Cyclotrons in the Cell? Revisiting the U.S. Army’s Forgotten Report on Biological Transmutation (1978)
In the quiet halls of the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research & Development Command at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, Solomon Goldfein drafted a report in May 1978 that challenged the boundaries between biology and physics. This classified document, Report 2247, titled “Energy Development From Elemental Transmutations in Biological Systems,” explored the audacious concept that living organisms might transmute elements at a subatomic level—an idea often relegated to the realms of ancient alchemy or futuristic science fiction. Decades after its quiet release, the profound questions it raises remain relevant: can cells fundamentally alter elemental composition, and, if so, could they harness nuclear energies?
Read the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research & Development Command quietly published Report 2247, “Energy Development From Elemental Transmutations in Biological Systems,” authored by engineer Solomon Goldfein.
At the time, the U.S. military was actively searching for innovative and compact energy solutions to enhance battlefield mobility and operational efficiency. Amid this pursuit, unconventional scientific claims from researchers like Louis Kervran and Mitsugi Komaki began to capture attention. Kervran, a French biologist, observed chickens producing calcium-rich eggs despite calcium-deficient diets, suggesting a conversion from other elements like potassium or sodium. Komaki similarly reported potassium-deficient plants thriving by seemingly creating potassium internally. Intrigued by these reports, the Army tasked Goldfein to thoroughly investigate this phenomenon, ascertain its plausibility, and explore its potential as an energy source.
Goldfein embarked on a comprehensive survey of global literature, meticulously reviewing experimental data and published accounts from various researchers, notably from France, Japan, and the Soviet Union. After careful evaluation, Goldfein cautiously concluded that elemental transmutations might indeed be occurring within biological systems, accompanied by measurable energy gains. He specifically highlighted recurrent observations such as sodium-to-magnesium transitions in salt-stressed algae, potassium-to-calcium transformations in barley plants under potassium scarcity, and manganese-to-iron shifts observed in fungi grown in iron-poor environments. The recurring nature of these transformations across independent studies suggested to him more than mere analytical error or contamination.
Central to Goldfein’s hypothesis was his innovative—and highly controversial—conceptualization of the cell’s biochemical machinery. He proposed that magnesium-adenosine-triphosphate (MgATP), a critical molecule known universally for storing and transferring energy in biological processes, could function analogously to a cyclotron on a molecular scale. According to this hypothesis, MgATP molecules, arranged in layered, cylindrical stacks within mitochondria, could produce localized electromagnetic fields. These fields, Goldfein suggested, might facilitate elemental transmutations by enabling atomic nuclei to overcome repulsive electrostatic barriers under biologically viable conditions.
This “molecular cyclotron” idea paralleled Ernest Lawrence’s invention of the cyclotron in the early 20th century, but scaled down to atomic dimensions within living cells. Goldfein theorized that magnesium ions served as stable central particles, phosphate groups formed ring-like structures, and fluctuations of thermal and electromagnetic energy within the mitochondria provided sufficient impetus for nuclear reactions to occur. While highly speculative, this idea proposed a revolutionary viewpoint—that biological systems could harbor subtle, controlled nuclear reactions generating minute yet significant energy surpluses beyond conventional chemical means.
Goldfein’s report further discussed the potential biological implications of such a nuclear-level phenomenon. Traditional biochemical processes rely on chemical bond energy, typically on the order of kilocalories per mole. Conversely, nuclear reactions offer energy yields exponentially higher—measured in millions of electron volts (MeV). Even a minimal, steady nuclear energy contribution could explain certain puzzling biological phenomena previously challenging to interpret through conventional biochemical models alone. Examples include anomalous heat generation in hibernating animals, rapid bone growth or healing that exceeds dietary nutrient availability, and bacteria surviving under seemingly nutrient-deficient conditions.
Despite the compelling narrative and intriguing possibilities laid out by Goldfein, the wider scientific community quickly dismissed these hypotheses due to a lack of reproducible experimental evidence and fundamental disagreements regarding low-energy nuclear physics. Physicists criticized the feasibility of such nuclear reactions occurring under ambient conditions without accompanying detectable radiation signatures. As skepticism mounted, research funding evaporated, and the Army’s brief flirtation with biological alchemy retreated into obscurity.
Yet, over the subsequent decades, Goldfein’s report gained renewed attention within niche scientific circles exploring low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), biological anomalies, and alternative energy research. Recent advancements in sensitive analytical instrumentation, particularly mass spectrometry and biophoton detection, have unveiled subtle isotopic and photonic anomalies in biological systems under controlled experimental conditions. These findings occasionally mirror the predictions and observations cited in Goldfein’s report, offering cautious support to his once-dismissed ideas.
Researchers employing state-of-the-art equipment report peculiar isotopic enrichments of magnesium and calcium in microbes cultivated under strict elemental deficiencies, aligning intriguingly with Kervran’s earlier studies. Additionally, LENR experiments involving biologically infused environments have sporadically demonstrated small yet unexplained excess heat and trace helium production, indicative of potential nuclear-scale processes. Meanwhile, biophoton researchers speculate whether certain weak photon emissions observed during cellular processes like immune responses could stem from subtle nuclear transitions—a fascinating intersection of contemporary biophysics and Goldfein’s historical assertions.
The implications, should future research conclusively validate Goldfein’s original hypotheses, would be profound. Biological transmutations would necessitate a radical reconsideration of cellular metabolism, demanding an integrative model where biochemical and subtle nuclear processes coexist. Such revelations could revolutionize fields ranging from agricultural science—by creating plants capable of self-sustaining nutrient cycles—to biotechnology and medicine, where tailored microorganisms might produce valuable isotopes or bioenergy. Additionally, the philosophical and scientific distinction between chemistry and nuclear physics would blur significantly, challenging longstanding academic paradigms and revitalizing discussions about the fundamental nature of life itself.
While skepticism remains scientifically prudent and warranted given current evidence, Goldfein’s report exemplifies the vital role of curiosity-driven research in advancing human knowledge. Whether future scientific endeavors ultimately confirm or refute biological transmutations, the questions raised by this obscure Army report from 1978 remind us that biology continues to possess mysteries worthy of exploration. Indeed, perhaps within the intricate molecular architecture of our cells, miniature cyclotrons hum quietly, awaiting discovery by the next generation of scientists equipped with advanced instruments and boundless imagination.
