Slow down, kids. I think everyone's intentions here are honest and pure, references drawn from credible sources.
Where is the dispute? I don't really see one.
This was going on in PMs for a while before I posted a new reference here. What is in question is whether or not black walnut hulls contain iodine. I gave one reference through a PM from the web showing an analysis of black walnut that showed a relatively high iodine content. So it was called not a credible source by the other poster since they claim that the black walnuts are grown in the goiter belt and therefore cannot contain iodine. But as I have pointed out to this person NUMEROUS times standard soil analysis is done with the surface soil, not the deeper subsoils since most commercial crops do not have roots that go that deep. So to claim that the trees with roots that go well beyond the surface soil and deep in to the subsoil cannot obtain iodine that has leached down in to the deeper soils is ridiculous. So I posted a second reference from the book Nutritional Herbology, which shows an iodine content of 15ppm, which is a significant amount. Yet despite two independent sources showing a significant amount of iodine they are still looking for excuses to ignore the fact that black walnut hull is a significant source of iodine. And it irritates me because if people don't want to hear the answers then they should not be asking the questions. It just wastes my time. It is like the old saying about trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.