Dear All,
     Here are the responses to De Moore's requests for help with an article on fluoride's impact on organic gardening.

The original message.

1) "Schmidt, Thomas C" <thomas.c.schmidt@lmco.com>
     There are at least several relevant articles in Fluoride Vol 1 No 1. for airborne effects click the following URL (you may want to do a site-link)

2) "Tohru Murakami" <tmura@mil.allnet.ne.jp>
Dear Paul,
     As far as I know, Dr. Ming-Ho Yu, professor Emeritus at Huxley College of
Environmental Studies, Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington and the author of "Environmental Toxicology" is a one of the expert in USA of the issues on toxicity of fluoride on plants.
     I recommend you to make contact him.
     He is old member of International Society for Fluoride Research and friend of both Albert Burgstahler and I. His address is:  215 Bayside Rd, Bellingham WA 98225-7700. Unfortunately, I do not know his phone number.  Have a good weekend.
Tohru.

3). Peter Meiers <PMeiers@t-online.de>
     In the early 80´s I collected some literature on the impact of fluoride on forest trees, not so much on garden plants.  Especially a group around Dr. Theodor Keller of the Swiss Institute of Forestry Research published quite a lot in this regard (damage to forest trees in Wallis (Rhone Valley), Switzerland, by immissions from an aluminum plant).  Some of their work is mentioned in the 1977 "Environmental Fluoride" report of the NRC Canada.  According to Keller et al., ONE microgram fluoride (from industrial emissions) in a cubic meter of air suffices to cause invisible injuries (e.g. increase in peroxidase activity) which become visible damage only after some years.  Not only gases like HF are important in this respect but also the dust-like fluoride compounds.  Fluorides accumulate in the soil.  One of the indirectly toxic effects observed is the leaching of organic matter as well as aluminum and iron from soil samples by fluoride.  In experiments they cacrried out with soil samples, the amount of those substances dissolved was proportional to the fluoride content of the solutions used.

     Another variable should be mentioned.  The source of nitrogen (ammonium vs. nitrate) exerts a great influence on the growth of, for example, tobacco and tomato plants.  Both sources of nitrogen are converted in the plant to amino acids and proteins, containing the -NH2 group.  The ammonium gives off two protons (H+) in the metabolism (NH4->NH2), the nitrate has to be reduced and delivers OH- (NO3->NH2), which is excreted as -HCO3.  Plants in hydroponic culture who get ammonium (as the sulfate) in an otherwise adequate nutrient solution grow not as big as those supplied with nitrate (in a solution of the same salt composition, except the nitrogen source, as in the ammonium experiment).  The solution containing ammonium becomes acidic in the course of time (down to pH 2, if not corrected), while the nitrate solution reaches a pH of about 8 (starting pH of both solutions 5.5).  Needless to say that - unlike natural conditions - one may correct the pH every day to 5.5 (with NaOH or H2SO4, resp.) without effect on the different growth behaviour.  Under natural conditions, soil fertilized with ammonium salts (e.g. the sulfate, or as contained in the excreta from cattle) will become acidic and thus contribute to release of fluoride (or even HF) from fluoride-containing soil particles, which are ubiquitous and may also be artificially formed when fluoridated water is used for irrigation.

     Perhaps L. H. Weinstein´s "Fluoride and Plant Life", J. Occup. Med. 19 (1977) 49 may provide some insight as a starting point. Unfortunately, I´m not up to date in research on fluoride effects on plants, as interests in the history of fluoridation prevail.
Best,
Peter

4.) Marc Spess <MrBumpy676@aol.com>
(In response to avoiding the use of fluoridated water for watering garden)
     Some gardeners buy those 50 gallon green drums to collect water from the downspout on your house gutters.  They sell a special piece that ties into the actual gutter that redirects the water into the drum through a simple filter. All you do is use it to water your stuff.

5) Rosemary Mineverni <SafeDrinkingH2O@aol.com>
Hi Paul -
     We have a page on our Web site about fluoridation and the environment.  The information is from Dr. Gene Miller, former head of the Department of Biology at Utah State University - an expert on the subject right here in Utah ... perhaps this link will help answer some of your (and others) concerns.

Take care!!
-Rosemary

6) "Jane Jones" <jane@npwa.freeserve.co.uk>
Paul - try Richard F on this! - (Dr. Richard Foulkes <Andersfoulkes@cs.com> )
     Just an observation - The Soil Association of UK supports our campaign against fluoridation.  So does the Biodiversity Association  (damn good growers!), who booked me to speak at one of  their major confs. in N. Wales last year.
     As a non-scientist, but a graduate of the School of Common Sense, I would not be inclined to use fluorosilicates on my precious plants!  After all, they do not require Arsenic, Lead, Beryllium, Cadmium, Vanadium, Mercury and radionuclides . . . . !
Best - Jane  (HAPPY NEW YEAR, DEB!).

