Today, I propose we reflect on the topic of our health.
Anyone who has ever taken a general blood test and received the results has seen the following picture: hemoglobin — 137 g/L, and in the adjacent column — reference values. For example, for men — from 135 to 180, and for women — from 120 to 140. And so it goes for every indicator. This means that if your blood parameters fall within the suggested ranges, you are healthy and everything is fine. But if any parameter goes beyond the limits, the intervention of a specialist (in this case, a doctor) is indispensable.
Every year, medicine surprises and amazes us with new discoveries. The human body has been studied to such an extent that a blood test can reveal what kind of lifestyle a person leads, whether they sleep enough, eat right, or have bad habits — and most importantly, it allows for the selection of the necessary therapy.
How were these health indicator ranges formed? It's simple. Every person is unique, and it is impossible to measure everyone by a single standard. We are the product of evolutionary selection that made us this way: for someone, a hemoglobin level of 135 is excellent, while for another, it's 180.
But humans did not form on our planet in isolated test-tube conditions. We developed alongside the environment. While the animal world was evolving, the planet was changing too. And it began its journey from a red-hot, lifeless piece of rock to a cozy home for all living things long before the appearance of humans.
But here is the paradox: what health criteria exist for our soil in Russia?
If we take the soils of the Chernozem region as the gold standard, then the rest of Russia's lands are, figuratively speaking, "people" with terrible vitamin deficiency and poor health. There is no concept of "soil health" in the legislation, but two important terms are established: depletion and pollution. Somewhere between them, at the level of subatomic particles, exists a certain "norm."
And how is it determined that the soil here and now is depleted or polluted?
There are SanPiN regulations that standardize the content of a small fraction of substances in the form of maximum permissible or tentative permissible concentrations. The remaining substances are simply included in the list of pollutants.
Let's consider a practical example.
Imagine a meadow with growing grass in a wild area. The soil in this place has never been subjected to cultivation or anthropogenic impact — meaning it is in its natural state. Let's divide the plot into two parts and analyze the agrochemical composition. In theory, the results should be identical, but in practice — taking measurement errors into account — the numbers differ slightly.
Let's plow one half of the plot and analyze it again. Relative to the uncultivated area, all indicators will scatter up or down because we have mixed the layers that formed its morphological composition over millennia.
According to current legislation, if the substance content is not regulated by SanPiN, one must look at the background sample — it is taken from a plot similar in purpose and conditions. In our case, from the uncultivated plot. It has become the standard.
And this is where the sheer paradoxes begin.
If the concentrations have become lower than the background value, it is soil depletion. If they are higher, it is pollution. As it becomes obvious, matching the background is no longer possible. And if we apply fertilizers, fulfilling the requirements of the Land Code to increase fertility — "kiss it goodbye," it is already considered pollution.
It is scary to imagine what a soil analysis on summer cottage plots would show. Oh boy, what kind of "pollutants" wouldn't be found there! After all, our parents fertilized and carefully cultivated these lands for decades. Compared to an abandoned plot, they are hopelessly "polluted."
This is comparable to comparing the health of an athlete with the health of a dystrophic person, while accusing the athlete of having built too much muscle mass, being too fast, agile, and attractive.
This is the paradigm in which crop production currently exists in the country.
And all because there are no criteria for soil health. There are no ranges for substance content. This is a problem with many asterisks. Even within one small region, soil types differ, and therefore, so does their chemical composition. Serious research work, zoning, analytics, and regulatory frameworks are required.
I am confident that we will get there. After all, the land is our greatest wealth.