Can synethic nutrients increase your risk of cancer?

[Weird]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x884qp426v27664q/

one of a bazillion

while mineral uptake in plants is still based on theory the correlation between mineral contamination in our food chain and cancer is not

our mineral intake is from plants, plants take minerals from the environment

when you force minerals into them you make the balance unnatural
but why trust me

read an article from Joseph Heckman, Ph.D.,on heavy metals in soil and the effects on the human body and yes he addresses the outright dangers of chemical fertilizers


who is Joseph Heckman, Ph.D?

Professor of Soil Science Rutgers University, who teaches courses in Soil Fertility and Organic Crop Production. As Soil Fertility Specialist for Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension, he serves both organic and other farmer clientele. His research focuses on soil fertility management and detection of nutrient deficiencies in agronomic and horticultural crops with a goal of optimizing mineral nutrition in support of plant and animal health. He is program chair for the Council on History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Soil Science. He has authored over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles.


http://www.dig-itmag.com/departments/soil_story/274_0_14_0_M/

 

[whodare]

while mineral uptake in plants is still based on theory the correlation between mineral contamination in our food chain and cancer is not

mineral uptake in plants is not really theory, we know everything they need in what form, and we have fairly accurate models for many crops as to their specific nutrient concentration requirements...

our mineral intake is from plants, plants take minerals from the environment

or we get them from animals... and we get minerals from our environment too like vitamin d not quite the same but regardless..

when you force minerals into them you make the balance unnatural
but why trust me

as long as u keep the concentration within an appropriate range the plant takes what it needs and leaves the rest...

as long as you dont over fertilize you arent forcing anything into the plant...

read an article from Joseph Heckman, Ph.D.,on heavy metals in soil and the effects on the human body and yes he addresses the outright dangers of chemical fertilizers

hmmm what is "chemical" fertilizer?

and ill be sure not to spray heavy metal on my plants...

 

[Weird]

mineral uptake in plants is not really theory, we know everything they need in what form, and we have fairly accurate models for many crops as to their specific nutrient concentration requirements...

so why is cohesion tension theory called a theory?

or we get them from animals... and we get minerals from our environment too like vitamin d not quite the same but regardless..

don't forget that minerals like nitrogen that we get when we eat an animal had to be gotten from a plant first

but im glad here you are willing to concur that mineral indeed go medium to plant to man

as long as u keep the concentration within an appropriate range the plant takes what it needs and leaves the rest...

as long as you don't over fertilize you aren't forcing anything into the plant...

if plants were completely selective and homogenous in their use of minerals this would be correct, unfortunately it is not, nor are your statements congruent

if the plants were completely selective you couldn't force regardless of over fertilization

do an analysis of nitrogen levels of two identical cannabis plants in identical environments fed at different "acceptable" ppm rates and tell me the nitrogen levels are identical

they will absorb raw ions to the point of toxicity

apparently plants evolved to grow in living balanced soil

but if according to you, its all the same in the end it begs the question why so many growers who feed synthetic nutrients need to "flush"?

and while were are on the subject please tell me what science knows about mineral levels in cannabis and their correlating effect on combustion and composition of gasses in inhaled smoke?

regardless of how they are fed, many seasoned indoor growers underfeed their plants so they ustilize leaf mineral stores at the end of flower

why do you think they do this?

hmmm what is "chemical" fertilizer?

and ill be sure not to spray heavy metal on my plants...

synthetically sourced is "chemical"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

you nutes are only as good as your source and supplier


and as far as you not spraying your plants with your chems bully for you

the question in the thread was can synthetic nutes contribute to cancer, not can you mitigate the risk with proper use

you can absolutely mitigate all of that risk with a proper organic regime which was the purpose of discussion from soil scientist in the article i posted

but im sure you know more than me and him combined !!!

hey cause you grow bomb pot right?