7) Sue King  <Kings1955@aol.com>
     Pleased to see the appeal for article on gardening - we used the Ryton Organic gardening premises for the Seminar in Nov. 2000 and they could also do with a piece for their newsletter for the 30,000 members.
Regards
Sue King

8) "George Glasser" <gtigerclaw@worldnet.att.net>
     a) Saw your thoughts in a IFIN notice.  Raw  phosphate rock is worse than processed phosphoric acid -- it contains the full  amount of all the contaminants.  The raw rock will kill chickens right off  if used as a mineral supplement.  During the acidulation and vacuum  evaporation processes, most of the contaminants
are flashed of the raw rock as volatile fluorides or bound in the calcium waste stream.   I also talked with some "organic" farmers in Ohio  and Florida who use raw phosphate rock -- they did not show me very much in  the way of intelligence when they told me that because the rock was raw and unprocessed, the radionuclides, fluorides, etc would not hurt you.
     When I was young, I worked building boats and  used asbestos -- I was told asbestos was natural.  They said "How can  anything that is natural, hurt you?"
It is that same simple minded mentality that prompts organic farmers to use raw phosphate rock -- with 3.5%  Fluorine,  full range of radionuclides, arsenic, lead.  In order for the phosphorus to be useful to the  plants it has to be in a soluble form.
Phosphate rock is, in fact, fluorapatite -- check it out -- I don't purchase organic food unless I personally  know the farmer (US) -- they seem to think anything that
is natural is good for you.  Anyone promoting the use of raw phosphate rock as a fertilizer is out  of their minds.   It is the processing that removes the substances  that will also kill a lot of plants -- furthermore the Fluorine - is transformed to  fluoroacetate and fluorocitrate in plants such as soy beans.
Best,
GEORGE GLASSER

 b)   Dear Paul,
     If (gardeners or farmers) are using raw phosphate rock, the  soil is probably hotter than a gyp stack -- Superfund material -- we are talking  about from 1.0 - 3.0 ppm of uranium alone and very high levels of radon which is  easily absorbed into the plant -- not even considering 3.5% Flourine.  If some Ph.D.  or whatever supports the use of raw phosphate rock, they must have bought their degree ...
GEORGE GLASSER

c) Dear paul,
     Forgot to mention that well water around the  phosphate producing areas has the highest and among the highest levels of Po210  in the US! ... How can people be so stupid!  No one did their  home work!!  It is unbelievable -- I am truly astounded -- I would rather take  my chances with pesticides -- !!!!  I will never buy another organic product  in the US again!!!!!!!  Grown on an all natural Superfund Site!!!
I  can't believe it!
GEORGE GLASSER

d) Natural Phosphate rock - -the  reclaimed mines are good for nothing but land -- too much radon.  In the  abandoned mines that have been turned into lakes, the fish have white livers and weird sores.   I will go nose to nose with them on the raw phosphate rock!  There is no defense -- It is as bad as a piece I  read on "Synthetic silica deficiency in chickens."
GEORGE GLASSER

9) David Feustel <dfeustel@mindspring.com>
    To: Mtn. View Citizens for Safe Drinking Water <billie@nofluoride.com>;
Build  a solar-powered evaporative distiller next to the garden and apply only the output of the distiller to the garden whenever possible.

10) From: Danny Gottlieb <gottlieb@nofish.org>
     To: Mtn. View Citizens for Safe Drinking Water <billie@nofluoride.com>
     Vegetables with fluoride residue?  We in Modesto have tried to point out to our City Council during a hearing that most grocery stores have multiple water micro-spray nozzles over their expansive Vegetable display refrigerated cases.  The spray system is time automated to spray most of the vegetables about every 15 minutes.  Usually, the feed line to the spray-heads is 'carbon filtered'; so probably does not filter out fluoride compounds.  Vegetables are also washed in the back rooms with rinse hose sprayer, or in vegetable washer machines.
     We estimate it is a costly retrofit for grocery store Owners to switch to high volume 'reverse osmosis filters' between $5,000-$10,000 plus initial capital costs including annual maintenance, 10 years of at least semi-annual cartridge changeover during 10 year 'hydrofluosilicic acid' Contract California cities
being 'duped' and coerced to sign ...... est. per each of around 30 grocery stores.  Just another prohibitive COST to all, as cost would be passed onto all retail vegetable purchasers.
     Worse yet, those purchasing 'bottled water' thinking they are avoiding fluoride would be eating vegetables with layered fluoride residues on all their vegetables.  Since fluoride has a high affinity to combine biochemically with organic matter (e.g. vegetable surfaces, etc.), the home owner/renter would probably not be able to rinse the fluoride off .... thus ingest the fluoride residue.
     So, then a gardener thinks of avoiding fluoride spray residue from grocery vegetables by planting their own pesticide free (that's right, Sodium fluoride is a rodenticide ... a pesticide), but applies fluoridated water to the garden.  Reverse osmosis filter before the water that irrigates or sprays onto ones 'organic garden' is totally impractical.
     It's best to tell your City to STOP fluoridation as you DO NOT WANT 'fluoride compounds Rat Poison' on your vegetables or in your grocery store vegetables.  Reference following Links: