Is There a Real and Measurable Magnesium Conspiracy Affecting our Health?

originally posted by: Bedlam
Back on topic, it doesn't cost an ungodly amount to find out your magnesium level. This month, only $30.

Or you can add on a wad of other basic blood labs at the same time and it's only $115 right now.

You sound like one of those commercials on TV. If you act right now do you get a free vitamin B12 shot as long as you pay a separate processing fee?

I read recently that magnesium supplements are not very effective as your body doesn't absorb the magnesium that way. Not to mention some supplements are not as helpful as the package would have you believe. If foods are deficient and a dose of magnesium is needed the better way is to take a soak in Epsom salts. That large organ covering the body will readily absorb what you need. Your skin plays a role in many things you take for granted. Namaste

a reply to: argentus

Ill find the links later when Ive got some time

I read one testimony where a doctor was prescribing 90mg boron tablets
there is some research that shows 10mg of boron increases testosterone and rex newnhams research proved 3 mg of boron a day is enough to remedy some forms of arthritis his work was so good that the Australian government actually banned boron when his research came out and he applied to a pharma company to make his pills for him as he could not keep up with demand
I'm pretty sure boron like iodine is just excreted out in your urine when your body has had enough,

the pharmaceutical companies all bang on about iodine being toxic which is a load of BS studies carried out in Australia in the 50s (source adele davis book lets get well) were giving kids 2400mg a day of iodine with no side effects whatsoever as well as iodine being used in hospitals with no adverse effects reported they have now replaced the iodine in hospitals at least here in Australia with a synthetic version that I think contains yellow no 5 (can't really remember but I know when I was researching it some countries list it as a poison) this can cause asthma attacks

iodine is one of the most potent antibacterials and anti cancer agents out there in fact the body uses Iodine to kill cancer that is if it can get past the fluoride and bromine and get into the body and boron is one of the best chelators of fluoride you can get as it neutralises 3 atoms of fluoride

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Bedlam
Back on topic, it doesn't cost an ungodly amount to find out your magnesium level. This month, only $30.

Or you can add on a wad of other basic blood labs at the same time and it's only $115 right now.

You sound like one of those commercials on TV. If you act right now do you get a free vitamin B12 shot as long as you pay a separate processing fee?

But wait, there's more!

A lot of people don't know you can order your own labs and just find out instead of speculating. Except in, I think, Delaware. If they had a way to order your own radiology, I wouldn't need a doc except for surgery.

a reply to: SargonThrall

I am unsure but magnesium is actually better absorbed if we bath with salts. I have read somewhere that our digestive tract makes it difficult to absorb it if injested.

It's also true, within my own sphere of personal experience that if you bathe in hot bath with a ton of Epsom salts in it, you will feel very different.

originally posted by: Bedlam


No, they do not make fertilizer out of uranium mine tailings. There isn't any uranium in fertilizer whatever, except the occasional stray atom.

Fluoride is also not made out of smokestack waste. It's the first ion of fluorine, which is an element. It isn't something you call waste just to change the name.

IAEA saying trace amounts but real levels are different I will be back with more proof
www.iaea.org...

Recovering uranium directly from phosphoric acid offers two distinct advantages. Not only would this provide uranium for energy production, there would be benefits to soils and crops from removing the trace amounts of uranium that currently are found in phosphate fertilizers.

www.wise-uranium.org...

There are two sources for uranium in fertilizers: elevated natural uranium concentrations in phosphate rock that have not been removed during the fertilizer production process, or uranium in waste solutions from the nuclear fuel industry that are used as fertilizers.

and from the EPA
www.epa.gov...
Fluoride 4.0 4.0
Bone disease (pain and tenderness of the bones); 50% of over 50s in America have skeletal fluorosis)
Children may get mottled teeth (41% of American kids have mottled teeth)

Water additive which promotes strong teeth; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories

safewater.zendesk.com...

5. How does fluoride get into my drinking water?



Some fluoride compounds, such as sodium fluoride and fluorosilicates, dissolve easily into ground water as it moves through gaps and pore spaces between rocks. Most water supplies contain some naturally occurring fluoride. Fluoride also enters drinking water in discharge from fertilizer or aluminum factories. Also, many communities add fluoride to their drinking water to promote dental health.

and this quote only refers to calcium fluoride bedlam
calcium fluoride is not very soluble in water bedlam so they add in can you guess bedlam yes that's right the aluminium and fertiliser fluoride
Most water supplies contain some naturally occurring fluoride which is calcium fluoride not the poison they add into our water source Westendorf westendorf studied it for 30 years

by MJ Coplan and RD Masters, April 2001

Westendorf’s 30-year PhD research work is important for reasons beyond its specific scientific findings. First his work was motivated by the assumption that ingested fluoride was beneficial. Knappwost, his thesis supervisor, believed that fluoride in saliva afforded protection against tooth decay and was seeking a means of enhancing the output of fluoride-bearing saliva for that purpose. Therefore, it can hardly be said that Westendorf’s work was biased against water fluoridation.

Second, Westendorf’s research was based an knowledge that fluoride ion is an enzyme inhibitor. Indeed, that feature of ingested fluoride seemed to offer multiple benefits. Knappwost believed that ingested fluoride, by inhibiting cholinesterase, could achieve both greater expression of total saliva and an increase in its fluoride content. The research of his student quite logically examined different forms of ingestible fluoride for their effect on several variants of cholinesterase, Westendorf’s results showed that fluoride in the form of the silicofluoride complex (SiF), as well as several other complexes, was a substantially more powerful inhibitor of cholinesterases than the simple fluoride ion released by sodium fluoride (NaF). This was simply an objective finding.

Third, to account for the more powerful inhibition effect of SiF, Westendorf studied the course of its fluoride release in fine detail. He found that under physiological conditions, dissociation was no more than 66% in the concentration range considered “optimum” for fluoridated water by United States health authorities. If the released fluoride came uniformly from all of the initially injected SiF, the molar concentration of the residual non-dissociated species would be the same as that of the injected SiF. It would follow that dilution of fluosilicic acid to a nominal 1 part per million of free fluoride in water at pH 7.4 induces each [SiF6]2- to release 4 fluorides to be replaced by hydroxyls. The partially dissociated residue would be the ion [SiF2(OH)4]2- which would then be present in the water at the same concentration as the originally introduced SiF. The biological consequences of ingesting such a species are probably not innocuous, with enzyme inhibition being only one of several possibilities.

Westendorf’s visualized course of SiF dissociation, based on actual experimental evidence, is materially at odds with the dissociation route assumed by US EPA and CDC, based on theory. In judging the reliability of the theoretical approach and claims of health safety presented by these government agencies, one should be aware that both the nature of the complicated mixture called “fluosilicic acid” and the course of its dissociation upon dilution remain unresolved despite nearly a century of research. Two recent documents demonstrate this. In the first, an expert in the recovery of fluoride in phosphate rock processing, addressing a group of his peers at a 1999 International Fertilizer Association (a) meeting held in the former USSR, said:


“The chemical formula of fluosilicic acid is H2SiF6. However, things are not as simple as that due to the fact that rarely is fluosilicic acid present as pure H2SiF6. . . There are well reported references to the existence of H2SiF6 SiF4. . . Hereon in this presentation, FSA [fluosilicic acid] means a mixture of HF, H2SiF6 and H2SiF6 SiF4.”

MSDS showing differing synonyms
fluoridealert.org...

and here is the CDC stating they add in fluoride form phosphate rock or if we look above from aluminium and fertiliser processing plants
www.cdc.gov...

www.health.nsw.gov.au...
scroll down to section 3 this is the australian NSW government .

originally posted by: jinni73


IAEA saying trace amounts but real levels are different I will be back with more proof

0.5 Bq/gm is extremely trace. And it's 'the occasional atom of uranium' I was talking about. Natural potassium is 64 times more radioactive.

Oh, and Jinni? Perhaps 'citation needed' also on farmers being forced to use it. I'll wait.

and from the EPA ...

...we get a giant text wall of non-sequitur copypasta.

maybe this layout is easier for you it seems you are unable to read if there are too many letters on the screen, funny that
I see you use other tactics like overload of information once you have been proven to be lying

your first words proven to be untrue

No, they do not make fertilizer out of uranium mine tailings. There isn't any uranium in fertilizer whatever, except the occasional stray atom.

www.wise-uranium.org...

There are two sources for uranium in fertilizers: elevated natural uranium concentrations in phosphate rock that have not been removed during the fertilizer production process, or uranium in waste solutions from the nuclear fuel industry that are used as fertilizers.

again untrue 91ppm in this news report from india
www.tribuneindia.com...

