Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Thanks, Just to set the record straight, I am not singling out BC (besides, I love BC--I was born there). If I'm not mistaken, Washington State, and many other places are involved in this. But places with wild salmon habitat should be doing more to protect their stocks and spawning grounds (Alaska is definitely not exempted from this statement) instead of rolling over to big business. In Alaska, we give our trees and oil away to big corporations for nearly nothing. And indiscriminate logging destroys salmon habitat as much or more than anything. I eat a lot of wild salmon, and hope to be able to keep it part of my CRON diet for many years to come. Rob > Hey Rob, > > If it's any consolation, BC residents have been vehemently lobbying the > government to end the farming as well, and it was officially on a moratorium > under the previous NDP government (ie: left wing). Unfortunately, we (I'm > in Alberta now) got stuck with a provincial government that controls all but > one seat in the legislature (very right wing), and that government is in the > back pocket of big business, so until the next election, we're all up a > creek... > > Cheers, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Surely a place like BC would be the place to do it to minimize pollutants? But maybe not heavy metals? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gifford Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 7:37 PM Subject: RE: [ ] Farmed Salmon Hey Rob,If it's any consolation, BC residents have been vehemently lobbying thegovernment to end the farming as well, and it was officially on a moratorium under the previous NDP government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Big business comes about from demand and other things like wild salmon restricted to ethnic uses. Washington does promote wild salmon culture, but there are just so many rivers not bound with dams. Just in Issaquah there had to be millions of fish spawned for "natural" release. We EAT too much of it. If we converted everyone to fish we'd eat the entire European fish production. I don't eat salmon either way, but I am quite against "COLOR ADDED" fish for sure. Why does some nut case think we need to add color? How about adding something to remove the pollutants? The final answer when resources are squeezed is converting to some other resource, not legislation and certainly not blaming it on legislators. Mother nature will cure all. Just because Eskimos live such and such, does not a reason make for me eating salmon. If it's oil, use the caps - the req't is a miniscule cost of the resource, because it comes from the part that everyone throws away - the skin. If someone thinks there is some "magic" ingredient in fish then they need to find it and synthesize it. The only reason people converting to fish will live MAYBE longer, is they stop eating red meat. We don't NEED to eat either one. I noticed a slab of the pink crap next to a t-bone was several dollars cheaper now. 3.79 versus 7.99. Who are they kidding? 3.79 is to much for cat food. Get real. (my pressure's a little high today). Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: mrbosco77 Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:14 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Farmed Salmon Thanks, Just to set the record straight, I am not singling out BC (besides, Ilove BC--I was born there). If I'm not mistaken, Washington State,and many other places are involved in this. But places with wildsalmon habitat should be doing more to protect their stocks andspawning grounds (Alaska is definitely not exempted from thisstatement) instead of rolling over to big business.In Alaska, we give our trees and oil away to big corporations fornearly nothing. And indiscriminate logging destroys salmon habitat asmuch or more than anything.I eat a lot of wild salmon, and hope to be able to keep it part of myCRON diet for many years to come. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 As I understand it the Physicians Health Study found that fish oil supplements had no effect at all (positive or negative) on heart health of study participants. Yet from my own experiments (on myself) I have found a dramatic decline (~50%) in triglycerides (from a level that was not high in the first place) when I eat a small amount of fish daily. I have repeated this test three times now. The results have been consistent. From this I conclude that IT IS NOT THE OIL IN THE FISH THAT HAS THE BENEFICIAL PROPERTIES. It appears to me that it must be some other component in the fish. fwiw Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > Big business comes about from demand and other things like wild salmon restricted to ethnic uses. Washington does promote wild salmon culture, but there are just so many rivers not bound with dams. Just in Issaquah there had to be millions of fish spawned for " natural " release. We EAT too much of it. If we converted everyone to fish we'd eat the entire European fish production. I don't eat salmon either way, but I am quite against " COLOR ADDED " fish for sure. Why does some nut case think we need to add color? How about adding something to remove the pollutants? > > The final answer when resources are squeezed is converting to some other resource, not legislation and certainly not blaming it on legislators. Mother nature will cure all. Just because Eskimos live such and such, does not a reason make for me eating salmon. If it's oil, use the caps - the req't is a miniscule cost of the resource, because it comes from the part that everyone throws away - the skin. If someone thinks there is some " magic " ingredient in fish then they need to find it and synthesize it. The only reason people converting to fish will live MAYBE longer, is they stop eating red meat. We don't NEED to eat either one. > I noticed a slab of the pink crap next to a t-bone was several dollars cheaper now. 3.79 versus 7.99. Who are they kidding? 