Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Magnesium and the
International Criminal Court

By John Silveira

Issue #125 • September/October, 2010

There was an interesting ad that ran in BHM for two issues, but it was pulled for lack of response. It was about magnesium, the lack of it in our drinking water, and what the advertiser thinks we should do about it.

What is magnesium and why is it important to us?

By mass, magnesium is the 11th most abundant element in the human body. A 180-pound man has about 1½ ounces of it in him; a 120-pound woman, about an ounce. About half of it is in your bones, but it occurs in every living cell of your body and it is required in more than 300 enzyme reactions. You need it for normal nerve and muscle function, metabolism, protein synthesis, maintaining blood pressure, insulin levels, and more. Ongoing research is investigating links between magnesium deficiency and asthma, type 2 diabetes, heart diseases including sudden cardiac arrest, osteoporosis, PMS, and a host of other problems. Magnesium is often used in the treatments for some of these.

Still, a significant percentage of Americans are deficient in it for one reason or another. Diseases and medications often inhibit your body's absorption of it; many foods, though rich in it, lose significant amounts of it during cooking; the more "processed" a food is, the less there is in it; and though you can get it from drinking water, the "softer" the water, the less it contains.

Even when there's "enough" magnesium in your diet, your body can become depleted because of disease, drug interactions, sweating, excessive urination, and diarrhea, and as you get older, your body has a harder time absorbing it and more readily expels it.

Now knowing all this, I've started taking a mineral supplement. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for the average adult male is 400mg, for females it's 300mg. Not much, but it turns out you don't need a lot to maintain health.

Here's some advice I found online: ensure you are getting at least 500 to 700 mg per day. The older you are (like me), the more you should lean toward the 700 number. However, megadosing can be dangerous, though the most common result of it in a healthy person is diarrhea. But, megadosing too much can kill you. Also, people with any health issues, especially heart or kidney problems, or those on any kind of medications shouldn't start taking it without consulting a doctor.

So, I want thank the fellow who placed the ad for bringing the metal to my attention. However, that was not all that was in his ad. He also wants the Food and Drug Administration to mandate a certain minimum of magnesium in our drinking water. Fair enough, but I think it would be better if they simply lifted the ban on adding it to drinking water and let the customer decide what he wants to buy. But he also alleges millions in this country have died as a result of magnesium deficiency and asks the readers to write to the Office of the Prosecutor of the UN's International Criminal Court (ICC) to to investigate this "...crime against humanity in the United States" and to bring to trial those in this country who are responsible.

That's bad advice. In the first place, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC, so a complaint would be meaningless. Second, according to the Heritage Foundation, "Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration concluded that the ICC is a seriously flawed institution that the U.S. should not join." It contains provisions that "have serious implications for national sovereignty, individual rights, and security." Among its problems are "...agents and judges would be empowered to investigate crimes, prosecute, pass judgments, sentence, and even hear the appeals of its decisions..." In other words, the ICC wants to be the policeman, judge, jury, and court of appeals, which is inconsistent with how Americans believe justice should be administered. The ICC would also be empowered to try American citizens for crimes alleged to be committed on American soil, that may not even be crimes here in the USA. For example, in this country you have a 1st Amendment guarantee to advocate Nazism or to speak in favor of Israel. But if the ICC decides either of those is a crime, the US will not be allowed to protect you. You could be removed from the country to stand trial. Furthermore the ICC would "...not provide many of the basic legal rights of Americans, such as a trial by jury, forbidding trials in absentia, and the right of the accused to confront his accuser." We've a hard enough time fighting our own government for our rights over the last 200-plus years, and our government is run by other Americans. Zimbabweans, Chinese, Iranians, Germans, and others who may be judges are not going to care what your Bill of Rights says.

Last, it's possible that if those in Washington ever do sign such a treaty, it may prove to be unconstitutional, anyway. In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. So, should we become a signatory, we have to hope that the Court would rule that treaty null and void.

And if it doesn't?

I would hope the American people would nullify it themselves—one way or the other.




Read More by John Silveira

Read More Opinion / Commentary

 
      Please address comments regarding this page to editor[at]backwoodshome.com. Comments may appear in the "Letters" section of Backwoods Home Magazine. Although every email is read, busy schedules generally do not permit personal responses.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.