Some Rather strange soil test results

For background to this thread, read this one first. Permies heavy metal in urban fill

I just got back my basic soil test results. (The non-heavy metal test I ordered before I realized I should test for other heavy metals, not just lead.)

Lead was 2.9 ppm. Since lead is this low, should I just not worry about the other heavy metals? (this is only in the surface soil, which may not be as affected by fill six inches down, depending on the history of the site, which we just can't figure out.)

Soil tested used a Modified Morgan extractable, if that makes any difference.

Soil pH was 7.8. Expected.

The soil is over the top in many nutrients, and sufficient in all except nitrogen. Here are the results. P 80 ppm, K 1011 ppm, Ca 6641, Mg 448 ppm, Sulfur 63 ppm, Maganese 10 ppm, Zinc 7.6, and Copper 1 ppm.

What do excesses of this sort mean as far as soil toxicity and plant growth, and what do they mean as far as my heavy metal situation?

I suppose I should worry only about the anionic heavy metals, arsenic, molybdenum, selenium, and boron, since the cationic heavy metals will be totally bound up by the high pH and Phosphorus?

But that is just my understanding. Correct me if I am wrong.

I do find contradictory information at least about boron and arsenic; some say high pH makes it available, others say low pH

For small plot use raised beds with no ground contact. If you have large acreage you can expand the raised beds over time. Any other way is extreamly exspensive. Many problems of contamination require things to become solluable to the plant for it to uptake the substance into its structure. Yet are you willing to chance your health and your families health? Ingestion is ingestion regardless of how the contaminant gets into you. If the plant does not take it into its structure but is just coated in it (potatos for example) would you still want to ingest it? Raised beds no ground contact. New soil that you control the creation of. These ways are the ways to be assured.