 

[whodare]

so why is cohesion tension theory called a theory?
it describes movement of water from roots to leafs not growing media To roots...


don't forget that minerals like nitrogen that we get when we eat an animal had to be gotten from a plant first

nitrogen is an element and yes we ultimately derive most of our nutrition from plants
but im glad here you are willing to concur that mineral indeed go medium to plant to man





if plants were completely selective and homogenous in their use of minerals this would be correct, unfortunately it is not, nor are your statements congruent

if the plants were completely selective you couldn't force regardless of over fertilization

Plants are selective if you ran hydro and did water test through a grow you would most certainly see this. Yes different strains require different concentrations doesn't mean they aren't selective. And again if you don't feed at too strong of a concentration you won't force them anything, heard of osmosis? That's a law

do an analysis of nitrogen levels of two identical cannabis plants in identical environments fed at different "acceptable" ppm rates and tell me the nitrogen levels are identical


they will absorb raw ions to the point of toxicity
only if you force them in by osmosis
apparently plants evolved to grow in living balanced soil

but if according to you, its all the same in the end it begs the question why so many growers who feed synthetic nutrients need to "flush"?
Cause they overfed and some do it for habit, personally I don't flush persay I just lower the concentration down till they dart to starve and oly for the last 4-5 days about .8 ec.
and while were are on the subject please tell me what science knows about mineral levels in cannabis and their correlating effect on combustion and composition of gasses in inhaled smoke?
Over fertilized buds can't be good for you but too many people forget that many elements in the plant are immobile so flushing does nothing to rid the plant of them
regardless of how they are fed, many seasoned indoor growers underfeed their plants so they ustilize leaf mineral stores at the end of flower

why do you think they do this?
I know why and I do the same just not as extreme


synthetically sourced is "chemical"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

you nutes are only as good as your source and supplier
Synthetically sourced? All the salts I use are naturally occurring and are dug up purified and sold to me in their dry form. I will concede most PGR's are syntihetic and I abhor their use on consumable goods

and as far as you not spraying your plants with your chems bully for you

the question in the thread was can synthetic nutes contribute to cancer, not can you mitigate the risk with proper use

you can absolutely mitigate all of that risk with a proper organic regime which was the purpose of discussion from soil scientist in the article i posted
But to be clear raw saw fertilizers are not synthetic PGR's are the bad guys

but im sure you know more than me and him combined !!!

hey cause you grow bomb pot right?

Check my album for the bomb pot I grow

 

[Homebrewer]

there are no scientifically founded links between smoking cannabis and cancer (and trust me they been trying to find one)

Great, so what are you arguing about then?

 

[SKUNK420]

I don't know about the nutrients but I have a better chance of getting cancer from the following:

The cars I work on and the products I use to fix them
The air I breath while struck in traffic
The water I surf in
The food I eat
Smoking bud that collects lint and dust as it grows
Smoking dirt mexican bud as a teenager
Smoking period, the lungs were meant to taken in only oxygen not smoke of any kind.
there's more but why go on.

Hell you got people that are 80 to 100 years old today healthy their whole lives and they grew up during the days of no work place safety laws and asbestos but there was a hell of a lot less man made & processed crap in those days.

 

[Jayson420]

there are no scientifically founded links between smoking cannabis and cancer (and trust me they been trying to find one)

Even though there is not a single cancer causing chemical in NON TOXIC cannabis. Smoking anything, even cannabis can cause inflammation of the lungs. Inflammation can cause a mutation/cancer from what I've been told. But i could be wrong.


It sounds like veganics is the safest growing method, then it's a toss up between organics and synthetics. Thanks for the replies I'm not too worried about using synthetics.

 

[Weird]

Originally Posted by Weird View Post
so why is cohesion tension theory called a theory?
it describes movement of water from roots to leafs not growing media To roots...

you have a huge disconnect with reading comprehension, the question was why do they call cohesion tension a theory? also what relevance does your comment have at all to the context of the conversation we are having? media to root transport was not mentioned or has being on the discussion so were is the logical bearing other than trying to prove a right in a context were no wrong was suggested.

don't forget that minerals like nitrogen that we get when we eat an animal had to be gotten from a plant first

nitrogen is an element and yes we ultimately derive most of our nutrition from plants

but im glad here you are willing to concur that mineral indeed go medium to plant to man

if plants were completely selective and homogenous in their use of minerals this would be correct, unfortunately it is not, nor are your statements congruent

if the plants were completely selective you couldn't force regardless of over fertilization

Plants are selective if you ran hydro and did water test through a grow you would most certainly see this.

if your statement were true you wouldn't need to lower the EC of your grow at the end to "starve" them a bit. those are your words from your statement below. if they were completely selective (you did notice the word completely in the statements you quoted right?) then they would stop feeding toward the end of their life cycle, and you wouldn't have to manipulate that cue.

