Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 I'm with you, Doug, but I can't believe that current medical literature or classic texts don't address this issue, and if so where, what do they say and what are the comparative results Yehuda On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:37:34 -0000 " " writes: > I just know that when I first started taking raw herbs I thought the > metal pot thing > was silly but after 2 months of metal pots I switched to a stone > pot. I noticed the > difference in the potency of the herbs immediately. > doug > > But here in the good old USA, and other developed countries, why > > would it be anything less than preferable to decoct herbs in > stainless > > steel, iron or pyrex pots? I'm still waiting to hear from anyone > as to > > what the source is as to why qing hao can't be decocted in metal. > > > > Yehuda > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 May I suggest the reason the issue has not been properly addressed is that there is not a conceptual framework in place to deal with it ? It is pretty obvious that cooking with metal pots will disharge ions into the decoction. That is not something the mechanististic paradigm will have trouble dealing with, although the chinese paradigm may have, being 'pre-scientific'. However, I would have thought that millenia of grass roots (pun not intended) praxis in China would have established the supremacy of pot over metal for cooking herbs - you'll have to correct me if I am wrong here because I do not have access to Chinese texts. On the other hand the mechanistic paradigm is still having difficulty with dialectic notions such as 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. When it comes to mixing and cooking herbs, the western idea of 'synergism' somehow does not carry the same weight as the 'sui generis' nature of the product as the Chinese have known about. What makes the product 'sui generis' and not merely 'synergistic' is still a matter of debate, but I'd suggest a good start would be to consider the 'electron cloud configuration' that is no doubt produced in a quite unique fashion by every decoction. This electronic configuration will be a 'sui generis' product, and will be attenuated by the presence of metal ions from the cooking utensil. Just a thought - on the way to marrying up the western and oriental paradigm. I got the idea reading about DIM (diindolylemethane) which is basically an extract of cabbage but has been found to have powerful anticancer properties due to its action as a hormone disruptor. In large doses (> 200 mg day) DIM has been found to have similar antiandrogen properties to the conventional medication Casodex used to treat prostate cancer. Casodex blocks the androgen receptor (AR) thereby preventing the cAMP cascade inside the cancerous cell responsible for triggering mitosis and growth. The family of antiandrogens and SERMs (selective estrogen receptor modulators) include other chemical steroids and non-steroids all with a chemical affinity to the sex-steroids testosterone, DHT and estrogen. DHT is uniquely different as it has absolutely no chemical affinity with the sex-steroids, yet it still manages to dock with the AR in a 'lock and key' action that blocks the real steroids from triggering cell growth. One way of achieving this is by postulating an 'electron cloud configuration' that mimicks the antiandrogen - not chemically but morphologically. The notion of a molecular and virtual morphological entity is still rather foreign to the mechanistic paradigm. However it offers a way to understand that other great 'puzzle' namely homeopathic action. I am not suggesting TCM and homeopathy have the same underlying mechanism, please no-one misunderstand this point. All I am saying is that morphological entities exist - some mimick physical properties, some mimick chemical properties. It is going to be a great area of research for the next generation of kids who switch on to 'quantum biology'. Sammy. yehuda l frischman [] 10 October 2003 07:19 Re: Re: metal pots I'm with you, Doug, but I can't believe that current medical literature or classic texts don't address this issue, and if so where, what do they say and what are the comparative results Yehuda On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:37:34 -0000 " " writes: > I just know that when I first started taking raw herbs I thought the > metal pot thing > was silly but after 2 months of metal pots I switched to a stone > pot. I noticed the > difference in the potency of the herbs immediately. > doug > > But here in the good old USA, and other developed countries, why > > would it be anything less than preferable to decoct herbs in > stainless > > steel, iron or pyrex pots? I'm still waiting to hear from anyone > as to > > what the source is as to why qing hao can't be decocted in metal. > > > > Yehuda > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Thanks for bringing this up. --- ga.bates wrote: > May I suggest the reason the issue has not been > properly addressed is that > there is not a conceptual framework in