Axel wrote:
>This sounds good. What do you recommend to prevent the
> probelms associated wiih poorly-mineralized soils we all eat food
>from? Seaweed maybe? Is this enough?

If I lived in an ideal world, I would grow all my own food using
heavily-mineralized soils.  Soaking seeds for sprouting in seaweed
solution as the Sproutman recommends is one aid (Axel-can you get
him to subscribe to this list, he could probably offer us a lot).
Use your taste buds.  If you get an orange which is watery &
tasteless, it is mineral deficient.  Eat a wide array of stuff from
different regions.  I take supplements, & if you do this insure that
they do not contain iron (more & more manufacturers are formulating
them without iron).  The one I use also omits copper, but these can
be hard to find.  Seaweeds can't hurt, but I was recently eating
some Maine red dulse and noticed that the label said a serving (7g,
but the whole package only contained 2 oz. or 56g or 8 servings)
contained the following percentages of our alleged daily needs:
Magnesium-6%
Phosphorous-3%
Iodine-25%
Flouride-15%
Chromium-9%
Zinc-2%

So even if you eat one whole bag (2 oz.) per day, you will still not
obtain all your ALLEGED needs in a least some minerals.  But who
knows what our real needs are.  And these requirements are
determined based on a 2000 calorie/day diet, so if you are eating
less calories than this the figures must be adjusted.

>Also in the Survival of Civilization, the author shows the
> results of the tests for minerals in the food grown on remineralized soil in
> comparison with regualar soils. The difference for some elements was
> astonishing.

And who knows what these deficiencies might do to our health?  It is
not a one-way street, & I suspect that deficiencies of various
minerals might even be beneficial.  I was tested recently, & my
calcium, sodium, stronium & iron were all well below the expected
levels found in most people, while potassium, copper & boron were
way above.  Other elements were closer to normal.  The toxic metals
were all at undetectable levels, except for a trace amount of tin,
which doesn't worry me since there is some evidence that tin is a
necessary nutrient.  I was very gratified with all my low-level
elements, as I think those four are not good above minimal
requirements.  I was glad the potassium was high, as the higher the
potassium/sodium ratio, the less cancer.  The sodium was more than 2
standard deviations below the norm, while the potassium was more
than 2 above.  (Only cooper & boron were also more than 2 standard
deviations above the norm, but I don't have a clue about the effects
of boron.)  The cooper was too high, & this caused both me & my
physician to agree that I should switch to a no-copper supplement.
My phosphorus was slightly over 1 standard deviation below normal, &
I suspect this may represent demineralized soils.  Or who knows, the
norm could be based on people who eat lots of stuff grown on soils
laced with synthetic fertilizers, or it could be from heavy grain
intake, or whatever.  I would expect that others on this list who
also eat lots of fruit would have similar numbers (although my iron
is intentionally kept real low by frequently giving blood).

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]