Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=297772)

nickelless | 09-04-2008 03:36 AM
Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? I was talking with my brother about planting trees along the bank of a nearby river (which is rather polluted), and I mentioned that I thought it'd be interesting to try to plant fruit or nut trees, possibly dwarf varieties of apple and walnut trees, as a possible long-term food source for the hikers and others that frequent the riverbank. My brother thought it would be impractical because he said the trees would absorb pollution from the river and thus make any fruit unsafe to eat. Is this really the case?

silverJeep | 09-04-2008 08:42 AM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Now why in the world would a polluted river plant a fruit tree in the first place?????? ...sorry.

brosil | 09-04-2008 12:51 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? My guess is no. That's a guess, remember. I remember an article on people gardening downwind from an arsenic mine or smelter. There was considerable worry about the plants picking up high doses from the contaminated soil. Other than garlic, the plants didn't pick up any arsenic.As long as they were well washed to remove surface contamination, they were the same as food grown elsewhere. Garlic gets it's flavor from arsenic and liked it too well. Garlic grown in the soil was near lethal if you could stand to eat it. Plants have pretty good filtration systems.

cortez | 09-04-2008 12:57 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? i thought a dense wetland type area acts as a good natural filter? http://www.modularwetlands.com/pollution/

killer2021 | 09-04-2008 03:57 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Quote:
Originally Posted by cortez (Post 1270370) i thought a dense wetland type area acts as a good natural filter? http://www.modularwetlands.com/pollution/
it does but I am taking it you don't want to eat the filter's material, if you catch my vibe.

Juristic Person | 09-04-2008 04:19 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Quote:
Originally Posted by nickelless (Post 1269714) I was talking with my brother about planting trees along the bank of a nearby river (which is rather polluted), and I mentioned that I thought it'd be interesting to try to plant fruit or nut trees, possibly dwarf varieties of apple and walnut trees, as a possible long-term food source for the hikers and others that frequent the riverbank. My brother thought it would be impractical because he said the trees would absorb pollution from the river and thus make any fruit unsafe to eat. Is this really the case?
You bet! If the trees are drawing water from the river, they can absorb certain pollutants. Granted, many contaminents in the water will be filtered out by the soil by certain contaminents, like most pesticides, will be absorbed by the tree. It is has long been my theory that pesticides are the major cause of cancer in this country. All of those chemicals that are sprayed onto the plants leach into the waterbed and are then absorbed by the trees and plants that yield the fruit/vegetables that we eat. Your best bet is to eat locally grown, organic fruits and veggies. Stay away from anything growing by that polluted river. .

Saul Mine | 09-04-2008 08:50 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? It depends on what the pollutants are. "Pollutant" is an opinion, not a definition. For instance, excrement is considered a fertilizer for plants but a pollutant anywhere else.

RealJack | 09-04-2008 09:36 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? I say plant them. They will help decontaminate the river, feed the wildlife, and possible save some starving human passersby eventually. All our water is basically contaminated now anyway, even the aquifers deep in the ground. Trees and plants are earths filtration systems. Dioxins, e coli, salmonella, excrement, those are all just little snacks to the tree roots. Plant them and feel good about it. You'll be doing the world a favor.

____hoot____ | 09-04-2008 09:46 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Quote:
Originally Posted by Juristic Person (Post 1270762) You bet! If the trees are drawing water from the river, they can absorb certain pollutants. Granted, many contaminents in the water will be filtered out by the soil by certain contaminents, like most pesticides, will be absorbed by the tree. It is has long been my theory that pesticides are the major cause of cancer in this country. All of those chemicals that are sprayed onto the plants leach into the waterbed and are then absorbed by the trees and plants that yield the fruit/vegetables that we eat. Your best bet is to eat locally grown, organic fruits and veggies. Stay away from anything growing by that polluted river. .
Sorry to have to inform you of this J.P., but the major trigger has been the sv40 cancer virus in all the "polio vaccines".

GreenSpirit | 09-04-2008 09:52 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Mine (Post 1271242) It depends on what the pollutants are. "Pollutant" is an opinion, not a definition. For instance, excrement is considered a fertilizer for plants but a pollutant anywhere else.
Where can I obtain some of this "excrement" you speak of. It sounds like a magical substance.

mtnman | 09-04-2008 10:18 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? There�s some of it spewed here on GIM regularly

Juristic Person | 09-04-2008 11:44 PM
Re: Can fruit trees planted by a polluted river absorb pollutants? Quote:
Originally Posted by ____hoot____ (Post 1271338) Sorry to have to inform you of this J.P., but the major trigger has been the sv40 cancer virus in all the "polio vaccines".
That's a still a controversial theory. Even if it were correct, how do you account for anyone born after 1962 who got cancer? The sv40 strain was only injected into about 10 million people between 1955 and 1961. Many people who did not get vaccinated for polio have gotten cancer.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM