There is a funny tendency in academic science that mediocre scientist thrive on trashing fringe science. Ag scientists especially are very closed. This person doesn't even know exactly what the tests were and doesn't realize that sensitive crystalization and chromatography are completely different things. I think that certain scientists would be interested in these things, especially the sensitive crystalization, though they would be very cautious in sating exactly what it might mean. The limiting thing about chromatograms is that the colors are caused by reactions between organic compounds in the sample and the silver salts used for developing. Thus organic things will almost always produce more colors than a refined inorganic chemical substance. The problem with these methods is and has been working out consistent method of analysis; the problem is NOT that there is nothing to them.
Cheers, Chris Shade PhD pending --- Hilary Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many thanks to everyone who contributed answers to > my Chernobyl question - some very interesting > material. > > Here's another question. Surfing for information on > sensitive crystallization I came across the > following, at > http://www.hort.cornell.edu/gardening/fctsheet/egfactsh/complant.html. > Anyone care to comment? > > Thanks so much > Hilary > > Bad Science > > Unfortunately, much of the popular literature > that discusses companion planting is based upon some > very bad science, in particular, the "sensitive > crystallization method" which was originated by Dr. > Ehrenfried E. Pfeiffer in the 1930's. Dr. Pfeiffer > was a student of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, the founder of > "Biodynamics." The sensitive crystallization method > utilizes chromatography to discover why plants make > good or bad companions. > > Dr. Pfeiffer made chromatograms of many > different plants, both individually and in > combination. He concluded that mixtures of plants > which formed clear and bright chromatograms were > mutually beneficial, while mixtures that formed > cloudy or dull chromatograms were antagonistic. > Thus, the notion that "carrots love tomatoes" but > "beans dislike fennel" is based upon an analytical > laboratory procedure and not on direct observation > of the plants in nature. No legitimate scientist > believes that this method can determine > compatibility among plant species. > > Dr. Pfeiffer also made chromatograms of many > other substances including chemical fertilizers and > compost. According to Louise Riotte in her book > Carrots Love Tomatoes, "the chemical (fertilizer) > yielded chromatograms that were dull and lifeless > but the ones made from the compost were brilliant > with color." Ms. Riotte continues by asking "Could > this have been because of the living microorganisms > continued in the compost? This supposition seems > logical." > > Unfortunately, the supposition is not the > least bit logical from a scientific viewpoint, and > has no relevance for determining plant nutritional > needs. It is this type of bad science that has > created a hostility between the scientific community > and many proponents of biodynamic gardening. > > Prepared by: > > Robert Beyfuss, Progr Ldr A&NR, Greene County > Cooperative Extension, Education Ctr, HCR3, Box 906, > Cairo, NY 12413-9503 > > Marvin Pritts, Associate Professor, Department > of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell Univeristy, > Ithaca, NY 14853 > > > > ends > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
