"My doctor is generally on my side and is happy to discuss any options
that I come up with. Although she thinks we get all the vitamins and
minerals we need if we eat well, I am not convinced by her argument."

I am. Cf. http://sankey.ws/dietpills.html

Yes. My current diet has 7 times the 2.4 ug/day RDA of B12, and
more than the 10 ug/day cholecalciferol recommended for people my
age. (I'm just 'older' not 'aged'!) Sun exposure in addition.
(True, Ottawa's latitude 45 is well south of Helsinki. But, it's
north of most members of this group.)

"The absorption of B12 deteriorates after 50 years and many older
people are deficient because they do not absorb enough B12 from
the diet. There is clearly a need for B12 supplementation in
older people."

That reduction of absorption is well documented, but I have only
seen reductions by a factor of 2 or 3, not stopped. Just one 200g
can of clams a month gives you 3x the RDA of B12!

"The RDAs for vitamin D are far from being optimal."

I submit that there is a great deal of disagreement, and very
little hard data, on 'optimal' as opposed to 'sufficient' levels
here. 5 ug/day is considered sufficient by virtually all
authorities (and that includes a factor of two to cover 98% of
the populace). The increase to 10 at age 50 and 15 at 70+ is very
recent, based I believe solely upon bone breakage by nursing home
residents, and is clearly intended to be a first attempt at
optimal rather than merely sufficient. I read a lot of
concerns that the fracture levels recorded depend as much upon
calcium/phosphorus levels as upon Vitamin D.

The experts say yes, that our liver stores 6 months to 2 years
worth of B12. However, I open a can of clams, drain it, stick
most of it in the freezer to freeze loose, and eat 1 or 2 most
days.

Big Bertha Thing electron
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/electron.html
Access page JPG 53K Image
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews including soc.history.what-if

Round photographic plates.

Caption;-
Showing a track left by a cosmic ray electron,
in a magnetic field of 12,000 oersteds.
The energy of this electron is 8 MeV,
very low for a cosmic ray,
but much higher than that of any electron
ever ejected, by a gamma ray from a natural
radioactive substance.

From a book by
J.D.Stranathan Ph.D.,
Professor of Physics and Chairman of
Department, University of Kansas.
The "Particles" of Modern Physics.
(C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942

Big Bertha Thing noah

When its raining cats, dogs, kitchen sinks,
the lot. The time to start worrying is when
you see a guy building an ark.

Pastures is mathematical ark,
to negotiate a sea of numbers,
with Outlandish PPT by Structure,
as the first of many rainbows.

(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997.
To comply with my copyright,
please distribute complete copies, free of charge.

Tony Lance
mickalice@bigberthathing.co.uk

Big Bertha Thing Probe-B

In the Sunday Telegraph of 11th April 2004, the QED section, gave the story of
the Gravity Probe-B satellite launch. This is expected to prove the existence of
a new force of nature, proposed by Einstein.

Free Press Pack Download (11MB PDF)
http://www.gravityprobeb.com/gpb_presskit.pdf

There are one or two problems with this:-
1. Einstein never proposed this new force of nature. (Funding canard)
2. It is a magnetic force directly proportional to angular momentum. (Memomagnetism)
3. It is weak at Newtonian speeds and strong at near light speeds.
4. The big three in gyroscopes are Einstein, Professor Francis Everitt of
     Stanford University and Harold Crabtree M.A.
5. One wrote the definitive book on the subject and the other two read it.
6. The relevant extract from the book is given below. (Spider published 4th March 1998)
7. They do not credit the costermonger, with the definitive experiment,
     which proves the existence of the new force of nature.
8. They do not accept that the novelty item was a valid experiment.
9. They believe that the spider wheel was magnetized.
10. The costermonger did not magnetize the spider wheel, he exploited a force of nature.
11. The costermonger discovered, applied and sold the first working application.
12. There is an eye-witness account from 1850 by the author, which kindled his
     life-long interest.
13. The description was published in 1909, in the same book.
14. The force of nature has been missing for 150 years, since its discovery.
15. The first modern publication on the subject is spider, on 4th March 1998. (Usenet)
16. Attribution and due credit are two of the failings of modern science.

Big Bertha Thing spider  
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/spider.html
Access page JPG 11K Image
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews including uk.rec.cycling

Drawing of a clockwork spider wheel and hairpin.

Extract from Introductory Chapter;-
The "Spider tops," which are frequently sold in the streets of London,
consist of a heavy little disc mounted on a spindle (Fig. XIV.).
When the disc has been set spinning a small curved piece of
metal is placed to touch the toe, and at once begins to slide round it,
first the side (a) in the figure, and then the side (b),
the motion continuing backwards and forwards till the top comes to rest.
The fact is that the toe is magnetic, and this being the case it is easy
to see that the rolling of the toe on the side of the metal produces
the motion.

From the book
An Elementary Treatment of the Theory of
Spinning Tops and Gyroscopic Motion.
By Harold Crabtree M.A.
Formerly Scholar of Pembroke College, Cambridge
Assistant Master at Charterhouse
Longmans, Green and Co. 1923
First Edition 1909
Second Edition 1914
New Impression 1923
(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1998
Distribute complete and free of charge to comply.

Big Bertha Thing fact

Anything but a fact, changes the face of twentieth century science.
1. No iron moons and planetary cores.
2. No red shift measure of speed.
3. No Patrick Moore star at 95% the speed of light.
4. Muons arrive on earth.
5. Relativity is like an imaginary number; useful but not real.
6. Einstein-Haas gives a field strength 1/10000th the electric field.
7. Wave particle duality is a field effect.
8. Schroedinger is an approximation.

Who has the wit to check the fact?