Absorption of arsenic by edible plants

Mesas mesaclan at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 21 13:08:17 EST 2000

You don't understand. Has anyone examined the methodology of the
scientific studies done? Anyone can claim any results they want, and
that's what your post is about. Has anyone examined the construction of
the testing and the means by which the results were determined? All
kinds of "scientific" study results are published in medical and
scientific journals, and some journal peer-reviews are less
anal-retentive about methodology than others. In the past, I edited lay
medical books, and because I have an autistic/Tourette syndrome son, I
still read medical journal articles. Many times, claims are made, but
when you examine the methodology (something I'm *not* qualified to do,
but I have friends and family members who are), the results don't hold


David J. Bockman <djb_mapson at bunabayashi.com.invalid> wrote:

> Yes, the Enviormental Protection Agency. From
> http://www.awpi.org/oaq-a.html:
> "Consumer Information Sheets Approved by U.S. EPA:"
> "Q. What do scientific studies say about the safety of pressure-treated
> wood?
> A. Scientific research studies have shown the following:
> preserved-wood products last longer than alternative products, and thereby
> conserve a renewable natural resource;
> wood preservatives do not aggressively leach into the ground or waterways,
> drinking water supplies, or adversely affect marine life; proper handling
> and use of preserved wood poses no increased risk of cancer or other
> illnesses among human, animal, and marine life; and preserved-wood products
> have been extensively tested and proved to be more reliable and durable than
> alternative products which require more energy to produce and may be
> esthetically unacceptable to consumers."
> "Q. Is there any reason why treated wood should not be used in gardening
> projects?
> A. The extra durability of pressure treatment makes treated wood the perfect
> product for building raised beds, terraced gardens, grape or tomato stakes,
> mushroom trays, vineyard supports, retaining walls, trellises, arbors,
> garden furniture, compost bins, walkway steps, flower bed edging, or
> planters. Any assertion that gardeners should not grow edibles in planters
> or raised beds made with treated wood is without basis. Independent research
> conducted by county extension agents in Texas, in cooperation with Texas
> A&M's Laboratory and Southwest Research Institute, has concluded that both
> creosote- and water-borne-treated wood are not harmful in garden use. In
> tests on water-borne-treated wood, the treated timbers varied in age from
> six months to nine years. Arsenic levels in soil samples taken from the
> garden were no more than what occurs naturally in any soil. Further, the
> levels of arsenic one inch from the timbers and 12 inches from the timbers
> were the same, indicating no migration of the preservative from the timbers.
> Pentavalent arsenate, the kind used in wood preservatives, should not be
> confused with commercially produced trivalent arsenic, which is not used in
> any wood preservative. Pentavalent arsenate occurs naturally in the soil,
> water, air, plants, and in most living creatures-including humans.
> Finally, in tests of creosote-treated wood, no creosote was detected at a
> threshold of 660 parts per billion."
> --
> David J. Bockman, Fairfax, VA (USDA Hardiness Zone 7)
> On The World Wide Web: http://www.bunabayashi.com
> email: djb at bunabayashi.com
> Mesas <mesaclan at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1e7tzkz.1d3p47z99zj5sN at ip211.los-angeles35.ca.pub-ip.psi.net...
> > And has anyone checked the test methodology that these results are based
> > on? Not all methodology is good, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to
> > evaluate it.

Theresa   mesaclan at earthlink.net

More information about the Plantbio mailing list