RE: Ocean Pollutants (was calcium content of oysters)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/1/04 2:08:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Yeah, I read something to that regard also. The other

> thing about molluscs is that they pick a LOT of stuff

> up from the water (like pollutants and lead and mercury).

>

On the other hand, the oceans have always contained a pretty much constant

amount of mercury and other things we consider pollutants, aside from localized

areas polluted by industry. And Price found shellfish to be sacred foods

among many of his subjects, yet they had vibrant health.

The Inuit ate whale often, which couldn't possibly at any point in history be

anything other than absolutely loaded with mercury. So that makes me wonder

about this issue. Perhaps mercury and lead are only harmful in those

quantities when minerals and other protective factors are deficient? Perhaps

this is

analagous to the plant phenomenon Suze recently mentioned?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/04 6:20:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> wow..that could be an epiphany...very, very interesting idea. i hadn't

> extrapolated it to the mercury in seafood issue. but if the concept is true,

> then it would make sense that a well mineralized body wouldn't absorb much

> mercury from mercury-laden seafood.

Well to *some* degree it *has* to be true by basic laws of chemistry,

physics, and probability. If you stick your hand into a jar once a minute to

pick

out a chip, and I do the same, and there are 10 blue chips in each of our jars,

but 100 red ones in mine and 200 red ones in yours, I'm going to accumulate

blue chips at twice the rate you will, even though we have the same amount.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>The Inuit ate whale often, which couldn't possibly at any point in

>history be

>anything other than absolutely loaded with mercury. So that makes

>me wonder

>about this issue. Perhaps mercury and lead are only harmful in those

>quantities when minerals and other protective factors are

>deficient? Perhaps this is

>analagous to the plant phenomenon Suze recently mentioned?

wow..that could be an epiphany...very, very interesting idea. i hadn't

extrapolated it to the mercury in seafood issue. but if the concept is true,

then it would make sense that a well mineralized body wouldn't absorb much

mercury from mercury-laden seafood.

i wonder if that would go for mercury fillings as well?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>> wow..that could be an epiphany...very, very interesting idea. i hadn't

>> extrapolated it to the mercury in seafood issue. but if the

>concept is true,

>> then it would make sense that a well mineralized body wouldn't

>absorb much

>> mercury from mercury-laden seafood.

>

>Well to *some* degree it *has* to be true by basic laws of chemistry,

>physics, and probability. If you stick your hand into a jar once

>a minute to pick

>out a chip, and I do the same, and there are 10 blue chips in each

>of our jars,

>but 100 red ones in mine and 200 red ones in yours, I'm going to

>accumulate

>blue chips at twice the rate you will, even though we have the same amount.

that assumes that the body *arbitrarily* picks minerals from the supply it's

provided. therefore it doesn't seem analogous to plants (in the brix

thread), which seem to *selectively* choose what they need. if living

organisms *arbitrarily* selected nutrients from the given supply, i can't

imagine how any of us would be alive today. my understanding is that plants

and animals *selectively* absorb what they require to function properly, not

*arbitrarily* absorb whatever happens to be in the brew they consume.

i don't recall the specifics of your idea that i was responding to, but i

thought it was that high mercury in seafood *in and of itself* is not the

determining factor in how much one absorbs, but rather the person's nutrient

status at the time they consume it. similar to the " terrain vs. germ "

theory, basically - if i've got what i need, i'm not going to absorb toxins,

if i've got what i need i'm not going to get sick) unless viruses come in

for toxic waste clean up, of course ;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>