The Hidden Threat of Radioactive Fertilizer Contamination
Research suggests that itâs the radiation from these fertilizers that appear to cause the most lung damage, and are the primary cause of cancer in smokers.3, 4, 5 In fact, polonium is the only component of cigarette smoke shown to produce cancer in laboratory animals.6 As noted in a 2009 study:7
âIn a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radiation dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000 mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 x-ray films of the chest per year.â
According to a 2011 report published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research,8 secret internal documents obtained from the major tobacco industries in 1998 reveal that the industry was well aware of the presence of this radioactive element in cigarettes as early as 1959.
âAcid wash was discovered in 1980 to be highly effectively in removing polonium-210 from the tobacco leaves; however, the industry avoided its use for concerns that acid media would ionize nicotine converting it into a poorly absorbable form into the brain of smokers thus depriving them of the much sought after instant ânicotine kickâ sensation,â the researchers noted.
The report concluded that âthe evidence of lung cancer risk caused by cigarette smoke radioactivity is compelling enough to warrant its removal.â Now, if tobacco leaves become a source of cancer-causing radioactivity due to the fertilizers used, what about food grown with these phosphate fertilizers?
Remarkably, according to a report by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research,9 American meat products and dairy may expose your organs to radiation doses that are equivalent to the dose received by smokers via cigarette smoke. I bet that might come as a huge shock to you.
Fluoridated WaterâAnother Hidden Source of Radioactive Polonium
You can also consume polonium by drinking fluoridated water, courtesy of the fluorosilicic acid used. While pharmaceutical grade fluoride is a harmful-enough drug, this is not the type of fluoride being added to drinking water. If it was, at least then it would be a pure, uncontaminated form.
Rather the fluoride that is typically used to fluoridate local water supplies is a frequently contaminated chemical byproduct created during the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process. Itâs a concentrated, highly toxic chemical riddled with hazardous impurities, making it extremely expensive to safely dispose of when not sold for profit as a water additive.
Uranium and radium are two known carcinogens found in fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation, and polonium-210 is one of two decay products of uranium. Furthermore, polonium decays into stable lead-206, which also has significant health risksâespecially in childrenâand research has indeed shown that drinking fluoridated water increases lead absorption in your body.
Back in 1983, the Deputy Administrator of the EPA Office of Water, Rebecca Hanmer, summarized and defended the EPAâs policy on adding toxic fluoride to drinking water in the following manner,10 which is quite telling once you know where the fluoride comes from, and the origins of the idea behind water fluoridation as a public health policy:
"In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them." [Emphasis mine]
How Polonium Affects Your Body
But letâs get back to phosphate fertilizers and its use on tobacco and food crops... According to the report in Nicotine and Tobacco Research,11 radioactivity in tobacco comes from two sources: the atmosphere and uptake through soil rich in calcium phosphate fertilizer contaminated with polonium phosphates. In 1995, the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research12 stated that:
âIt has been known for many years that phosphate fertilizer ore contains 50~150 parts per million (ppm) of natural Uranium, and hence its radioactive decay products [i.e. polonium and radon], when compared to most other soil and rocks - which average 1 or 2 ppm.â
A CNN article13 from last year addressed the health effects of polonium when the radioactive element was being investigated as a potential cause in the death of Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to their report:
âIf you ingest polonium-210, about 50 percent to 90 percent of the substance will exit the body through feces, according to a fact sheet from Argonne National Laboratory. What is left will enter the bloodstream. About 45 percent of polonium ingested gets into the spleen, kidneys and liver, and 10 percent is deposited in the bone marrow.
Radiation poisoning from polonium-210 looks like the end stage of cancer... Liver and kidney damage ensue, along with extreme nausea and severe headaches. Victims often experience vomiting, diarrhea and hair loss. The alpha particles emitted from the decaying substance get absorbed in the body, which is what causes harm.â
Phosphate Fertilizers Also Used in GMO Agriculture
Phosphate fertilizers linked to lung cancer in smokers, via the route of inhaling the smoke from contaminated tobacco leaves, are also used on food crops. Granted, food-borne polonium may be absorbed and react differently in your body than that in tobacco smoke.
Still, as stated by the International Atomic Energy Agency,14 internal exposure, which is more or less the only dangerous form, does occur primarily through food, water, and inhaling contaminated air. So itâs possible that you might be exposed to greater levels of this (and other) radioactive elements than was previously thought, through the aggressive use of phosphate fertilizers in food production.
