Fish you should not eat.
- Thread starter crazypipe
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Mercury, mercury, mercury... Realistically the levels found in predator fish havent changed in millenia and it hasnt stopped entire civilizations from evolving and progressing based on an almost solely fish diet. I have a VERY hard time taking too much of the health warning stuff seriously. I mean one year they tell you eating Beef is terrible for you then three or four years later they tell you it may save you from testicular cancer (or some other ailment that you dont tend worry about on a daily basis). They are just writing what they can so that they can actually publish something on their websites to keep them interesting and to keep people pinging it to keep their funding up. Personally, I'll eat whatever damned fish is on sale...
Butlpettibon, if you have an opinion please state it as such and not as fact. We have no way of knowing what mercury levels were a mellenia ago, so we can't compare. Scientist are usually funded through government grants and private citizens who are interested in the field of study, not popular opinions. Once a study is done the study goes through rigorous peer review by other organizations who have no financial attachment to the original study. This prevents anyone from just giving the results they want or what will catch headlines. Once all of this is done, the press is allowed access, where thanks to the nations small attention span and sensationalized news has to be converted to tid bits of extreme sounding information. The next time you question a study, read the readily available case study information. These researches sometimes spend decades trying to better understand the world and yes sometimes they are biased because of this and sometimes they are wrong, but they are improving you and I's understand of the world, so cut them some slack.
To be fair, you get studies such as the one that was done into secondhand smoke that was overturned for fabricated data by the Supreme Court. I'm not saying I want to huff secondhand smoke out of a paper bag but it ends up being matter of whether there is time and enough people to CARE to take it through the several year process to make it to any meaningful court system. Not to mention to go through all of that based on someones study of mercury levels? Its just not feasible.
What I was getting at was people eating fish for every meal for their entire lives even two hundred years ago such as Japan and Coastal China or a bit earlier in the Scandinavian regions were doing just fine (relatively speaking) could the mercury levels have risen so much so in EVERY FISH IN THE OCEAN that eating it once in awhile would really cause that much of an effect?
I'm not trying to lash out or argue, just talking over the issue.
What I was getting at was people eating fish for every meal for their entire lives even two hundred years ago such as Japan and Coastal China or a bit earlier in the Scandinavian regions were doing just fine (relatively speaking) could the mercury levels have risen so much so in EVERY FISH IN THE OCEAN that eating it once in awhile would really cause that much of an effect?
I'm not trying to lash out or argue, just talking over the issue.
The more time goes by the more it seems the truth doesn't matter much anymore. You can't trust a scientific study because of who is the one paying for the study. All that matters is someone wants an outcome based on what benefits them and then they pony up the millions to get what they want. If there is a study in there somewhere that tells the truth it gets lost in all the phony studies that benefit the one paying for the study. Oh yes, by the way I love fish and love fishing especially salmon fishing on the mercury contaminated Pacific coast. :lol:
Mustang, peer review by people who are not financially credited in any way has to be done before any study moved past a hypothesis, a lot of studies end here because they were paid to be bias. So yes you can trust any peer reviewed study and if you don't trust it GOOD! Look at the study, see the statistics for yourself make your own conclusions if they different than the one you read then submit your findings to be peer reviewed. That is the scientific process. Science is the pursuit of knowledge nothing more. To claim to have a blanket distrust of someone who gives there life to such a goal is just wrong.
Burl, yes people have and will eat fish, that fact alone isn't enough to say anything. You have to have a record of way percentage of their diet was fed from what fish from where in the ocean at what levels. Then monitor all those fish which no longer exist to see what there mercury level is and compare that to the percentage of population that had a variety of diseases associated with mercury then compared to now. It's impossible to say if mercury effected the Japanese culture then and almost impossible to see if mercury effects us now. If your really compassionate about the topic the actual research papers, done by researches of all opinions and walks of life from every country, are readily available online. Just don't read the dumbed down half truths of news articles. The truth resists simplicity and every issue is much to complicated to be explained in 3 paragraphs designed to take less than 2 minutes to read.
Burl, yes people have and will eat fish, that fact alone isn't enough to say anything. You have to have a record of way percentage of their diet was fed from what fish from where in the ocean at what levels. Then monitor all those fish which no longer exist to see what there mercury level is and compare that to the percentage of population that had a variety of diseases associated with mercury then compared to now. It's impossible to say if mercury effected the Japanese culture then and almost impossible to see if mercury effects us now. If your really compassionate about the topic the actual research papers, done by researches of all opinions and walks of life from every country, are readily available online. Just don't read the dumbed down half truths of news articles. The truth resists simplicity and every issue is much to complicated to be explained in 3 paragraphs designed to take less than 2 minutes to read.
I'm more worried about radioactivity from Japan (west coast location).
I can remember when cranberries were going to give you cancer and eggs were a death warrent. Everything in moderation is my motto.
I can remember when cranberries were going to give you cancer and eggs were a death warrent. Everything in moderation is my motto.
"Once a study is done the study goes through rigorous peer review by other organizations who have no financial attachment to the original study. This prevents anyone from just giving the results they want or what will catch headlines."
Can I come visit in lala land?
Can I come visit in lala land?
People feel badgered by health advice about food and many other environmental and health subjects. Two examples of foods
that have switched from near forbidden back into the healthy column are salt (only a small percent of people have a serious
problem with this despite the fearsome over-salting of canned goods and other foods), and eggs, which used to be the
cardio killer and are now a recommended diet item. Still, anger at food and health advice may be a self-defeating response.
Just keep your antenna up. Farmed fish need to be suspect because some are fed feed that isn't healthful for people who eat
the fish. Also, many species are overfished and endangered. I eat fish all the time, try to make enlightened and intelligent
choices, assume I don't always succeed, and hope I remain healthy despite the inevitable lapses. Don't feel you have to "jump"
every time someone does a study or posts advice online. But be glad people are paying attention and sharing opinion (and
sometimes actual information). Be skeptical, to a degree, about most advice. As Hamlet says, "So I have heard and do, in part,
believe."
that have switched from near forbidden back into the healthy column are salt (only a small percent of people have a serious
problem with this despite the fearsome over-salting of canned goods and other foods), and eggs, which used to be the
cardio killer and are now a recommended diet item. Still, anger at food and health advice may be a self-defeating response.
Just keep your antenna up. Farmed fish need to be suspect because some are fed feed that isn't healthful for people who eat
the fish. Also, many species are overfished and endangered. I eat fish all the time, try to make enlightened and intelligent
choices, assume I don't always succeed, and hope I remain healthy despite the inevitable lapses. Don't feel you have to "jump"
every time someone does a study or posts advice online. But be glad people are paying attention and sharing opinion (and
sometimes actual information). Be skeptical, to a degree, about most advice. As Hamlet says, "So I have heard and do, in part,
believe."
Speaking of fish, a coworker brought in Muller yogurt for breakfast the other day. Reading the ingredients showed that it had tilapia in it. I mean, what the heck, its yogurt.
I am often suspicious of news items - after all they are in the business of selling stories. Still, with fukushima and reports of mountains of garbage and pollutants, oil slicks, the Gulf of Mexico... There's even an "island of plastic" the size of Texas floating in the ocean. Then consider all of the mass strandings of dolphins and whales and you can be sure our oceans are plenty sick.
This story below also offers serious implications:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/
This story below also offers serious implications:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/
- Status