Yes different strains require different concentrations doesn't mean they aren't selective.

selection of ions on a cellular level does not mean plants are completely selective. they cant choose what enters their rhizosphere only limit ionic uptake based on cellular capacity.

And again if you don't feed at too strong of a concentration you won't force them anything, heard of osmosis? That's a law

if you feed them naturally ionic concentration is self regulated, those are the known bio-dynamics of living soil. heard of organics?

do an analysis of nitrogen levels of two identical cannabis plants in identical environments fed at different "acceptable" ppm rates and tell me the nitrogen levels are identical

why is it that no one ever tried to answer the "easy" ones? you surely have grown the same plant side by side in different nutrient concentrations, right?

wait lets make this easy. run the same plants in the same tables but use two different reservoirs. run one to harvest at full PPM and run the other as you normally do with a drop in EC. then tell me do they show the same signs of nitrogen use and efficiency? why manipulate nutrient concentrations at the end of life cycle if the plant selects whats best for it?

they will absorb raw ions to the point of toxicity

only if you force them in by osmosis

see here is where you are really letting your trolling show

you just went on in previous posts and paragraphs how plants are selective and alluded that if i grew in water and did water tests I would know this, but then you go to say osmosis can force selection? these statements contradict.

sounds like you just want to try to justify in your own mind the use of synthetic nutrients and you will rationalize it at any cost.

apparently plants evolved to grow in living balanced soil

but if according to you, its all the same in the end it begs the question why so many growers who feed synthetic nutrients need to "flush"?

Cause they overfed and some do it for habit, personally I don't flush persay I just lower the concentration down till they dart to starve and oly for the last 4-5 days about .8 ec.

so tell me how your plants select ions gracefully but others overfed by osmosis? i guess there is a selective ionic overdrive switch in the rhiszosphere that you magically discovered which makes your plants select and others overfeed.

if you have to monitor and regulate the concentration of ions in your reservoir, then you are the selective mechanism not the plant

in nature this is controlled by living soil and other environmental cues, the plant doesn't call all the shots

and while were are on the subject please tell me what science knows about mineral levels in cannabis and their correlating effect on combustion and composition of gasses in inhaled smoke?

Over fertilized buds can't be good for you

rich observation, what made you come to this conclusion

but too many people forget that many elements in the plant are immobile so flushing does nothing to rid the plant of them

are you trying to say why bother flushing cause people don't understand the potential of immobile elements? because people are unaware of immobile elements in cannabis over fertilization is a moot point?

see your statement justifies proper organic techniques because in the history of mankind naturally occurring cannabis does not contain known carcinogenics

in fact i don't believe there are studies linking NATURALLY GROWN tobacco to lung cancer.

all our cancer trials are based on subjects that have smoked tobacco with synthetic catalysts

regardless of how they are fed, many seasoned indoor growers underfeed their plants so they ustilize leaf mineral stores at the end of flower

why do you think they do this?


I know why and I do the same just not as extreme

so you came here today to tell us cannabis selectively chooses ionic uptake so there is no threat of over mineralization in cannabis via synthetic fertilizers but in your personal garden you regulate ionic concentrations to mimic the harvest condition cannabis would experience in a natural organic environment

synthetically sourced is "chemical"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

you nutes are only as good as your source and supplier

Synthetically sourced?

I linked the fert wiki for a reason, obviously its too difficult a read for you so i skimmed out the digestible portions for you

Fertilizers are broadly divided into organic fertilizers (composed of enriched organic matter—plant or animal), or inorganic fertilizers (composed of synthetic chemicals and/or minerals).

Organic fertilizers include naturally occurring organic materials, (e.g. manure, worm castings, compost, seaweed, guano), or naturally occurring mineral deposits (e.g. saltpeter).


Inorganic fertilizer is often synthesized using the Haber-Bosch process, which produces ammonia as the end product.



All the salts I use are naturally occurring and are dug up purified and sold to me in their dry form. I will concede most PGR's are syntihetic and I abhor their use on consumable goods

so you came in here to argue for synthetic fertilizer use when you yourself abhor it, and choose naturally occurring organic precursors for yours coupled with regulating the environment to known "naturalized" values

and as far as you not spraying your plants with your chems bully for you

the question in the thread was can synthetic nutes contribute to cancer, not can you mitigate the risk with proper use

you can absolutely mitigate all of that risk with a proper organic regime which was the purpose of discussion from soil scientist in the article i posted

But to be clear raw saw fertilizers are not synthetic PGR's are the bad guys

but im sure you know more than me and him combined !!!

hey cause you grow bomb pot right?