While we may not be able to estimate the potential cancer risk from contaminated foods, and GMOs in particular, research has shown that dietary calcium phosphate has a detrimental effect on your gut health. According to a 2002 study in the Journal of Nutrition:15
âMost Gram-positive bacteria are susceptible to the bactericidal action of fatty acids and bile acids. Because dietary calcium phosphate (CaP(i)) lowers the intestinal concentration of these antimicrobial agents, high CaP(i) intake may enhance intestinal colonization of Gram-positive pathogens and the subsequent pathogenesis.â
Interestingly, the adverse effect of dietary calcium phosphate was found to be dependent on the type of dietary fat consumed. In rats given diets containing corn oil, the calcium phosphate stimulated colonization of pathogenic bacteria, whereas this adverse effect was not found in animals given a diet with milk fat. There are many drawbacks to conventional fertilizers, and radioactive food can perhaps be added to that list (with or without radioactive fallout from Japan, which is a whole other story). While modern agricultural methods may appear to be the most cost effective and efficient strategy at first glance, it quickly becomes one of the most costly ways to produce food once you take into account the environmental and human health consequences.
There Are Better Alternatives
Modern fertilizer consists of varying amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). But both phosphorus and potassium, neither of which can be synthesized, are becoming increasingly sparse.16 According to the Swedish-run Global Phosphorus Research Initiative,17 we could hit âpeak phosphorusâ as early as 2030. Without these fertilizer ingredients, the entire world would quickly be in troubleâunless we change our ways, that is. And there are more than a few good reasons for making a U-turn back toward time-tested biological growing methods.
Calcium phosphate, mined primarily in the Western Sahara, Saskatchewan or Florida, typically contains polonium and thatâs the type of NPK fertilizer typically used on tobacco fields. Ammonium phosphate is typically used in the growing of GMO crops, and as mentioned earlier, the toxic byproduct from that process is fluorosilicic acid, used for water fluoridation. Now, itâs possible that ammonium phosphate has very little polonium, since it tends to end up in the fluoride (and hence drinking water around the US). But it all has to end up somewhere...
As Iâve started writing about lately, biological agriculture can be profoundly efficient, out-performing virtually any conventional farming strategy, including genetic engineering. Iâve been implementing organic, biological farming strategies in my own garden, and the leaves on some of my plants, like fruit trees (limes, figs, mango, orange, tangerine, cherries, peach, plum, and banana), have a number of leaves that are literally 300 to 400 percent bigger than the typical leaf of these plants. You wouldnât even imagine that a leaf could grow this bigâall without ANY chemicals, just using strategies that optimize soil health, such as using rock dust powders, compost teas and biochar. These strategies seem to maximize the hidden genetic potential of the plants.
Sustainable Soil Science to the Rescue
Earlier this year, I interviewed Dr. Elaine Ingham, an internationally recognized expert on the benefits of sustainable soil science. I also visited her at her new position at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania. According to Dr. Ingham and other soil experts, a key component of successful agriculture lies in having the right helper organisms in the soil; beneficial species of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, beneficial nematodes (not the weedfeeders), microarthropods, and earthwormsâall of which contribute to plant growth in a number of different ways.
Nutrient cycling is another major issue. According to Dr. Ingham, thereâs no soil on Earth that lacks the nutrients to grow a plant. She believes the concept that your soil is deficient and needs added phosphorus or nitrogen, etc. in order to grow plants is seriously flawed, and largely orchestrated by the chemical companies, because itâs based on looking at the soluble, inorganic nutrients that are partly present in your soil.
The real nutrition your plants require is actually derived from microorganisms in the soil. These organisms take the mineral material thatâs in your soil and convert it into a plant-available form. Without these bioorganisms, your plants cannot get the nutrients they need. So what you need is not more chemical soil additives, what you need is the proper balance of beneficial soil organisms. According to Dr. Ingham:
âItâs very necessary to have these organisms. They will supply your plant with precisely the right balances of all the nutrients the plant requires. When you start to realize that one of the major roles and functions of life in the soil is to provide nutrients to the plants in the proper forms, then we donât need inorganic fertilizers. We certainly donât have to have genetically engineered plants or to utilize inorganic fertilizers if we get this proper biology back in the soil.
If we balance the proper biology, we select against the growth of weeds, so the whole issue with herbicides is done away with. We donât need the herbicides if we can get the proper life back into the soil and select for the growth of the plants that we want to grow and against the growth of the weedy species.â
Interestingly enough, you can use a starter culture to boost the fermentation and generation of beneficial bacteria much in the same way you can boost the probiotics in your fermented vegetables. For compost, this strategy is used if you want to compost very rapidly. In that case, you can use a starter to inoculate the specific sets of organisms that you need to encourage in that compost. For optimal physical health, you need plant foods to contain the full set of nutrients that will allow the plant to grow in a healthy fashion, because thatâs the proper balance of nutrients for us human beings as well. Dr. Ingham has written several books on this topic, including The Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea, and The Compost Tea Brewing Manual.
Who Would Have Guessed...
With all the thousands of chemical additives in cigarettes, itâs pretty staggering to consider that potentially the most carcinogenic ingredient in a cigarette appears to be contamination from the fertilizer used to grow the tobacco. Itâs even more disconcerting to consider that this contaminant can also be found in fluoridated drinking water and potentially genetically engineered and conventionally grown foods as well. From my point of view, this is simply one more reason to switch to a whole food organic diet, ideally grown locally to ensure maximum freshness.