3 ms·

- "Phos-Chek MVP-Fx is primarily made of ammonium phosphates, which are derived from phosphate. That rock, when mined, can contain trace amounts of heavy metals

- "Phos-Chek MVP-Fx is primarily made of ammonium phosphates, which are derived from phosphate. That rock, when mined, can contain trace amounts of heavy metals." The thing they're catastrophizing about is rock phosphate—ordinary fertilizer that's mixed into the soil of every food farm in the world. I'm not sure if the journalists who wrote this article are aware of this. "It's COVERING my garden plants!" reads quite definitely when you recognize it's f'ing Miracle-Gro. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/phosphate-rock-statistics-and-information https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-c... - "Phosphorus is an essential element for plant and animal nutrition. Most phosphorus is consumed as a principal component of nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium fertilizers used on food crops throughout the world. Phosphate rock minerals are the only significant global resources of phosphorus." https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/studies/metals.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/... ("Heavy Metals in Fertilizers") - "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment."

libertine 2y ago
> "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment." What I believe you're missing is where this might be coming from. We live in an Institutional crisis, where for years propaganda was spread and amplified by internal and external actors (like Russia) to undermine institutions, with lies and conspiracy theories. Bold claims were made that organizations and the government were captured by private interests, completely disregarding that actual qualified people are working to make sure things are safe, like products we consume. Just for context, RFK Junior is the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, to circle back to your quote, the Risk assessment made by the US Environmental Protection Agency could be easily dismissed by the following unfounded and unsupported claim, "yeah the US Environmental Protection Agency is serving the big companies; they should be dismantled." Like it would be the easiest thing for Russia to start a trend to sway people to demand a ban on phosphate. They did similar things with regard to Ukraine, to the point where the US Administration is amplifying russian talking points. To be clear, I'm not saying this article is a propaganda piece; what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise.
- graemep 2y ago
  You seem to be implying that all claims of regulatory capture, or even simple incompetence or bias, are all the result of Russian propaganda seems like a pretty bold claim to me. I am sure there are people who want to sow distrust for their own ends, but there are also good reasons for distrust. > what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise. Part of the solution is transparency and full information. > “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,” Is not an attitude that inspires confidence.
  - libertine 2y ago
    > You seem to be implying that all claims of regulatory capture, or even simple incompetence or bias, are all the result of Russian propaganda Can you quote me on that? Because it's like you didn't even read what I wrote. How can I be more clear than: > To be clear, I'm not saying this article is a propaganda piece; what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise. How is this implying that ALL claims, incompetence, or bias ARE the result of propaganda? And where am I wrong to say that this sort of thing is being amplified by, for example, popular US Podcasts that were, and some for sure still are, being funded by the Russian regime?[0] This isn't a conspiracy theory by the way: it's well known that there are people being paid to promote propaganda, and there are people - like you said and well - that want to sow distrust for their ends, and also get paid by Russia to do it. There's still an ongoing investigation about the example I gave, but it's probably a mix of both. But these aren't just the two types of people in the information space, that's just silly. Still, you should pay attention to who has, or gets, a big reach. > Part of the solution is transparency and full information. Is it? Because the solution seems to be about having a certain aesthetic, being loud, and disregarding everything else - you just need to make pauses to say "and that's a fact/the truth is/everyone knows this/it's common sense". Just look at the Trump administration, it's working pretty well for them. [0]https://www.cdmrn.ca/publications/tenet-media-final-incident-debrief-report https://www.cdmrn.ca/publications/tenet-media-final-incident...
hello_computer 2y ago
The devil is in the details. Even though all minerals contain impurities, NPK fertilizer is processed to reduce them to acceptable levels for agriculture. If they did not do this, places dosed with large quantities of it (year after year after…) would become superfund sites. It is the same reason coal is so nasty: the CO2 is nothing compared to the ash—which is loaded with heavy metals. If the ash retaining ponds around a coal plant ever broke, the land would be uninhabitable for centuries, so the the ppms and ppbs are crucial information here.
- chabska 2y ago
  > Even though all minerals contain impurities, NPK fertilizer is processed to reduce them to acceptable levels for agriculture Source? What process exactly?
  - hello_computer 2y ago
    So many types of mining have loads of fluoride or heavy metals to discard. Since we’re dealing with minerals, in some cases visual inspection & sorting is sufficient. In other cases where high purity is required, may need to dissolve/melt them and process a series of precipitates & evaporates (i.e. expensive). Here’s a fertilizer example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21681395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21681395/ You can find similar articles just about everywhere there’s an NPK plant. I know gypsum, aluminum, uranium are faced with similar obstacles. Google if you want details. (I do control systems if that helps.)

libertine 2y ago

> "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment." What I believe you're missing is where this might be coming from. We live in an Institutional crisis, where for years propaganda was spread and amplified by internal and external actors (like Russia) to undermine institutions, with lies and conspiracy theories. Bold claims were made that organizations and the government were captured by private interests, completely disregarding that actual qualified people are working to make sure things are safe, like products we consume. Just for context, RFK Junior is the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, to circle back to your quote, the Risk assessment made by the US Environmental Protection Agency could be easily dismissed by the following unfounded and unsupported claim, "yeah the US Environmental Protection Agency is serving the big companies; they should be dismantled." Like it would be the easiest thing for Russia to start a trend to sway people to demand a ban on phosphate. They did similar things with regard to Ukraine, to the point where the US Administration is amplifying russian talking points. To be clear, I'm not saying this article is a propaganda piece; what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise.

graemep 2y ago
You seem to be implying that all claims of regulatory capture, or even simple incompetence or bias, are all the result of Russian propaganda seems like a pretty bold claim to me. I am sure there are people who want to sow distrust for their own ends, but there are also good reasons for distrust. > what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise. Part of the solution is transparency and full information. > “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,” Is not an attitude that inspires confidence.
- libertine 2y ago
  > You seem to be implying that all claims of regulatory capture, or even simple incompetence or bias, are all the result of Russian propaganda Can you quote me on that? Because it's like you didn't even read what I wrote. How can I be more clear than: > To be clear, I'm not saying this article is a propaganda piece; what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise. How is this implying that ALL claims, incompetence, or bias ARE the result of propaganda? And where am I wrong to say that this sort of thing is being amplified by, for example, popular US Podcasts that were, and some for sure still are, being funded by the Russian regime?[0] This isn't a conspiracy theory by the way: it's well known that there are people being paid to promote propaganda, and there are people - like you said and well - that want to sow distrust for their ends, and also get paid by Russia to do it. There's still an ongoing investigation about the example I gave, but it's probably a mix of both. But these aren't just the two types of people in the information space, that's just silly. Still, you should pay attention to who has, or gets, a big reach. > Part of the solution is transparency and full information. Is it? Because the solution seems to be about having a certain aesthetic, being loud, and disregarding everything else - you just need to make pauses to say "and that's a fact/the truth is/everyone knows this/it's common sense". Just look at the Trump administration, it's working pretty well for them. [0]https://www.cdmrn.ca/publications/tenet-media-final-incident-debrief-report https://www.cdmrn.ca/publications/tenet-media-final-incident...

hello_computer 2y ago

The devil is in the details. Even though all minerals contain impurities, NPK fertilizer is processed to reduce them to acceptable levels for agriculture. If they did not do this, places dosed with large quantities of it (year after year after…) would become superfund sites. It is the same reason coal is so nasty: the CO2 is nothing compared to the ash—which is loaded with heavy metals. If the ash retaining ponds around a coal plant ever broke, the land would be uninhabitable for centuries, so the the ppms and ppbs are crucial information here.

chabska 2y ago
> Even though all minerals contain impurities, NPK fertilizer is processed to reduce them to acceptable levels for agriculture Source? What process exactly?
- hello_computer 2y ago
  So many types of mining have loads of fluoride or heavy metals to discard. Since we’re dealing with minerals, in some cases visual inspection & sorting is sufficient. In other cases where high purity is required, may need to dissolve/melt them and process a series of precipitates & evaporates (i.e. expensive). Here’s a fertilizer example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21681395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21681395/ You can find similar articles just about everywhere there’s an NPK plant. I know gypsum, aluminum, uranium are faced with similar obstacles. Google if you want details. (I do control systems if that helps.)