Dear Lloyd, The idea that potentised preps "stay put" as proposed by Glen does not agree with my understanding and use of radionically prepared substances. If radionic preps "stayed put" you would not be able to use a small amount in your BC and expect it to permeate through the whole mix. It would just be a few drops scattered amongst the compost. if there was not a radiational effect Glen would not be able to claim that his possum retardant can be mixed into sand and a handful thrown out every 20 metres or so. I test the radiational effect of radionic substances with a radionic instrument in this way. Take some of the substance, say in a watering can, and sprinkle it out over a defined area. leave for some time, maybe 2 or 3 days then take soil samples at 1 metre intervals. Test the soil samples to find if there is any of the substance that you have broadcast. This is done by either dialling in the rate for that substance and then seeing if you get a stick,from a match with the soil sampleand the witness.My tests have shown that the radiational effect is usually somewhere between 17 and 40 times, the size of the treated area. There have been no outside influences such as an instrument. It is purely and simply natural forces.
To say that there is not a radiational effect from the use of radionically prepared substances implies that somehow different laws apply to radionics than apply to the rest of the natural world. Supposing that you were to dilute a litre of preps from Glen, in whatever amount of water that he suggests, if the homoeopathic preps had no radiational effect on the rest of the water why would you dilute it. Is the water just a carrier or does something happen to the water. It seems to me that the memory pattern from the potentised preps permeates the medium through osmosis. An example of the radiational effect of peppering is a 12month trial that we have just comleted at Willow Tree on control of St Johns Wort. the aim of the trial was to test the effect of a method that we have developed of making high homoeopathic peppers of St John's Wort. The trial has confirmed earlier research on Serrated Tussock which indicated viability of seed, both on the plant and in the seed bank in the soil can be reduced markedly by our method of weed pepper production and application. These trials prove conclusively that there is a radiational effect from the pepper sprayed on the surface of the soil otherwise we would not be able to devitalise seed under the soil. The applications of this research of using a non toxic species specific pre emergence weedicide could revolutionise the widespread application of chemical herbicides. The next stage is to take the method to trial large scale application over 500 acres. The surrounding area of the trial was covered with St John's Wort whereas the trial area had zero germination. A most pleasing result. It is difficult to isolate a trial area, as you have commented, but not impossible. One method used by Bruce Copen to define the area for a radionic broadcast trial was to mark off the area to be tested with 4 copper rods sticking out of the ground to a height of 1 metre and then take soil or leaf samples from this area as a witness. The radionic broadcast then confines to the marked area. This may help anyone who wanted experiment with comparing radionic broadcast to non treated areas as you can have several strips alongside each other. It could be worth trying.Will keep you informed how this method works out. Kindest regards James Hedley Radiasesthesia and Radionic Analysis Radionic Insect and Parasite control Bioethical Agriculture Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Chromas and humus Was Electronic homeopathy for plants. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Diver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:36 AM > Subject: Re: Electronic homeopathy for plants. Was Re: late winter farm > > > > Chromas as intellectual curiosity? > > > > Chromas are a practical approach to the humus > > farmers in Austria and Switzerland, who work their soils > > with humified compost, cover crops, spading machines, > > rotations, and related humus management practices > > to achieve biological health, clay-humus crumb, > > and associated mineral availability. > > Hi Steve > I dont think you'd get much argument about the value of chromas as you have > described above > Lets come back around the circle and look at this again > 1 I made some barrel compost using radionically made preps instead of the > physical ones - heck I had enough cow manure for two pits and only one set > of preps - and I was curious as to what would happen. > 2. The stuffs done and visually there is no difference and there was none as > it went through the process > 3 We tested these two lots energetically with a radionic machine and by > dowsing and for practical purposes there was not much difference (the > radionic one a little ahead but not that different) > 4 Allan suggested a chroma test of produce grown ( vegetables grain or > whatever) using radionic and conventional preps as a comparison. I dont have > a problem with chromas for this. > 5 I questioned how you would do this because any conventional preps used > will spread their influence betyond the application area and probably effect > the plots using radionic preps (Glen Atkinson tells us that potentised preps > will 'stay put' only effecting where they are applied) > If we are going to do comparison tests and then draw some qualitative > conclusion from them they must be valid comparisons. > My thinking from here on in is that a farm to farm comparison is a real good > way of comparing the two farms but a completely invalid way of comparing any > one treatment used on the both farms because of the other variables we have > introduced - and none of us have the time, money, or energy to spare to do > enough of these tests to make it valid. If we cant draw some useful > conclusions from the simpler tests we are able to do then maybe its better > if we dont draw any conclusions at all. Which brings me back around to the > start of your message. If these Swiss and Austrian farmers are using chromas > effectively to look at the humus quality of their soil then that should be > an ideal way of comparing two batches of barrel compost ? - (I favour > energetic testing myself but that has already tested out very similar). I > spoke to Cheryl Kemp about this yesterday and will send some samples, I'm > sure she would be happy to post the chroma pictures to the Biodynamic > Agriculture Australia web site for all to see when the tests are done. > Cheers > Lloyd Charles > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Chromas and humus Was Electronic homeopathy for plants. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Diver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:36 AM > Subject: Re: Electronic homeopathy for plants. Was Re: late winter farm > > > > Chromas as intellectual curiosity? > > > > Chromas are a practical approach to the humus > > farmers in Austria and Switzerland, who work their soils > > with humified compost, cover crops, spading machines, > > rotations, and related humus management practices > > to achieve biological health, clay-humus crumb, > > and associated mineral availability. > > Hi Steve > I dont think you'd get much argument about the value of chromas as you have > described above > Lets come back around the circle and look at this again > 1 I made some barrel compost using radionically made preps instead of the > physical ones - heck I had enough cow manure for two pits and only one set > of preps - and I was curious as to what would happen. > 2. The stuffs done and visually there is no difference and there was none as > it went through the process > 3 We tested these two lots energetically with a radionic machine and by > dowsing and for practical purposes there was not much difference (the > radionic one a little ahead but not that different) > 4 Allan suggested a chroma test of produce grown ( vegetables grain or > whatever) using radionic and conventional preps as a comparison. I dont have > a problem with chromas for this. > 5 I questioned how you would do this because any conventional preps used > will spread their influence betyond the application area and probably effect > the plots using radionic preps (Glen Atkinson tells us that potentised preps > will 'stay put' only effecting where they are applied) > If we are going to do comparison tests and then draw some qualitative > conclusion from them they must be valid comparisons. > My thinking from here on in is that a farm to farm comparison is a real good > way of comparing the two farms but a completely invalid way of comparing any > one treatment used on the both farms because of the other variables we have > introduced - and none of us have the time, money, or energy to spare to do > enough of these tests to make it valid. If we cant draw some useful > conclusions from the simpler tests we are able to do then maybe its better > if we dont draw any conclusions at all. Which brings me back around to the > start of your message. If these Swiss and Austrian farmers are using chromas > effectively to look at the humus quality of their soil then that should be > an ideal way of comparing two batches of barrel compost ? - (I favour > energetic testing myself but that has already tested out very similar). I > spoke to Cheryl Kemp about this yesterday and will send some samples, I'm > sure she would be happy to post the chroma pictures to the Biodynamic > Agriculture Australia web site for all to see when the tests are done. > Cheers > Lloyd Charles > > > >
