | - | - | 1.6E+4 | - | 1.3E+4 | - | 1.4E+4 | 10% | 3.5E+4 | - | 142% | 2.2E+4 | - | 52% | 2.8E+4 | - | 23% | - |
Mn 257 | - | - | - | - | 1.5E+4 | - | 1.2E+4 | - | 1.4E+4 | 11% | 3.4E+4 | - | 149% | 2.1E+4 | - | 53% | 2.8E+4 | - | 24% | - |
Li 670 | - | - | - | - | 2.1E+5 | - | 1.9E+5 | - | 2.0E+5 | 5% | 3.3E+5 | - | 65% | 2.9E+5 | - | 43% | 3.1E+5 | - | 7% | - |
First Experiment – With a dilution of a factor 5 in water | ||||||||||||||||||||
Element/ wave- length | T nutrient only | T nutrient only | T1 nutrient +bact frozen | T2 nutrient +bact frozen | B1 nutrient +bact 30°C | B2 nutrient +bact 30°C | water | |||||||||||||
N average nutrient only | % diff within N | T1 % diff from N | T2 % diff from N | C1 average nutrient +bact frozen | % diff within C1 | B1 % diff from N | B1 % diff from C1 | B2 % diff from N | B2 % diff from C1 | E1 average nutrient +bact 30°C | (N-E1) /N | % diff within E1 | ||||||||
Mg 285 | - | - | - | - | 1.0E+7 | - | 1.0E+7 | - | 1.0E+7 | 0% | 9.9E+6 | - | -4% | 9.7E+6 | - | -6% | 9.8E+6 | - | 1% | 1.5E+4 |
Na 330 | - | - | - | - | 8.8E+4 | - | 8.8E+4 | - | 8.8E+4 | 0% | 8.0E+4 | - | -9% | 8.0E+4 | - | -9% | 8.0E+4 | - | 0% | 9.5E+3 |
K 766 | - | - | - | - | 2.9E+6 | - | 2.9E+6 | - | 2.9E+6 | 0% | 2.6E+6 | - | -11% | 2.5E+6 | - | -12% | 2.5E+6 | - | 1% | 5.4E+4 |
Fe 238 | - | - | - | - | 2.7E+3 | - | 2.7E+3 | - | 2.7E+3 | 0% | 2.7E+3 | - | 1% | 5.0E+3 | - | 86% | 3.9E+3 | - | 30% | 1.7E+3 |
Fe 239 | - | - | - | - | 2.8E+3 | - | 2.8E+3 | - | 2.8E+3 | 0% | 2.9E+3 | - | 3% | 4.7E+3 | - | 70% | 3.8E+3 | - | 25% | 1.8E+3 |
Mn 257 | - | - | - | - | 1.9E+4 | - | 1.6E+4 | - | 1.7E+4 | 9% | 2.4E+4 | - | 37% | 1.7E+4 | - | -3% | 2.0E+4 | - | 17% | 2.8E+3 |
Mo 203 | - | - | - | - | 7.4E+2 | - | 7.2E+2 | - | 7.3E+2 | 1% | 9.6E+2 | - | 31% | 7.7E+2 | - | 5% | 8.6E+2 | - | 11% | 5.6E+2 |
Table 2: Second Experiment | ||||||||||||||||||||
Element/ wave- length | T7 nutrient only | T8 nutrient only | T3 nutrient +bact frozen | T4 nutrient +bact frozen | B3 nutrient +bact 30°C | B4 nutrient +bact 30°C | water | |||||||||||||
N2 average nutrient only | % diff within N2 | T3 % diff from N2 | T4 % diff from N2 | C2 average nutrient +bact frozen | %diff within C2 | B3 % diff from N2 | B3 % diff from C2 | B4 % diff from N2 | B4 % diff from C2 | E2 average nutrient +bact 30°C | (N2-E2) /N2 | % diff within E2 | ||||||||
Mg 285 | 9.4E+6 | 1.3E+7 | 1.1E+7 | 16% | 2.2E+7 | 92% | 2.1E+7 | 86% | 2.1E+7 | 2% | 5.0E+6 | -55% | -76% | 1.8E+7 | 62% | -14% | 1.2E+7 | -4% | 57% | - |
Na 330 | 1.6E+5 | 1.8E+5 | 1.7E+5 | 6% | 3.6E+5 | 116% | 4.0E+5 | 138% | 3.8E+5 | 5% | 2.1E+4 | -87% | -94% | 3.2E+5 | 93% | -15% | 1.7E+5 | -3% | 88% | - |
Ca 317 | 2.4E+6 | 3.6E+6 | 3.0E+6 | 20% | 6.2E+6 | 109% | 5.8E+6 | 94% | 6.0E+6 | 3% | 1.1E+6 | -63% | -82% | 5.0E+6 | 68% | -17% | 3.0E+6 | -3% | 64% | - |
Zn 213 | 8.7E+2 | 9.1E+2 | 8.9E+2 | 3% | 1.9E+3 | 119% | 1.9E+3 | 113% | 1.9E+3 | 1% | 5.0E+2 | -44% | -74% | 1.3E+3 | 43% | -34% | 8.8E+2 | 1% | 43% | - |
Fe 239 | 3.4E+3 | 4.1E+3 | 3.8E+3 | 9% | 8.4E+3 | 122% | 8.9E+3 | 138% | 8.6E+3 | 3% | 9.1E+2 | -76% | -89% | 6.7E+3 | 79% | -22% | 3.8E+3 | -1% | 76% | - |
B 182 | 8.5E+2 | 1.1E+3 | 9.8E+2 | 13% | 1.8E+3 | 87% | 2.4E+3 | 147% | 2.1E+3 | 14% | 1.4E+2 | -86% | -93% | 2.1E+3 | 112% | -2% | 1.1E+3 | -13% | 87% | - |
* For those unfamiliar with the scientific notation:
1.0E+1 is 1.0x101 which is 1 with 1 zeros or 10
3.6E+2 is 3.6x102 which is 3.6 times 1 with 2 zeros or 360
7.2E+10 is 7.2x1010 which is 7.2 times 1 with 10 zeros or 72000000000
Table 3.
Differences Between Bacterial Cultures and Nutrient Solution |
||||||
>Boron | Sodium | Magnesium | Calcium | Iron | Zinc | |
Percentage difference between culture B3 and nutrient solution | -86% | -87% | -55% | -63% | -76% | -44% |
Percentage difference between culture B4 and nutrient solution | 112% | 93% | 62% | 68% | 79% | 43% |