Guest guest Posted March 19, 2002 Report Share Posted March 19, 2002 I've heard that ponds and streams roll over to cleanse themselves. Nothing scientific to back it up. Just folks that are aware of nature. Wanita At 06:29 PM 3/17/02 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>Second, pollution of any kind is handled in a remarkably different way >by >the ocean as opposed to freshwater bodies. The ocean is remarkable in >terms of regenerating itself in the wake of man made pollution disasters >despite what many environmental groups proclaim. >Suze Fisher >Web Design & Development ><http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/>http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/ ><mailto:cfisher@...>mailto:cfisher@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:29:01 -0500 " Suze Fisher " <cfisher@...> writes: >>>>I don't know the answer to your question but I do know that the levels of mercury in deep sea fish *has not* changed in the past 100 years or so. So the argument that we have more pollution now causing greater levels of mercury toxicity is fallacious in regards to saltwater fish. It is an assumption that has never been borne out by the facts. ***bianca, you are the second person to post about this. Are you referring to the same museum study that someone else referred to? The one UC references? If so, do you have any idea what the sample size was of that study? Also, do you know what type of mercury was found in the old specimens and what type is found in the same species of deep ocean fish today? ++++++ That is one study that makes reference to the level of mercury being constant. I also remember reading several other studies as well. I do not know the type of mercury found in deep sea fish today as opposed to then. That is a very good question. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think your question assumes the oceans are more polluted today than they were then. I'm not sure I buy that. Pollution, since the advent of the car, has greatly improved, and is one reason why we have seen a down turn of many of the diseases that once rampaged through our society. Conventional wisdom wants to lay this at the door of vaccines but I say improved sanitation and cleanliness are the more likely factor. Now however I think we are too hygienic, which has its own set of problems. >>>>Second, pollution of any kind is handled in a remarkably different way by the ocean as opposed to freshwater bodies. The ocean is remarkable in terms of regenerating itself in the wake of man made pollution disasters despite what many environmental groups proclaim. <snip> ****Do you recall any of the specifics on *how* the ocean cleans itself up? ++++++Unfortunately I do not but I imagine it wouldn't be to difficult to look up. What was remarkable to me at the time is to find scientists from both sides of the political spectrum agreeing on a very politically incorrect issue. I find this notion very interesting, but, I imagine the ocean's ability to *clean itself up* is finite. It has been found that many ocean fish contain toxins from industry other than mercury - PCBs, and dioxin come to mind. This is not just based on the work of environment groups either. I posted many links on this last week. Unless the various government agencies around the world and the environmental organizations are conspiring in a major scam to make the public think many ocean fish have unhealthy levels of various chemical compounds, ++++++++I don't think it is necessary for people or governments to consciously conspire to share a common but *wrong* position. Slavery comes to mind as an example. In our day the whole cholesterol issue is a perfect illustration. It is just a part of the warp and woof of the way people think. It is the establishment position and as such most work around the world will reflect that reality for economic, political and other reasons. This is one reason, according to Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that paradigm changes in a given field usually come from people outside of the field or who are in the field but working in obscurity on the fringes of that field. Most folks within the establishment have a vested interest in remaining there. Also I think many studies, particularly by political bodies, are unduly influenced by people who like to see the abolition of the consumption of animal products. It is always interesting what you find when you follow the money and look for repeating patterns. I can't help but think that human generated pollution has indeed caused many fish to carry toxic levels of these compounds. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it, as I'd love to eat more fish knowing that it's safe. And I bet I'm not the only one +++++++I think if it can be established that the level of pollution today is no worse than it was then, or that the mercury compounds in fish are the same as they were then, then we have a basis for retaining the status quo. I also would like to see some real numbers on people who get mercury poisoning from eating *deep sea fish*. I think the burden is on the researchers to show that indeed things have change functionally in terms of health. Bianca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 PH, We do eat fish. I buy cod, halibut, salmon and tilapia when I can, wild caught preferred. I think it is a good source of protein anyway. We also have a home near a lake in Utah, where we catch (and eat) brook and rainbow trout. I am a little more squeamish about that fish, but the lake is spring fed, so I think it is fairly safe. Pattyperfecthealth68 <perfecthealth68@...> wrote: Hi Patty and anyone else who had high levels of mercury - Through hair analysis, I had high mercury toxicity so had my amalgams removed. I was going to restest but I have to wait until my pubic hair grows (because I highlight my head hair and so can't use if for analysis). It's taking forever!! So, recntly I had a blood test for merc from a neurologist who said my blood levels were normal. I didn't see the results, he just gave this to me over the phone. Anyway, I was wondering if you eat fish now. I take cod liver oil daily for my EFAs but I miss fish so much and need variety in my diet. Did you stay away from fish or not? - PH Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Dr. Mercola has several good articles on fish: http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/25/mercury_fish.htmTricia Trish <glory2glory1401@...> wrote: PH, We do eat fish. I buy cod, halibut, salmon and tilapia when I can, wild caught preferred. I think it is a good source of protein anyway. We also have a home near a lake in Utah, where we catch (and eat) brook and rainbow trout. I am a little more squeamish about that fish, but the lake is spring fed, so I think it is fairly safe. Pattyperfecthealth68 <perfecthealth68 > wrote: Hi Patty and anyone else who had high levels of mercury - Through hair analysis, I had high mercury toxicity so had my amalgams removed. I was going to restest but I have to wait until my pubic hair grows (because I highlight my head hair and so can't use if for analysis). It's taking forever!! So, recntly I had a blood test for merc from a neurologist who said my blood levels were normal. I didn't see the results, he just gave this to me over the phone. Anyway, I was wondering if you eat fish now. I take cod liver oil daily for my EFAs but I miss fish so much and need variety in my diet. Did you stay away from fish or not? - PH Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.