CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: ALA?Clay?MMS? detox time table for heavy metals
 

J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...


More
More

J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...


Hellth Views: 2,674
Published: 13 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 1,121,793

Re: ALA?Clay?MMS? detox time table for heavy metals



Hi Jfh,

Ironically, that passage you quoted is the one that makes me wonder if JH really knows what Miracle-Mineral-Supplement does with toxic metals.

Let me explain.

First of all, the JH reference to "hair root testing" indicates some unfamiliarity with usual testing practices for heavy metal. Hair samples are gathered from snipping, not yanking. And the largest databases for toxic hair samples are gathered this way.

The other thing that gives me pause is his explanation of the process of oxidizing mercury as a means of rendering it harmless.

Actually the IONIC form of mercury IS the undesirable form since it binds so readily to sulphedryl groups and targets kidneys as well as glutathione and cysteine metabolic pathways. The problem with mercury BEGINS when oxidative stress occurs, so I've been reluctant to buy into JH's explanation, because if someone is taking Miracle-Mineral-Supplement and hasn't eliminated the supply of mercury (as in fillings), is he/she poisoning themselves faster by supplying a strong oxidizer? (thus oxidizing any organic mercury that hasn't been converted yet?)

Also, JH doesn't explain any mechanism by which the mercury would be eliminated. (simply saying "it washes away")

The Dr. Boyd Haley videos talk about this to some extent (affinities, that is) but it's really difficult to get mercury out of tissue, since it doesn't just float around waiting to be picked up. It BINDS and HIDES.

Take a look at this patent description on a process for removing mercury from wastewater, using a strong oxidizer. It confirms that Miracle-Mineral-Supplement (CL02) can be used to oxidize heavy metals (but we knew that)...HOWEVER, it seems to indicate that a CHELATOR is still required to remove the ionized mercury , EVEN IN SOLUTION and I just worry that further oxidation is contrary to our purposes. (of getting better, not worse)

Full article at:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6521131.html


Abstract
The disclosed invention relates to a method of disposing of mercury-containing wastewater containing mercury-complexing materials, comprising the steps of treating wastewater containing mercury ions with a strong oxidizing agent in a reaction chamber to produce pretreated wastewater by removing an effluent stream of pretreated wastewater from the reaction chamber; and passing the effluent stream of pretreated wastewater through a column packed with a mercury-selective adsorbent material to produce an effluent stream of wastewater having a reduced mercury content. The adsorbent material is a porous resin having immobilized mercury-selective chelating groups bound thereto. A particularly preferred adsorbent material is a crosslinked styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer having immobilized dithiocarbamate groups bound thereto.

Claims


What is claimed is:

1. A method of removing mercury from water containing at least elemental and complexed mercury-containing contaminants, comprising the steps of:

(a) treating said water with an excess amount of an oxidizing agent to generate free mercury ions from elemental and complexed mercury to produce pretreated water; and

(b) treating the pretreated water with a mercury-selective adsorbent material.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

(c) determining the concentration of mercury-containing contaminants in the pretreated water subsequent to treatment with the adsorbent material;

(d) discharging the pretreated water if the concentration of mercury-containing contaminants determined in step (c) is below a desired value; and

(e) further treating the pretreated water if the concentration of mercury-containing contaminants determined in step (c) is above a predetermined value.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the water containing mercury-containing contaminants is treated with said excess of an oxidizing agent at a temperature between 60° F. and 90° F.



 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  curezone.com

0.361 sec, (2)