<<<ive also been 100% raw and a former vegan for years in the past>>>

Yea, but you did it WRONG!!!

Could you be any more obtuse or any more in Denial???

My God chris, you couldn't even figure out how to get 10% Protein on a Raw Vegan Diet because you were NOT consuming at least 2 pounds of leafy greens!!!

Purity Reflects the Sun

"Pure, clear, clean water perfectly reflects the sun. Put a drop of black dye in it and observe the contrast. Then try red, brown, yellow, etc. Keep doing this for some time and two things will happen: there will be no reflection of the sun and any further drops will cause little or no contrast. There are two points here: 1) purity is required to reflect the light, and 2) when the body is filled with filth from eating "non-foods: (anything but raw fruits, raw vegetables, and sprouted seeds, nuts and grains) there is little noticeable affect when we eat dead foods. But when our bodies become more pure, we begin to notice the effects of the dead foods much more strongly." -Dr. Richard Anderson, N.D., N.M.D

<<<Everyone does veganism wrong lol.>>>

I NEVER said everyone and I didn't say Vegan!

I said that YOU did the RAW Vegan WRONG and here is part of a Post I wrote to you almost 2 years ago...

I doubt if you were able to do a Raw Food Diet the right way since you couldn’t even figure out how to get 10% Protein in your Diet - [www.rawfoodsupport.com] !

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't pretend the mythical magical health
> benefits that come with a high raw or 100% raw
> diet to me because ive also been 100% raw and a
> former vegan for years in the past and the
> supposed health benefits are absolutely
> embarrasing compared to a healthy varied balanced
> diet.
>
> Not to mention pretty much 99% of everyone else
> including the raw food gurus from my generation
> that ive seen raw vegan diets ALL FAIL.
>
> Ohh i know you need to walk a real tightrope on
> high raw/100% raw diets, even one handful of
> cooked nuts and you lose all the benefits over
> night according to you.
>
> So you won't pull the mythical unobtainable
> pretend benefits of RAW to me fresh.
>

fine with me.

> Where is all fully raw kristina's benefits from
> eating a 100% strict high sugar low fat raw vegan
> diet ?
>
> Were not even talking health benefits anymore
> anyway, because Kristina doesn't even have a
> normal metabolic health by the looks of her very
> abnormal blood work after following the dangerous
> 80/10/10 raw diet for what ? a mere 7 years.

if you say so

>
> The health benefits are all from consuming a high
> plant food based diet anyway, it really doesn't
> make a great deal of difference that your eating
> these foods in their raw or cooked states.
>
> Far too much emphasis and stock is placed on the
> temperature of these foods or how raw they are,
> when really their proven to be healthy regardless
> of whether they are raw or cooked.


do you have any health issues?
skin, digestive, energy level, elimination, little sleep needed, no aches or pains, no stomach or headaches, ever get ill, anything? are you in perfect health?

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So basically once your points have been debunked,
> you have no answers and just focus on weak
> arguements ?
>
> For your sake though, ill explain what foods i eat
> raw just to show you how petty you are being.
>
> Fruits, i eat lots of different fruits daily,
> typically a piece of citrus, a banana, a portion
> of berries, usually blueberries or strawberries
> and another piece of a different fruit(apples,
> pears, mangoes, dates or figs which are my
> favorite).
>
> Most of my sea vegetables are raw.
>
> I also eat many vegetables raw, i often eat raw
> carrots, celery, cucumber, of course lettuce,
> salad greens, tomatoes, bell peppers, onions,
> garlic etc.
>
> I eat fresh raw living culinary herbs like basil,
> cilantro, mint etc.
>
> Raw fermented foods like water kefir, kombucha,
> cultured raw veggies.
>
> I also have raw chocolate several times a week and
> many other raw superfoods.
>
> I juice and drink green smoothies several times a
> week with fruit as the base, so theres another
> two.
>
> Sprouts ive been consuming for years, although i
> don't find the time to sprout as much as id like,
> but i don't feel they should play a massive part
> in the diet anyway. There a good boost though,
> but in large amounts they make me nauseous,
> especially sprouted legumes.
>
> Most of my nuts and seeds are raw and certified
> organic, although sometimes i pick up the cheaper
> "cooked" nuts, their really isn't a great deal of
> difference in my opinion anyway.
>
> The above list is just some of the foods i eat raw
> . Do i qualify for your acceptance now ohh lord
> RP lol ?
>
> Also i was part of this forum and community long
> before you were ever on here.

organic1
So you are eating a lot of raw foods, yet most of your posts are about raising concerns to those raw fooders who have chosen freely to eat raw food and raw fruits for not eating cooked foods.

You should be celebrating, chanting the virtues of the raw foods you eat.

>What i do champion against is people who try to live off nothing but fruit or crazy imbalanced nutritionally deficient raw fruit based diets such as 80/10/10.

organic1 my eating of fermented foods is to recreate the balance in my digestive system that I lost when I was on SAD for so many years. It is a medicine.

When the body has reached the near perfect state of health or has regained that state then one can live on fruits alone. I view my ferments as medicine not really long term foods. I should at some point be in a situation where I will not need them when my digestive system would have recovered completely and able to generate its own friendly bacteria.

The people who are on fruits are not having issues, they love their choices but you seem to be the one who is so concerned about them.

My long term goal is to retire on a huge land where I would grow my own veggies and fruits.

Most of my diet even now is from foods that I grow indoor, sprouts, barley and wheatgrass, lentil greens, sunflower greens. I cannot grow fruits indoor so I buy fruits in seasons from the store.

I spent 2 hours per day 5 days a week in the gym. I am very healthy but I would claim to be the healthiest on earth.

From my personal experience, it is not the foods and its nutrients that are the issues, it is rather the body ability to process the food that is a major concern. Those whose body is cleansed, can live on fruits without problem especially when the fruits are from their own farm or backyard. So stop your blind criticism of their choices.

Do not forget that it is not just the food we eat, there is the air, water,earth we take in. There are many channels for feeding the body.

The cruciferous vegetables you are talking about as being the missing sources of nutrients for many of raw fooders cannot compete with indoor fresh micro greens an grasses in term of nutritional values unless you have a garden where you are growing them organically.

In addition they cannot be eaten raw, you have to cook them.

And going to a food store to buy cruciferous vegetables that were grown in California for some one who is milles and miles away does not provide the freshness and nutrients that are required.

In my nutrition book, the food that I eat was still growing few minutes before.

The issues most people have is over eating. Too much food in the stomach, the digestive system is constantly at work. Even rawfoodists fall in the same trap, jars of nuts and seeds, raisins, fruit baskets on the table, constantly putting food in.



Here is one guy who lived to 100 years just on simple diet of 12 ounces of food per day. 12 ounces, no cruciferous veggies.
[drbass.com]

It would be a medical marvel if you could somehow cleanse your body to conviently adapt to not requiring only the animal food based nutrients such as vitamin b12, d3, omega-3 DHA, iodine, carnitine/taurine etc.

I agree with most of your ideas, but how do you see Iodine as purely an animal-food-based nutrient? If you are growing some of your own food and put an iodine supplement into the soil, then certain plants should be able to accumulate some of it. Then, of course, seaweed contains plenty. However, the following is from Iodine in a Vegan Diet:

Most of the iodine on the earth is found in the ocean. The amount of iodine in soil varies considerably. Areas close to the ocean have more iodine in the soil because of mist from the ocean. Mountainous regions are often low in iodine because the erosion of the exposed soil leaches iodine. Low-lying areas that are frequently flooded are also typically low in iodine. Soil iodine content is important because it influences the amount of iodine in crops grown on that soil. Fruits and vegetables grown on iodine-rich soil are higher in iodine than those grown in areas where the amount of iodine in soil is low.

One must wonder if inland plant foods got their iodine from naturally-occurring iodine in the soil, or if an iodine-containing fertilizer was put there by the farmer. I suspect that eggs, meat, etc. contain iodine because the animals' feed was supplemented.

The reality is that most iodine is primarly, for our purposes anyway, accumulated in seaweed, and then we consume supplements derived from that. It is too bad that not everything we need in our lives is locally available, iodine being a primary example. If I am incorrect, please advise.

Me - I take iodine drops regularly.

>My post only claimed that lightly steamed vegetables such as the cruciferous/broccoli etc were perfectly healthy food choices, plant based and vegan, and that there should be no guilt in consuming these foods which you clearly display.

Are you sure these nutrients in lightly steamed vegetables cannot be found in raw food?

Besides most came to this forum to run away from cooking. In going back to some form of cooking, they fall back into their old habits that were the sources of their health problem.

When you cook spinach and look at it after the cooking, the vegetables are not recognizable, they are dead, look totally unappealing to eat.

In addition this is a Raw Vegan forum. We want to move more into raw more into vegan. Those who have succeeded should not be told to look back.

> there are many completely unique health promoting phyto-nutrients, antioxidants and beneficial compounds that are found like i say uniquely in these founds, like the sulfur phytonutrients in cruciferous vegetables etc.

If that was the case nature would have made them delicious and palatable to eat raw.

Cooking is not in the natural order of things.

It is a deviation.

I told you, my eating of fermented foods is to help me cure from a digestive system that is not working optimally yet.

Once I get to an optimal state of digestive health, fermentation will not be needed.

I do two detailed blood tests per year.

The results of my tests are very good according to the doctors.

I eat fresh raw sprouting greens. The best nutrition you can find.

Fermentation provide additional friendly bacteria.

I do not like to buy probiotics from the store when I can culture them myself.

I will keep growing these greens for the rest of my life

I will just add more farm grown fruits.

Hey RawPracticalist,

I'm sure that you are aware that organic1 is NOT interested in having an intelligent and honest discussion as he has proven over and over again that he is a DISHONEST Skeptic and that the only reason why I even respond to some of his nonsense is for the benefit of others. In fact, I don't even read 95% of his posts anymore except when someone else quotes him and responds.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." -William G. McAdoo

"There is no sense in having an argument with a man so stupid he doesn't know you have the better of him." -John Raper

“No one can make a convincing rational argument to counter and convince an opinion from irrational people.” -John Rose

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Re: RAW FOOD Has Made Me SUPERHUMAN!!!
Posted by: fresh
Date: January 02, 2014 10:38AM

JR is patiently refuting powerlifters [aka organic1] contention with a real example that people do all the time, and powerlifter still can't get the math right (JR is only showing 2.5 g of protein for the avo, powerlifter), and then we have people saying, why would i want to eat 20 bananas, that's crazy! and next it will be, MOST people won't eat that much salad, and on and on. hilarious.
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2016 04:44PM by John Rose.

You cannot be gone
You like to argue
You will be back for me arguing....
Did you notice that when you are gone we do not miss you.
But you miss the forum

There's no substitute for minerals. You either take them in through your food; or through a supplement; or in a last ditch attempt to keep you alive your body will steal the mineral in question (whatever it might be) from the least important body part in order to supply the crucial-to-life body part. That's it.

About food being a source of certain minerals: you better be certain that it was in the soil where it was grown.

organic1 ignores people who are doing what he claims can't be done.

it makes him confused and would require that he change his outdated philosophy.

which is apparently too painful.

<<<organic1 ignores people who are doing what he claims can't be done.

it makes him confused and would require that he change his outdated philosophy.

which is apparently too painful.>>>

“All of this is much easier to implement than it seems. The biggest hurdle is not the physiological but psychological. As Walter Bagehot once remarked, ‘The pain of a new idea is one of the greatest pains in human nature ... Your favorite notions may be wrong, your firmest beliefs ill founded.’ And your favorite foods may be the root cause of your greatest pains! It’s a fact of life that people find it easier to believe a lie they’ve heard a thousand times than a fact they’ve never heard before.” -Daniel P. Reid, -"The Tao of Health, Sex, & Longevity" p. 79

A long time ago, people did not know about minerals or proteins or vitamins or antioxidants, etc.; they only knew they felt well if they ate certain things and when they were denied those same foods (from drought, displacement, overpopulation, whatever) they felt unwell - so they migrated. But they had no understanding of precisely what substances made them sick or healthy.

And here we are, we have science now, so all we have to do is go to the health food store and there are the things that we cannot find in our daily food. It's not some kind of ecologically correct, pure, long-term solution, but here's the sad-but-true fact:

Nutrients that accumulate in plants and animals and which we need for optimum health are not fairly or evenly distributed throughout the soils of the world. If we were to eat foods grown only in our immediate area - no fertilizing with fertilizers from elsewhere in the world and no supplements - there would be monumental serious, painful illness followed by millions of deaths, especially where iodine or selenium (Keshan disease) are concerned.

It's a fallen world, friends, and in order to stay alive and be healthy, the first thing is to get the nutrients we need.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2016 12:40AM by Horsea.

>Nutrients that accumulate in plants and animals and which we need for optimum health are not fairly or evenly distributed throughout the soils of the world. If we were to eat foods grown only in our immediate area - no fertilizing with fertilizers from elsewhere in the world and no supplements - there would be monumental serious, painful illness followed by millions of deaths, especially where iodine or selenium (Keshan disease) are concerned.

So are you saying we have to go to the health food store to get supplements?

We should be able to improve the quality of the soil we have thru composting and other means to make it adequate and rich enough to grow the food plants that have all of the nutrients we need.

So are you saying we have to go to the health food store to get supplements?

We should be able to improve the quality of the soil we have thru composting and other means to make it adequate and rich enough to grow the food plants that have all of the nutrients we need.

Thanks for replying to my comments, RP.

No, I'm not necessarily saying you HAVE to get your supplements at the health food store. I'm saying that if one's goal is some kind of "purity" - and that is what I see hinted at here - you may indeed have to do so. There is no essential difference between

A. fertilizing your soil with nutrients from very far away, and

B. just simply going to the health food store and getting your missing nutrients that way, preferably a high quality socalled whole-food supplement.

I can't grow everything that efficiently accumulates all necessary minerals and what I do grow, I fertilize these vegetable crops with fertilizers some of which come from far away, natural though they may be.

When we compost, we are simply recycling the minerally deficient plants that grow in our own area, OR we can include fruit and vegetable wastes from faraway crops. If there is a third option, I don't know what it is.

Also, we can't know for an absolute fact that the produce grown under our noses has enough of various necessary minerals unless we pay to have them analyzed at a lab. This is not inexpensive.


We should be able to improve the quality of the soil we have thru composting and other means to make it adequate and rich enough to grow the food plants that have all of the nutrients we need.

Yes, that is true, we "should" be able to do this. But what if we don't have the capacity to do so? While I am waiting for our society to develop in this direction, what do I do for certain minerals that are not readily available?

Here are a couple of snippets from my file on Sea Energy Agriculture...

[www.acresaustralia.com.au]
Sea Energy Agriculture
by Maynard Murray, M.D.

Reprinted by popular demand!

Maynard Murray was a medical doctor who researched the crucial importance of minerals - especially trace elements - to plants and animals.

Beginning in 1938 and continuing through the 1950s, Dr. Murray used sea solids - mineral salts remaining after water is evaporated from ocean water - as fertiliser on a variety of vegetables, fruits and grains.

Sea Energy Agriculture recounts Murray’s experiments and presents his astounding conclusions.

The work of this eco-ag pioneer book became a lost classic - out of print for over 25 years.

Now this rare volume is available to a new generation of readers.
[www.acresaustralia.com.au]

[www.ratical.org]
From: "dyarrow" <dyarrow@email.msn.com>
Subject: Excerpts from Sea Energy Agriculture
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:34:19 -0400

I am posting some excerpts from Sea Energy Agriculture, a book published by Dr. Maynard Murray in 1976. Dr. Murray's research and writing documents the crucial importance of minerals -- especially trace elements -- to plant, animal and human health. Beginning in 1936, thru the 40's, and into the 50's Dr. Murray experimented with using sea solids as fertilizer on a variety of vegetables, fruits and grains. Sea solids are the mineral salts remaining after water is evaporated from ocean water. Dr. Murray's extensive experiments with a variety of crops and animals demonstrated repeatedly and conclusively that plants fertilized with sea solids and animals fed sea solid fertilized feeds resist disease and refuse to get sick. His conclusion, in his own words:
"My research clearly indicates the reason Americans generally lack a complete physiological chemistry is that the balanced, essential elements of the soil have eroded to the sea; consequently, crops are nutritionally poor, and the animals eating these plants are, therefore, nutritionally poor. . . . We must alter the way we grow our food, the way we protect our plants from pests and disease, and the way we process our food.
"From the start, my sea solids experiments produced excellent results, and it has now been conclusively proven that the proportions of the trace minerals and elements present in sea water are optimum for the growth and health of both land and sea life."
~ David Yarrow
Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary
44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
518-477-6100

Sea Energy Agriculture
by Maynard Murray, M.D. (1910-1983)
© 1976, Printers Ink, Ft. Myers, Florida

PREFACE

Sometimes one has to say difficult things, but one has to say them as simply as possible.
A Mathematician's Apology--G.P. Hardy
Life in the sea, both animal and vegetable, is far healthier than similar life on land. Why? Some people believe that the buoyancy of a water environment ameliorates much of the stress and trauma experienced by creatures constantly combating the forces of gravity.
Although buoyancy may be a partial factor, it cannot explain why the same species of trout lives twice as long in the saline ocean water as it does in fresh water. This curious health phenomenon indicates that the sea provides its creatures a totally balanced and adequate physiological and chemical diet, while fresh water and rain-washed land masses do not.
Questions posed by the radical health differences between sea life and our landlocked environment have occupied my research efforts, as a practicing physician and physiologist, for the past fortyfive years. This report is the result of my lifelong search to open doors to a provocative new arena of science and technology called sea energy agriculture; and it is quite possible that this new field of endeavor could lead to the end of disease and famine.
Such a prospect is most encouraging, since our world is now on the verge of a terrible crisis in agriculture and food production. Of course, there is much more to be learned, but my efforts have tried to establish a firm foundation for future research. Life is far too short for one person to guard selfishly any new facts he may discover. Therefore, 1 am revealing all I have learned even though some of the data are not yet complete. Many minds are better than one, and it is my hope that from this beginning, enthusiasm will be generated which will bring active, probing minds into the field. The results of my initial research must be amplified and technologically developed in order to best serve mankind.
A large portion of our aggregate lifetime and total resources is spent combating illness and trying to withstand the ravages of aging. It is paradoxical that despite the great variety of foods that we have developed to nourish our bodies, we still suffer degenerative diseases and fall prey to the aging process long before the optimum lifespan for humans is reached.
It has been said time and again that we are what we eat. This truism complements the simple fact that although we, Americans, have greater abundance, and perhaps a more balanced diet, than most of our primitive forbears, our intake of vital, life-sustaining elements is woefully inadequate. The people of the United States are the best fed, chemically starved people in the world.
It is difficult to keep accurate statistics in a nation as large as ours, but in recent years statistical studies of disease have improved considerably -- and the data revealed are frightening. There is a tremendous increase in the frequency of chronic and metabolic ailments. My research clearly indicates the reason Americans generally lack a complete physiological chemistry is that the balanced, essential elements of the soil have eroded to the sea; consequently, crops are nutritionally poor, and the animals eating these plants are, therefore, nutritionally poor. Our scientific efforts to isolate and synthesize what has been learned about the essential properties of soils and fertilizers are impressive; but man's methods apparently have not satisfactorily duplicated nature's methods. Something is obviously lacking.
As a scientist, I have great respect for what our technology has accomplished, but it is imperative that we accept a junior partnership with nature. If we do, she may allow us to survive. If we do not, she undoubtedly will eliminate us just as surely as she exterminated the brontosaurus, the woolly mammoth and all the other creatures who once also "ruled the earth." To join this junior partnership we tnust alter the way we grow our food, the way we protect our plants from pests and disease, and the way we process our food.
Many prevailing beliefs about soil and plant growth are erroneous and must be discarded. My experiments have proven that an adequate supply of food can be developed if man recycles the sea. Since 1936, 1 have been experimenting to determine what elements in the sea harbor the secret of healthy plant life, which elements, in turn, contribute to the health of the animals who eat this plant life. I became interested in hydroponics, the art of growing crops in liquid solution without soil, as a means of discovering and controlling the elements that should be present in the nutrients available to the plants in my experiments. I tried solutions made from evaporated sea water, or sea solids, to determine what means of balance were available in the natural sea water and the effect on plants. Sodium chloride, the major component of sea water, is normally toxic to plants. However, my method prevents the salinity from affecting the root structure of the plants.
From the start, my sea solids experiments produced excellent results, and it has now been conclusively proven that the proportions of the trace minerals and elements present in sea water are optimum for the growth and health of both land and sea life. In 1954, controlled crop experiments were conducted. Corn, oats and soybeans, three staple feeds, were used. Ten acres treated with sea solids and ten control acres of corn, ten acres treated with sea solids and ten control acres of oats, and six acres treated with sea solids and six control acres of soybeans were grown.
Subsequently, the produce was fed to animals and under controlled conditions-four parts corn, two parts oats, and one part soybeans. Not only were the experimental crops superior to the control crops, but the effects upon the physiology and pathology of the animals fed the sea solids produce were delightfully amazing. For example, chickens, pigs and cattle fed sea solids produce reached maturity much sooner than control animals, and all resisted diseases common to their species better than control animals. Experimentally fed pigs carried over the benefits into a second generation; and there were no runts in the litters, which is something that "always happens" in a litter of pigs and is a sign of malnutrition.
My background includes a B.S. degree in 1934, and an M.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in 1936. Two additional years of postgraduate study in internal medicine followed, with three-and-a-half years in ear, nose and throat surgery. While in Cincinnati between 1937 and 1947, I taught physiology and directed a number of experiments at the College of Medicine. I studied law at night school and was trained in medical hypnosis. My membership in professional societies includes the Association of Medical Hypnotism, the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, Chicago Medical Society and the Illinois State Medical Society.
In 19471 moved to Chicago, where for the next twenty-five years I practiced otolaryngology. At the same time I carried on extensive experimentation with sea solids fertilization, which led to my patented sea solids technology developed on the land, and hydroponically as seaponics, as well as numerous articles published in national and international scientific journals. My present residence is in Fort Myers, Florida, where I am continuing my research.
I do not relish being critical of current practice and theory; and certainly I do not wish to be accused of self-righteousness. My criticism is meant to be constructive; and if the results of my lifelong work eventually lead to less suffering and illness for mankind, all debate and difficulties will have been worthwhile.

Chapter 2
Planned Food Pollution


We cannot impose our wills on nature unless we first ascertain what her will is. Working without regard to law brings nothing but failure; working with law enables us to do what seemed at first impossible.
--Ralph Tyler Flewelling
The waters of the oceans hold the perfect balance of those essential elements required as food for the complex cell groups that make up our bodies. This is my thesis-now for the proofs.
When I was a student at the University of Cincinnati in 1932, 1 at tempted to induce cancer into a toad, but was astonished to note that the amphibian seemed to have a natural immunity. This laboratory incident precipitated the beginning of a lifelong search for an explanation. Some decades ago I fed crops grown with recycled seawater to various farm animals and obtained remarkable health and growth results which confirmed my theories.
A cubic foot of ocean water sustains many more times the number of living organisms, plants and animals than does the equivalent amount of soil. Seawater is literally alive, especially where the temperature of the water is warm.
Of special interest is the fact that the aging process does not appear to occur in the sea. A comparison between the cells of a huge, adult whale and cells taken from a newly born whale will show no evidence of the chemical changes observed when comparing cells of adult and newborn land mammals. There are some denizens of the sea that apparently never cease growing. One need only compare the size of land turtles with sea turtles to realize the tremendous difference.
I am convinced the difference in size and longevity is due to the complete, balanced chemistry provided by the sea. There are no chronic diseases found among fish and animal life in the sea that can compare to those on land.
In man, most cells are replaced within about eighteen months. If the requirements for certain elements are not supplied by food ingested as cell division occurs, dilution becomes apparent until critical elements are nonexistent in the organism. This shortage of essential elements does not occur in the sea. Why aren't these vital elements in our food?
When our cells must compensate for the dilution, or lack of elements, then they lose their resistance to disease. Remember that our bodies are host to an enormous number of microbes that eagerly pounce when the slightest breakdown in cell function occurs. Our frightening increase in chronic disease and the sorrowful process of aging can be attributed to the absence of a complete, balanced physiological chemistry.
If the necessary elements are not found in our food, where are they? Certainly nature provided them. The answer is they have departed from our soils due to continuous taking of crops and the process of erosion. Most crops require an average of forty elements from the soil. In no case do fertilizers add more than twelve, and most commercial fertilizers add a maximum of six elements.
The single most devastating source of depletion of soil is water leaching. Even on relatively level land tremendous leaching occurs and has been taking place for thousands and thousands of years. Ultimately, the various leached elements, because they are in water solution, flow down to the sea.
For countless centuries the vital elements have been eroded into the sea. What state are they in while mixed with our vast oceans? Analysis of seawater shows a constant proportional balance of all the water-soluble elements. Three and one-half percent, by weight, of seawater is composed of sea salts, or sea solids. Chemical analysis shows that all the elements in the Atomic Table are present, with the possible exception of some of the gases.
I used these sea solids as plant food in experiments to prove that these elements in perfect balance will grow chemically perfect plants. I did not try to synthesize anything, but merely took what nature already offered.
My first experiments were in 1938. Since then I've carried out literally hundreds of experiments involving feeding plants nothing except sea solids mixed with tap water and a minor but fertilizing amount of a water-soluble nitrogen, such as ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate and the like. Invariably the result has been the same-healthier, more productive crops.
Early in the experimental game I learned that hydroponics-which is feeding nutrients to plants without soil-gave me better control over the plant diet. Dried, natural sea solids were dissolved in plain water, using approximately 112 pounds of sea solids to 10,000 gallons of water-a damn economical mix. The only nutrition my experimental crops received was sea solids in solution, which bathed their roots a few times each day. The plants flourished as no plants have flourished in this modern day of fertilized soil. The contrast in the experimental crops with the control crops grown by normal commercial methods was truly exciting. The taste difference was very significant, especially in tomatoes and carrots. The production rate was considerably higher and the resistance to disease was apparent.
The second line of experimentation was to put these evaporated sea solids directly on the soil as fertilizer. We actually used as much as 3000 pounds per acre-and I know eyebrows are being raised now!
But in the presence of the other elements found in seawater, sodium and chlorine are not toxic to plants. Actually, salt may be necessary for the absorption of the heavier elements. It is known that a saline solution will pick up a greater quantity and variety of elements than ordinary water solution.
We planted fields side by side so that one experimental plot used sea solids mixed into the soil as fertilizer and one control plot used the best commercial methods available. The results were similar to those with hydroponics. Sea solids-fertilized crops grew faster, were healthier and produced a far greater yield. Colors of the plants also differed and a taste difference was obvious. Animals, both wild and domestic, had no trouble determining which was better for them to eat; and a walk through a field of oats showed us a glimpse of animal heaven. Rabbits and mice scurried everywhere, yet the minute we stepped into the control area where standard fertilizers had been used, it was almost lifeless so far as the animals were concerned.
We put tape around some green stalks of field corn to identify them as having come from our experimental field. We mixed the experimental with control stalks and placed them in the feed lot for cattle and sheep. We watched as the animals munched away. It was immediately apparent which stalks they preferred, because after once sampling an experimental stalk, the animals would nuzzle and burrow in the pile to find another stalk, ignoring the control stalks until they had no other choice.
To prove further that animal instinct knows best, we treated a section of clover field covering about 100 square feet with sea solids. When the clover grew to about six inches, sheep were let out to graze. They walked and grazed until they came to the treated spot, then ate until the clover within the treated area was nubbed to the ground.
Feeding experiments with steers showed they had greater weight gain while eating less of the experimental feed. Farmers ought to appreciate that!
We used 306 freshly hatched chicks and designated 153 control and 153 experimental. The experimental group was fed a commercial concentrate and oats along with corn and soybeans grown on sea solids-treated soil. Control chicks were fed the same diet with the exception that all feed was grown on nontreated soil. At the end of six months, the experimental roosters weighed a full 1.5 pounds more than controls. Experimental hens laid eggs for the first time one month earlier than controls, and exhibited a phenomenon amazing to anyone familiar with laying hens-not a single experimental hen laid a pullet size or small egg! All the experimental eggs were of firm shell and large size. During one complete year of careful observation, experimental chickens exhibited perfect health, free from disease, and remained calm when approached by men. The controls were nervous when approached by the flock tender, exhibited disease such as slipped tendons and worms; and several died of unknown causes. None of the experimental chickens died.
Similar advantages of 40 foods grown with sea solids were seen in experiments with laboratory rats. Control rats showed less weight gain per pound of food and sustained definite eye disease. Experimental rats, on the other hand, exhibited sleek coats, were apparently immune to eye disease that afflicted the others, and showed a markedly uniform weight gain on less food. We then conducted a similar experiment with mice bred to develop breast cancer, and the experimental mice failed to develop cancer and lived significantly longer.
Wow! You might exclaim. Why not sprinkle sea solids on our food and get healthy? It simply doesn't work that way. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of biology knows that humans and other animals cannot obtain any benefits from the elements unless they are hooked up with carbon atom by green plants. This is the explicit role of plant life on earth: to convert inorganic elements to organic compounds that can be utilized by animal life. Table salt is the only food we eat that is inorganic and, frankly, it isn't very good for us.
Sea energy agriculture-growing foods with sea solids as fertilizer-provides a means for improving our chemical intake without sacrificing our eating habits. Our meats, vegetables, fruits and cereals would all be adequately balanced with the essential elements simply by growing all crops with sea solids technology.
It has been shown by agronomists that soil may contain a large amount of one particular combination of elements that the plants cannot absorb. The presence or absence of a trace element can be the deciding factor in determining whether a necessary element is absorbed into the plant's root system. The balance of elements must be right in the soil for plants to synthesize their complete chemistry.
Tomatoes serve as an example of the need for this balance. Tomato growers know that potassium is an element with a major function in the plant's growth. Potassium is added to the soil in quantity by tomato growers. Yet the tomato itself has only a minor amount of potassium. My hydroponic experiments proved conclusively that only a small amount of potassium, as found in its proper balance in seawater, is needed to grow outstanding crops of unusually healthy tomatoes. It is unnecessary to fertilize heavily with one element or another if an adequate balance of elements is available for the plant's use.
Growing staple crops hydroponically in seawater solution has tremendous implications, especially for the starving millions in our world. One super advantage is that plants grown hydroponically require only about one-tenth the water that the same plants growing in soil require. The cost of hydroponic facilities becomes negligible when the exceptional productivity is considered.
Technical journals stress that the "long-term solution to the food crisis is development of new, productive crop hybrids and the spread of modern agricultural technology throughout the developing world," I shudder. Established experts harp or things like "pest control," better management of "fragile soils" and novel ideas for "storing water", but they turn a deaf ear toward sea solids technology, which provides all of these things naturally.
Aside from economic and productivity reasons, what are the implications for man if we are able to restore the chemical balance to our food? We can eliminate illness as we experience it today. I know that to many of you this sounds like a grandiose, unproved claim, but one must remember that we are only beginning to investigate this new agricultural technology.
During World War I (circa 1918) with high military standards for physical and mental fitness, 31 percent of all the young Americans called for induction into the armed forces were rejected as unfit. For World War II (circa 1943) the rejection rate was over 50 percent, so the standards were lowered to a point below that of 1918. This lowering of standards lowered the rejection rate to 41 percent. During the period between 1948 and 1955, which included the Korean War, the physical and mental standards were lowered even more, yet the rejection rate of young men between ages eighteen and twenty-five climbed to 52 percent. More than half the young men of our nation who were called for military duty were rejected. How can we call ourselves "healthy"?
Any nation with a drug industry flourishing as well as ours certainly cannot claim good health!

Chapter 8
In Conclusion


Every creative act involves . . . a new innocence of perception, liberated from the cataract of accepted belief.
The Sleepwalkers -- Arthur Koestler
Life on earth is divided into three major categories: plant, animal, and protista (organisms that display a combination of plant and animal characteristics). Of the roughly 1,250,000 life species almost three-fourths are animal with the remaining one-fourth made up of plants and protista. The sea, which covers 71% of the earth's surface, probably contains 90% of all life. This is true because of the extent of the sea surface and the fact that the sea averages two and one-fourth miles in depth, with some places measuring seven miles deep. Forms of life can be found throughout the ocean including the lowest regions, whereas life forms on land are generally found in the upper foot or so of soil. Even land birds and other flying animals must trace their food and life cycles to the soil.
When looking at ocean life, one is immediately impressed by the fact that in this 71%, of the earth's surface there is no cancer, hardening of the arteries, or arthritis. A whale carries around tons of fat and lives in an environment of salt solution, which makes one wonder if the medical advice of low salt and low fat diet is, indeed, justifiable. Ocean trout do not develop cancer, while a large percentage of fresh water trout over five years of age have cancer of the liver. It should be noted, however, that a few years ago an ocean trout was found with cancer of the liver. Its habitat was the mouth of the Columbia River where a quantity of carcinogenic chemicals had been poured. The fact remains that it is very difficult to find any species on land that does not have cancer, while animals living in the ocean are without cancer. Some animals, of course, are more resistant than others, but the reason for this is unknown. The guinea pig is one of the rodents most highly resistant to cancer. The toad is more resistant than the frog. The guinea pig and the toad keep their thymus gland throughout life, but whether or not this is the reason for their resistance is unproven.
As a university student, I became interested in these mysteries and decided that I would seek a reasonable explanation for the presence of malignant disease in fresh water and land animals as opposed to ocean animals. Much time and money were spent traveling, studying, and dissecting sea life. The study ranged from South America to the Pribilof Islands, and included whales and seals. In dissecting many of these animals, no malignant disease could be found; in fact, no tissue suspected of malignant disease was seen.
At this time it occurred to me that if there were some way to nourish land animals on food that contained all the essential elements, it should make a difference in their resistance to disease. Diet must be the secret. Ocean water contains a complete spectrum of elements, whereas soil and fresh water do not. Plants in the ocean can select any and all the elements they need to grow. In turn, ocean animals feeding on these plants easily obtain their element requirements and thus better disease resistance. If ocean animals can establish their resistance through diet, I feel that land animals can also obtain this resistance if the food which they consume has been grown with all the necessary elements available.
To accomplish this end in the early days, seawater was trucked into the Midwest and applied to soil considered adequate for growing cereal grains. This, of course, was an expensive method of securing the complete range of elements from the sea, so we immediately began to look worldwide for natural locations, where the seawater becomes landlocked and total evaporation takes place. The largest deposits were found in Mexico, with others in countries of South America and some in Africa. This complete spectrum of elements from the sea we have designated sea solids, and when used hydroponically our method is labeled Seaponics.
We began using these complete sea solids in growing large quantities of cereal grains for feeding animals. Sea solids were applied at the rate of 1000 to 2,200 pounds per acre to half of the fields, while the control half received only the customary fertilizer. At harvest time corn smut, rust, and other cereal diseases were significantly reduced in the experimental fields. Disease resistance had been fixed in the plants by the use of this complete elemental diet. The next step was to see if the resistance could be transferred from plants to animals.
A first animal experiment was carried out on C3H mice which get spontaneous cancer of the breast. These cancers are most probably due to the so-called Bittner virus. We hoped that by using sea solids-grown food we could build resistance to the virus or cancer: The C3H mice were divided into two groups. The control group was fed on regular cereal grain, while the experimental group was fed cereal grain raised on sea solids-treated soil. The results showed that instead of getting spontaneous cancer in 90% of the animals as the control group did, the experimental animal figure dropped to 55%. The second generation born to parents fed on sea solids food produced cancer in only 2% of the population!
We also tried the special feed on transplanted malignancies (sarcoma) in rats. The sea solids-fed rats showed high resistance to the transplanted sarcoma. A transplant would die off most of the time, but occasionally it would take. After growing for a while it, too, would die off. This success occurred in over 90% of the animals treated with the sea solids-grown food.
Rous sarcoma was tested in chickens using the two kinds of food but we were unable to discover any difference in the death rate between those fed treated and untreated foods. This sarcoma kills in a hurry, sometimes within four days; and we felt that probably the physiology of the chickens was not changed enough in this short period of time to show any difference in this experiment.
Other animals were fed sea solids-grown food and did well. Dairy cattle were raised in this manner, but no statistics were kept as to production or quality of milk. However, it is interesting to note that if a bundle of corn stalks containing a mixture of sea solids-grown corn and untreated corn was offered to the cows, they would nuzzle through the bundle and always eat the sea solids-grown corn first.
These experiments were continued for three to five years. It was found that the bony structure of cattle and horses fed on sea solids grain was better. This was also true of chickens. Eggs of experimental chickens would be larger than those chickens fed on controlled food. The difference was evident from four to six months of age. These experiments show that changes can be transferred from plants to animals.
In studying those human populations where malignancy is rare, it was found that the soil in which the food was grown contained all the essential elements for optimum growth. In other words, the soil appeared almost like a spectrum of sea solids. In these areas, for the most part, there is very little egress of water to the sea and the elements are usually washed down from the mountains and highlands into the valleys by rain or melting snow. These elements are not carried away by water, erosion, or by man. They remain to be utilized again and again.
We are not so fortunate in the United States and in most of the world. Daily we are losing elements due to loss of soil through erosion and population growth. It has been stated by good authority that a 120-acre farm passes the city of St. Louis every twelve hours. This, of course, is dissolved in the waters of the Mississippi River. When one thinks of the large rivers on earth, such as the Amazon or Euphrates, one realizes that the amount washed into the ocean is, indeed, impressive. To try to reclaim this material from the ocean must be a priority, and as time goes on, it will be even more imperative.
The encroachment of cities on agricultural land is also an important factor to consider when thinking of the land available for the production of food for humanity. This invasion of arable land multiplies the need for some sort of reclamation procedure to obtain more land for food production and more food from that land.
There are several avenues available to us to reclaim and improve our soil and food production. Each choice is dependent upon the amount and condition of the soil and the need and availability of food.
The first avenue is to use sea solids on the remaining agricultural land. Sea solids return to the soil elements lost through over-cropping and generally poor cropping techniques. Past experiments indicate that the amount of food produced with the sea solids is generally increased. The plant can grow at its full potential, and production is not reduced due to disease. More importantly, the food produced is a better quality. Double-blind taste tests show that foods raised with sea solids were rated better tasting than foods raised without sea solids. Past experiments also indicate that sea solids can improve disease resistance in plants and that these plants can in turn increase disease resistance in the animals that consume the plants.
The second way is to substitute hydroponics for land where the soil is completely incapable of food production. One can produce ten to fifty times the amount of food per surface area in hydroponics than can be grown on soil. This is especially important in areas that have little or no arable land and large populations to feed. Since nature uses 71% of the earth's surface for hydroponic growth, it does not seem too farfetched to consider growing much of our edible food in this manner. In hydroponic culture, one adds nitrogen and phosphorus to complete sea solids. In soil culture, this does not have to be done, because the application of sea solids promotes the growth of azotobacter (or nitrogen-fixing bacteria), and there is enough potassium and enough phosphorus in the ocean water if one gets the complete sea solids. There is more nitrogen fixation in the ocean than in any place on land, and, of course, this is due to the fact that the ocean elements are ideal media for azotobacter nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
The third avenue is to rebuild soil that is incapable of production. Just adding sea solids to sand will not make the sand more productive. There is nothing in the sand to prevent the sea solids from being washed away when water is added. Some soils are too hard for plant roots to grow in, and still other soils hold too much moisture and smother a plant. In all the examples, it is the condition of the soil that affects its productivity. To return the soil to its proper physical condition, organic farming has to be reintroduced, or in many cases introduced.
Today, the organic farmer is more concerned with what is in the fertilizer bag than what is absent. Commercial fertilizers generally contain nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, plus a few microelements. Many elements needed by a plant are not returned to the soil by chemical fertilizers. On the other hand, in organic farming, many elements are replaced if the unused portion of the plant is returned and allowed to decompose to its inorganic elements. In addition, the organic farmer is also concerned with the undisclosed content of the commercial fertilizer. A bag of 10-10-10 commercial fertilizer by volume contains 70% of some unknown material. This material may contain substances that can build up in the soil and eventually make it useless.
Today's organic farmer knows his chemistry and realizes that plant fertilizer must be broken down into its inorganic elements before it can be utilized by plants. The organic farmer realizes that the giant commercial farmer, specializing in one type of crop and using only commercial fertilizer, is destroying the soil's ability to produce food. If this process continues, the soil itself will be ruined and lost through erosion. To prevent this and reclaim soil already destroyed, organic farming methods must be utilized.
It should be noted that the three avenues can be employed in combination. Sea solids can be used in the soil and in hydroponics. Hydroponics can be used in areas with poor soil conditions, and the unused portion of plants produced hydroponically can then be returned to the exhausted soil to help build it up again. Soil structure can definitely be rebuilt through the application of organic farming methods.
At one time the soil and the oceans were probably very similar in elemental content. Through the centuries, increased populations have put a strain on agriculture to keep up with the demand. This has led to a farming technology that tries to increase production on the reduced amount of available soil, with an inferior product as a result. Plant diseases are more prevalent than ever before and modern agriculture's answer is to manipulate a plant genetically to produce more and to be resistant to disease.
But in this process, it appears we are losing something. Food quality and taste have declined. Diseases not seen earlier in humans are developing, while others long known to man continue to increase. Some diseases thought to be controlled or extinct are reappearing. Yet the oceans don't seem to have these problems. Even on land different people in different areas of the earth have lived longer and are healthier than the rest of us. Why? The answer would appear to be diet. Not what we eat so much as what elements are in what we eat.
In order for man to continue to live on earth, he must make some fundamental changes. He must look to the oceans of the world as a source of needed elements. These elements must be returned to the soil so that better quality and more healthful foods can be produced. Man must stop the destruction of the soil. This will require basic changes in our agricultural system. The large commercial farms will probably have to be broken up and smaller regional farms using organic methods will take their place. Most importantly, the population growth of the world that has pressured our agricultural system to its present state must be controlled. The population of the earth must be stabilized or all our efforts will be for naught. As the agricultural system changes, hydroponics can help take up the slack so as to prevent mass food shortages and starvation.
We have the means and ability to make these changes. We need now only the desire.
[www.ratical.org]

Thanks, JR, for all the information contained above. I'd not heard of Maynard Murray and his patented sea water solids. It would be nice to know just what technology he devised to keep the high NaCl content from poisoning the soil it's placed on.

It would be nice if enough of this stuff could be produced for whole societies, but then, it would require much technology and probably some damage to the oceans. In the meantime, I'll use seaweed fertilizer, I think that's as close as I'm ever going to get at a reasonable price.