As per the report sent by BARC to PAU, uranium concentration was found 91.77 ppm in DAP and 2.92 ppm in single superphosphate.

like
web.archive.org...://www.wa.gov/agr/communications/2000/news0005.htm

The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) today issued a statewide stop-sale order to Siemens Power Corporation of Richland regarding the unauthorized distribution of an unregistered, hazardous waste-derived fertilizer. The product is an ammonium hydroxide solution that is a waste material from the production of nuclear reactor fuel.

WSDA is taking this action after discovering that Siemens Power Corporation has been distributing the waste product for use as a fertilizer since 1996

nuclearfreeplanet.org...

An analysis of five fertilizer brands sold in German garden centers revealed concentrations in the extraordinary wide range of 4 - 401 milligrams uranium and 3 - 40 milligrams cadmium per kilogram phosphate. These concentrations are not declared by the manufacturers, as there exists no such legal requirement nor any related concentration standard in Germany. (NDR Sep. 12, 2011

Is this easier for you to understand bedlam or should I draw some pretty pictures for you

Take ZMA, best supplement I've ever taken. I take it every night 1 hour before bed. It has improved my sleep dramatically, among with recover from workouts.

a reply to: dondrews

Thanks for that i hadn't thought about soaking it up and Epsom salts are easily available. Brilliant.

I remember reading about this when I trained. Governments have known about this since the 1930's but I suspect its an indictment of just how seriously and adversely lobbying and funding politicians affects the world generally.

With this knowledge for the last 80 odd years you would think someone, somewhere in powder would have dealt with it.
The problem is though that now with the population as it is and the world situation, it probably suits the politicians and those who command them to have this inherent weakness in the masses. Forewarned though is for-armed and at least the more this is publicised the more we can take steps to prevent weaknesses to our health. (with our dna hotchpotch we need to).

What does bother me though is that since the 1930's a number of generations have gone through with these weaknesses and with the increases of diseases that rarely occurred when I went to school in comparison with the kids in my Grand daughter's class today there is something going very wrong and our food manufacturers and growers need to be brought to task over it. Profit over health is going to cost more in the long run because you kill off your customers early slowly over the generations.

originally posted by: Markmc1235
Take ZMA, best supplement I've ever taken. I take it every night 1 hour before bed. It has improved my sleep dramatically, among with recover from workouts.

I have used this in the past, and excellent way to get Mg, along with Zinc. It also has huge benefits for men............ The Peter North style benefit, I'll say no more.

I find magnesium malate a good way to supplement. But as said before, epson salt bath is very popular. Personally I am worry to overdose it, probably just me being a chicken...

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: TigStar82

I think you outline well the crux of the problem -- soil depletion and failure to rotate crops. There is also information that suggests that some of the hybrids/GMO plants, while outproducing heirloom or open-pollinated crops, may overutilise soil resources.

Which begs the question: If they leech minerals from the soil, don't they go into the plants, and if not, where do they go?

I just got home and drove past the farmers I mentioned before are out in the field spraying more crap to get the fields ready, I'm sure this is there 6th year planting in that field, no rotation, no natural nutrients just a truckload of synthetic spray. When will they learn


to answer your question about where the minerals go.... The minerals and nutrients wash out of the soil, most field are built up so they don't flood, any excess water normally runs off to drainage or naturally runs into lakes,rivers etc or pool up under the fields. Only plants with extremely long roots will be able to make use of the deep down nutrients and bring them to the surface, something like alfalfa does the trick nicely. Its deep rooted and able to draw a lot of nutrients/minerals back to the surface, you can either harvest the alfalfa and leave the roots or just till the whole lot into the top soil and leave to winterize ready to plant next season
In areas like mine that are close to the sea the nutrients and minerals eventually end up out at sea, the earth is basically like a massive drain, water goes in the top and comes out somewhere at the bottom picking up nutrients and minerals on its way, which is why seaweed grows so fast (some species grow between 4 to 6 foot+ per day depending on conditions) and makes excellent compost. its packed with nutrients and just about every movable/soluble mineral from a millennia of run off from the land
I'm a big fan of seaweed compost and extracts for this reason

a reply to: TigStar82

I often wonder if when crops get wiped out, why they don't just let it the crop waste where it is, surely the slow breakdown of the plants over time would increase the bio-availability of soil and actually improve trace compounds on the top. Surely the breakdown of ruined plant material acts a bit like flood does in nature, dragging and pulling bacteria around. I suppose, people in their hurry to make that land profitable again don't care for natures methods.

originally posted by: auraofblack
a reply to: TigStar82

I often wonder if when crops get wiped out, why they don't just let it the crop waste where it is, surely the slow breakdown of the plants over time would increase the bio-availability of soil and actually improve trace compounds on the top. Surely the breakdown of ruined plant material acts a bit like flood does in nature, dragging and pulling bacteria around. I suppose, people in their hurry to make that land profitable again don't care for natures methods.