place to deal > with it ? It /has/ been properly addressed. It was the ancient chinese, not the modern 'scientific-anti-primitive', who never made use of metal for piping because they knew it poisoned the water. They used clay. Five-element cycle, metal cuts/destroys wood. Can't use metal for cooking herbs, or even food. Furthermore, did you know that the different types of clay are differentiated according to effect on the decoction? Just like different types of water. Furthermore, it has been known for a long long long time that not only does clay have a relatively inert character, but that those aspects that /are/ reactive fall into two major categories: 1. anti-pathogenic (largely anti-bacterial for the modernists), and 2. synergistic. The elements in clay serve similar functions to such herbs as gan cao and da zao in causing a binding and harmonising effect on the herbs. > It is pretty obvious that cooking with metal pots > will disharge ions into > the decoction. Ions aren't the main problem. The main problem is the leaching of the metal elements into the decoction followed by the destruction of the organic elements. Energy loss or change is secondary. Blood is the mother of energy. Substance is the root of energy. > That is not something the > mechanististic paradigm will have > trouble dealing with, although the chinese paradigm > may have, being 'pre-scientific'. Maybe, but it's the mechanistic paradigm that has all the metal cookware and the hundreds of miles of metal piping in their cities. So I don't know who knows what. Anyway, maybe we should define science. Bye, Hugo ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Thank you for responding. I admire your spirited attitude / defence, and depth of knowledge of TCM. I don't want to but heads with you over this but I have to say I was responding to another post asking why qinghao should be prepared in a non-iron container and that was my reply which I filled out with a few thoughts on the subject. I am sure you are pretty well on track with most things but I feel I need to let you know where you say .. > Ions aren't the main problem. The main problem is the leaching of the metal elements into the decoction that in fact 'ions' and 'metal elements' are one and the same minus/plus and electron or two. That is the principle of the electric cell, electrolysis, and electroplating. The metal 'ion' is carried from one electrode to the other, and in your terms we get 'leaching'. So .. we are talking the same thing just a slightly different language for the time being .. Sammy. Hugo Ramiro [subincor] 10 October 2003 13:33 Chinese Medicine Re: RE: Re: metal pots Thanks for bringing this up. --- ga.bates wrote: > May I suggest the reason the issue has not been > properly addressed is that > there is not a conceptual framework in place to deal > with it ? It /has/ been properly addressed. It was the ancient chinese, not the modern 'scientific-anti-primitive', who never made use of metal for piping because they knew it poisoned the water. They used clay. Five-element cycle, metal cuts/destroys wood. Can't use metal for cooking herbs, or even food. Furthermore, did you know that the different types of clay are differentiated according to effect on the decoction? Just like different types of water. Furthermore, it has been known for a long long long time that not only does clay have a relatively inert character, but that those aspects that /are/ reactive fall into two major categories: 1. anti-pathogenic (largely anti-bacterial for the modernists), and 2. synergistic. The elements in clay serve similar functions to such herbs as gan cao and da zao in causing a binding and harmonising effect on the herbs. > It is pretty obvious that cooking with metal pots > will disharge ions into > the decoction. Ions aren't the main problem. The main problem is the leaching of the metal elements into the decoction followed by the destruction of the organic elements. Energy loss or change is secondary. Blood is the mother of energy. Substance is the root of energy. > That is not something the > mechanististic paradigm will have > trouble dealing with, although the chinese paradigm > may have, being 'pre-scientific'. Maybe, but it's the mechanistic paradigm that has all the metal cookware and the hundreds of miles of metal piping in their cities. So I don't know who knows what. Anyway, maybe we should define science. Bye, Hugo ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 --- ga.bates wrote: > > Ions aren't the main problem. The main problem is > the leaching of the > metal elements into the decoction > that in fact 'ions' and 'metal elements' are one and > the same minus/plus and > electron or two. That is the principle of the > electric cell, electrolysis, > and electroplating. The metal 'ion' is carried from > one electrode to the > other, and in your terms we get 'leaching'. My mistake. I was limiting 'ion' to only a positive or negative charge, which is highly incomplete. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Hugo ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.