.

 

[OniusOniusOnius]

You've got to be a lot more careful when handling synthetic nutrients. Chemical nutes will burn skin if left on without washing, but organics rarely will. Organic fertilizers are almost always pre-chelated, meaning they can't enter your skin... whereas, chemical ferts chelate with things like EDTA which can go straight into your bloodstream.

Also, with organics you should have a whole ecosystem in your soil which filters the elements getting into your plants. Even though most organic products have higher nickel, mercury, and other contaminants, this filtration system means that very little of it ends up inside the plant material when compared to synthetically grown cannabis.

When all is said and done with cannabis and cancer you have to take into account, the now FACT, that it is anti-cancer in nature to begin with. There are clearly many chemicals that result from incinerating cannabis which should/could cause cancer... but no one who smokes only weeds gets it! This data can only lead to two logical conclusions:
one, cannabis has more anti-cancer action than cancer-causing,
or two, magic.

 

[Weird]

Great, so what are you arguing about then?

i am arguing that synthetic fertilizers is linked to cancer because it is

you thought process is limited and out of context

show me a study where natural occurring tobacco devoid of the heavy metals, dioxins, radioactive elements, pesticides and synthetic chemicals is linked to cancer?

not that nicotine isn't toxic, but it is to illustrate that all prevalent cancers traced back to environmental sources such as agriculture are cancer catalysts because of the synthetics introduced into the environments not because of the the plants composition in and of of itself.

but trust me i know why people who don't understand organics are threatened by them

modern marijuana fertilizers guarantee a measurable margin of success simply reduce the learning curve in regards to BASIC plant health and nutrition for those who simply don't, wont and/or can't figure it out any other way

 

[delta9nxs]

Hi, jayson 420!

although I understand what you mean by the use of the term “synthetics”, there are no synthetic elements in any fertilizer.

Synthetic refers to elements that are too unstable to form or exist naturally on earth. These are all radioactive and have half lives. Like plutonium.

So, in this sense, the answer to your question is yes, synthetic elements can cause cancer and have been proven to do so.

But as I said, I understand your question. Your concern is with the inorganic elements that are used in fertilizers.

Some of those can indeed cause cancer when used in excess.

But some of the organic compounds can cause cancer too, when used in excess.

From a chemistry standpoint, there are no organic elements, only organic compounds. And these organic compounds are defined in chemistry as simply those compounds that contain carbon.

These compounds must be broken down by the microherd into the same constituents that are shown on that label of “chemical” fertilizer before they can be used by the plant.

Of course the key is moderation. And common sense.

I feed large plants 600 ppm or ec 1.2 dry nutrients (jacks hydro special) and get potent, great tasting, smooth smoking, aromatic bud that I get compliments on all the time. Via feedback of course.

But I have a buddy that grows outside with what he terms “organic” fertilizers and he gets potent, great tasting, smooth smoking, aromatic bud too.

It's all the same to the plant.

and it is extremely difficult to make conclusions about what actually causes cancer to start with. what looks like a causative factor in one patient has no effect on another person without cancer or the diagnosis of cancer.

your tap water is as implicated in various cancers as any plant nutrient. dr ralph nader found 2110 possibly carcinogenic compounds in tap water sampled from around the u.s.

gasoline is an organic compound. carbon tetrachloride is an organic compound. both can be absorbed into the skin in lethal amounts. carbon tet is used by dry cleaners regularly. you handle gasoline all the time. do you ever have that gasoline smell on your hands after pumping gas? those are molecules that have come into contact with your skin. we all should be more worried about that than any plant nutrients.

we are surrounded by dangerous things.

d9

 

[TLoft13]

unnatural levels of nutrient load such as high p in tobacco are linked to cancers

very common in modern agriculture because this is what happens when you force feed rhizospheres ions, regardless of source

in natural environments this doesn't happen

I know, I know, rocket science

the anti-organics propaganda in this thread is ignorant at best

I thought the proplem is that the mined phosphates contained trace radiactive materials, which were filtered out in earlier decades. Now with ther reduced demand for reactors and bombs they sometimes leave the radioctive stuff in. Isn't this correct?

 

[softyellowlight]

heavy metals, dioxins, radioactive elements, pesticides and synthetic chemicals

You are way out of line. Typical growers are indoors and do not use the same kind of horticultural procedure tobacco farmers do; not by a long shot.