Your right, it doesn't even take much time to breakdown for example of the alfalfa I keep mentioning, it can be grown, cut down, composted and ploughed into the existing topsoil all in one year ready for fresh crops the following season leaving around 3 months for it to breakdown more and the rest turned to worm food BUT modern farmers don't like wasting a year or wasting a full crop of alfalfa, they prefer the fast acting soluble stuff they can spray a few times per crop. These products kill the micro-biology of the soil which is extremely important to full nutrient uptake, they have a symbiotic attachment to roots to aid the plants in breaking down essential minerals and sugars, the modern way to overcome this is to just increase the strength of the soluble crap and do more damage.
Some WILL do the alfalfa but harvest it to be sold as alfalfa hay for animal feed while leaving the root matter to decompose, its a bit of a trade off but it works, they would still need synthetics by the summer unless they aquire tons of moo poo to add as well. Sadly old techniques are dieing as the old boy farmers slowly disappear

I have to be fair to the modern farmers though, Its us that's causing the problem, we put such demand on farms for food that they have to do what they can to keep up. We are over populated and doing nothing about it, if every person grew just 1 of their 5 a day for themselves it would take huge strain off of the farm boys. You'll also get a taste for real fresh food which will definitely make you want to grow more of your own

I would love everyone to try real fresh for yourselves, even if you haven't got a garden just grow in a pot on your window, garlics and onions are great for pots and you'll b amazed how different they taste to store bought. I actually started my garlic garden with some store bought garlic and the taste is excellent compared to the exact same ones id started with which were small and bland. Mine actually make my garden stink lol
Get proper compost, not the miracle grow crap its full of synthetics, compost all your kitchen greens, coffee grounds, unbleached paper, anything except meat. Keep adding it to the soil and its will be rich in nutrients. If you live by the ocean then seaweed is your friend, take a trip and grab a load, compost and teas (not the drinkable type lol but for plants) can be made with this. f you cant source seaweed then extracts are the next best thing. Also a few garden worms added to pots will keep them aerated and full of worm poo just leave some fresh leaf for them to munch on

I could go on all day lol I love gardening but I wont bore you anymore

a reply to: TigStar82

Only plants with extremely long roots will be able to make use of the deep down nutrients and bring them to the surface, something like alfalfa does the trick nicely. Its deep rooted and able to draw a lot of nutrients/minerals back to the surface, you can either harvest the alfalfa and leave the roots or just till the whole lot into the top soil and leave to winterize ready to plant next season

Which is why the general treatment for soil when I was a kid, to either plant mustard, alfalfa or clover, and till it under. Thanks much for the explaination.

I also really revere seaweed meal. I pull it off the bay, put it into a long wooden box to dry and use a stacked dumbell to crack it up into meal. I used to wash it off first, but we live in a salt environment, so I want the plants that can't handle it to die naturally. I also crush more of it very fine, and add water to make my own liquid nutrient.

Thanks for the informative post!

a reply to: argentus
all I can find so far is a rider was written into the farm subsidies act in 1946.
basically you had to use chemical fertiliser to get a subsidy and as food prices are kept low the farmers can only make a profit with the subsidy. there used to be 6 million farms around 1930 but when they introducued this act the rich bought up the majority o fthe farms in order toget the money from the subsidies and around 1980 72% of farms were owned by corporations

I have been trying to find the actual document or even view the farm subsidies act with no joy and there is not an email address for the usda

so with the world the way it is I am assuming that the conditions are the same for Europe but have no proof yet and due to the lack of these acts being easy to find its getting a bit boring although I have found out that they use citrate to wash some of the fertiliser and citrate makes the uranium or its decay forms easier to uptake into the plant roots and I found another paper relating to food grown in chemical fertiliser being the equivalent of smoking due to the polonium being the main thing that causes cancer which is also in food.

I have joined a farming forum so I will put the question on there and see if they can throw any light on it,
although there is quite a bit of this rider written about it on the net to do with ezra taft benson but I do not know if it is true yet

a reply to: jinni73

Much appreciated! As you probably know, this was partially addressed as far back as 1936 in a Senate Document. Now, there are those that claim that Senate document has been debunked, however that seems to be a "debunking" based upon the fact that the source material was first written in a Cosmopolitan article.

Me? I don't see the problem.