 

[Weird]

I thought the proplem is that the mined phosphates contained trace radiactive materials, which were filtered out in earlier decades. Now with ther reduced demand for reactors and bombs they sometimes leave the radioctive stuff in. Isn't this correct?

yes

this is one potential method of fertilizers causing cancer

understand there are MANY variables in environmental contamination

the source

the method used to extract the source

application of the fertilizer can all be contributing factors

the problem with people being able to properly conceptualize the scenarios is that most contamination is part of a series of reactions

lets use excessive nitrogen as an example

how can excessive nitrogen be linked to cancer?

easy

too much nitrogen can lead to increased pest health,by increasing the birth rate, longevity and overall fitness of certain agricultural pests, such as mites and aphids

now look at the number of infirmary threads and grows where people have pest problems and tell me what percentage use pesticides to abate them?

pesticides linked to cancer? yes

see this is one of the modern day agricultural links to cancer in agriculture and to assume that an industry were a plant is worth 5k a pound that the average outlaw grower is going to properly mange concentrations and pesticide exposure is LAUGHABLE

 

[Weird]

You are way out of line. Typical growers are indoors and do not use the same kind of horticultural procedure tobacco farmers do; not by a long shot.

really?

Phosphate rock frequently contains radioactive material.

i posted a link citing evidence and source

let me remind you the thread title is CAN synthetic nutes cause cancer not WILL

but it does make you grossly irresponsible to think that a plant worth upwards to 5k a pound will be cultivated with greater care than most of modern agriculture by clandestine, resource and information poor, illegal growers

some food for thought

Synthetic fertilizers boosted food production and increased people's health and wellbeing for a short number of years. Then came a rapid decline because the problems created by the use of synthetic fertilizers outnumbered their benefits (Townsend et al. 2003).
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/nitrogen.html.

An independent research group tested fertilizers from only 12 states for 22 toxic heavy metals and found that these fertilizers contained high levels of these toxic substances. Of the 29 fertilizers tested, some were major and popular brands. Lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, barium, chromium, nickel, beryllium, dioxin, etc. can be pretty potent stuff.
( http://www.pirg.org/toxics/reports/wastelands/ )

The National Research Council states that 6 out of the top 7 and 9 out of the top 15 foods with oncongenic (cancer causing) risk are produced from food containing high amounts of nitrates from fertilizers and pesticides. A twelve year study showed that foods grown using chemicals had 16 times the amount of nitrate, which is a carcinogen, than organically grown ones.
http://www.turfprousa.com/health_effects_of_synthetic_fertilizer_3006a.html

 

[guest456mpy]

LOL,

My grandfather raised 400 acres of Cannabis per season for Lilly during the pre-prohibition era, all of it 100% organic. Would I use his methods in this day and age in my closet, or even a warehouse sized grow? absolutely not! Non-organic farming is no less intrinsically likely to cause cancer than organically. Organic farming is all about conservation of soil and a respect for damaging other forms of life around your grow.

Either method will yield safe products, as long as care is used to apply them properly. The smaller the grow, the more non-organic fertilizers will be easier to manage and get consistent results.

In fact this thread has more of a chance of causing cancer than the correct application of non-organic fertilizers. You can argue this until the cows come home and everyone's effort will not net any tangible results.

I propose that the O.P. turn his attention to really useful questions like "How many angels are dancing on the head of a pin."

 

[whodare]

s

 

[whodare]

you have a huge disconnect with reading comprehension, the question was why do they call cohesion tension a theory? also what relevance does your comment have at all to the context of the conversation we are having? media to root transport was not mentioned or has being on the discussion so were is the logical bearing other than trying to prove a right in a context were no wrong was suggested.

cohesion theory has nothing to do with roots uptaking water and elements that was my point....

roots use the "LAW" of osmosis. meaning roots are selectively permeable...

if your statement were true you wouldn't need to lower the EC of your grow at the end to "starve" them a bit. if they were completely selective (you did notice the word completely in the statements you quoted right?) then they would stop feeding toward the end of their life cycle, and you wouldn't have to manipulate that cue.

well since soil loses nutritional value through a season and the plants needs less later in flower i match that...
and roots are not "completely selective" i never said that, they are though selectively permeable...

see here is where you are really letting your trolling show

im trying to stop the spread of terrible misinformation..

you just went on in previous posts and paragraphs how plants are selective and alluded that if i grew in water and did water tests I would know this, but then you go to say osmosis can force selection? these statements contradict.

no they dont by the LAW of osmosis i can force water into and out of the plant, the roots are selective.

sounds like you just want to try to justify in your own mind the use of synthetic nutrients and you will rationalize it at any cost.

no ive grown in all medias and all my weed came out the same, its not what you grow them in that determines quality, though i do get better yields out of hydro in less time..

in nature this is controlled by living soil and other environmental cues, the plant doesn't call all the shots

yes it does, based on what the soil can provide...

are you trying to say why bother flushing cause people don't understand the potential of immobile elements? because people are unaware of immobile elements in cannabis over fertilization is a moot point?

no i am saying though that if you dont overapply fertilizer you wont need to flush...

give the plant what it needs when it needs it and flushing is moot, actually if you give them straight water in hydro all your doing is forcing water into the plant... osmosis, remember

see your statement justifies proper organic techniques because in the history of mankind naturally occurring cannabis does not contain known carcinogenics

no my statements justify proper application of any fertilizer organic or not...

in fact i don't believe there are studies linking NATURALLY GROWN tobacco to lung cancer.

we arent taking about tobacco but i dont buy it, tobacco is very proficient at picking up heavy metals in the soil, you cant escape heavy metals with organics...

all our cancer trials are based on subjects that have smoked tobacco with synthetic catalysts

no doubt tobacco smoke is bad thats why i dont smoke cig's and its also not what this thread is about...

so you came here today to tell us cannabis selectively chooses ionic uptake so there is no threat of over mineralization in cannabis via synthetic fertilizers but in your personal garden you regulate ionic concentrations to mimic the harvest condition cannabis would experience in a natural organic environment

yes, plants selectively uptake nutrients based on osmosis....

there is threat of over-application again based on osmosis...

yes i try to mimic nature without the mass and hassle of a microherd...

ultimately the plants need nutrition in the form of inorganic ionic elements...

so you came in here to argue for synthetic fertilizer use when you yourself abhor it, and choose naturally occurring organic precursors for yours coupled with regulating the environment to known "naturalized" values

inorganic elements are not synthetic...

i dont use any "synthetic" compounds especially not PGR's

i try to get as close to nature without the mess





edit: heres a good book you should read it would clear some things up you can find it on torrent sites
Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower

 

[Weird]

LOL,

My grandfather raised 400 acres of Cannabis per season for Lilly during the pre-prohibition era, all of it 100% organic. Would I use his methods in this day and age in my closet, or even a warehouse sized grow? absolutely not! Non-organic farming is no less intrinsically likely to cause cancer than organically. Organic farming is all about conservation of soil and a respect for damaging other forms of life around your grow.

Either method will yield safe products, as long as care is used to apply them properly. The smaller the grow, the more non-organic fertilizers will be easier to manage and get consistent results.

In fact this thread has more of a chance of causing cancer than the correct application of non-organic fertilizers. You can argue this until the cows come home and everyone's effort will not net any tangible results.

I propose that the O.P. turn his attention to really useful questions like "How many angels are dancing on the head of a pin."

obviously your grandfather was not "Tom Hill"

your response is a reflection of your personal experience in this world and does not include everyone's

nam myoho renge kyo

:smile:

 

[Homebrewer]

i am arguing that synthetic fertilizers is linked to cancer because it is

you thought process is limited and out of context

show me a study where natural occurring tobacco devoid of the heavy metals, dioxins, radioactive elements, pesticides and synthetic chemicals is linked to cancer?

not that nicotine isn't toxic, but it is to illustrate that all prevalent cancers traced back to environmental sources such as agriculture are cancer catalysts because of the synthetics introduced into the environments not because of the the plants composition in and of of itself.

but trust me i know why people who don't understand organics are threatened by them

modern marijuana fertilizers guarantee a measurable margin of success simply reduce the learning curve in regards to BASIC plant health and nutrition for those who simply don't, wont and/or can't figure it out any other way

Salts are salts whether their source is organic or inorganic. If your concern is heavy metals, then check your fertilizer brand here:

http://oda.state.or.us/dbs/heavy_metal/search.lasso

On a side note since you clearly have an organic agenda to push, I challenge you to find an organic fertilizer that is cleaner than a Jack's Classic 15-30-15. Good luck!