3.79 is to much for cat food. Get real. > (my pressure's a little high today). > > Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mrbosco77 > > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:14 PM > Subject: [ ] Re: Farmed Salmon > > > > Thanks, > > Just to set the record straight, I am not singling out BC (besides, I > love BC--I was born there). If I'm not mistaken, Washington State, > and many other places are involved in this. But places with wild > salmon habitat should be doing more to protect their stocks and > spawning grounds (Alaska is definitely not exempted from this > statement) instead of rolling over to big business. > > In Alaska, we give our trees and oil away to big corporations for > nearly nothing. And indiscriminate logging destroys salmon habitat as > much or more than anything. > > I eat a lot of wild salmon, and hope to be able to keep it part of my > CRON diet for many years to come. > > Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I've talked to others with similar anecdotal data and I don't question the value of individual experiments. I've read at least one article favorable from a prostate cancer POV, but the question remains what characteristic could it be? Some special amino acid, protein? Maybe it's the mercury (no joke)? Not to belittle the value of lower trigs, I'm not sure that lowering trigs is a good criteria for eating fish or a good measurement of the value of eating fish. I can lower trigs dramatically with niacin. "Eating fish more than three times per week was associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer, and the strongest association was for metastatic cancer (multivariate relative risk, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.86, compared with infrequent consumption, i.e., less than twice per month). PMID: 12540506 Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Jan;12(1):64-7" "Despite the many epidemiologic studies that have been published, the evidence from those studies remains unclear. Most of the studies did not show an association between fish consumption or marine fatty acid intake and the risk of hormone-related cancers. PMID: 12600840 Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Mar;77(3):532-43" I also think eating fish is probably better than beef, but eating neither may be better yet. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Farmed Salmon As I understand it the Physicians Health Study found that fish oil supplements had no effect at all (positive or negative) on heart health of study participants.Yet from my own experiments (on myself) I have found a dramatic decline (~50%) in triglycerides (from a level that was not high in the first place) when I eat a small amount of fish daily. I have repeated this test three times now. The results have been consistent.From this I conclude that IT IS NOT THE OIL IN THE FISH THAT HAS THE BENEFICIAL PROPERTIES. It appears to me that it must be some other component in the fish. fwiwRodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > As I understand it the Physicians Health Study found that fish oil > supplements had no effect at all (positive or negative) on heart > health of study participants. > In at least one study, Fish oil supplements (1 gram/day) were found to reduce the risk of sudden death in heart attack survivors: http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/CHNReports/fattyacids_suddendeath.h tml Clyde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 It looks as if my 8560 post was not completely accurate. The following likely is accurate, from Clyde's link. (Thanks Clyde): " A prior study, the Physicians' Health Study, found that fish consumption is associated with a reduced risk of sudden death from cardiac causes, but not with a reduced risk of heart attack. Researchers have theorized that n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids found in fish may be responsible for this association. Experimental data from studies in animals suggest that these n-3 fatty acids have antiarrhythmic properties. A recent randomized trial testing supplements (1 gram/day) of these n- 3 fatty acids in survivors of heart attack found a 45 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death, with no effect on the risk of nonfatal heart attack. " > > As I understand it the Physicians Health Study found that fish oil > > supplements had no effect at all (positive or negative) on heart > > health of study participants. > > > > In at least one study, Fish oil supplements (1 gram/day) were found > to reduce the risk of sudden death in heart attack survivors: > > http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/CHNReports/fattyacids_suddendeath.h > tml > > Clyde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 I believe seafood is also a source of vit D. Which some suggest we could use more of, especially in winter months. JR -----Original Message----- From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:07 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Farmed Salmon It looks as if my 8560 post was not completely accurate. The following likely is accurate, from Clyde's link. (Thanks Clyde): " A prior study, the Physicians' Health Study, found that fish consumption is associated with a reduced risk of sudden death from cardiac causes, but not with a reduced risk of heart attack. Researchers have theorized that n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids found in fish may be responsible for this association. Experimental data from studies in animals suggest that these n-3 fatty acids have antiarrhythmic properties. A recent randomized trial testing supplements (1 gram/day) of these n- 3 fatty acids in survivors of heart attack found a 45 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death, with no effect on the risk of nonfatal heart attack. " > > As I understand it the Physicians Health Study found that fish oil > > supplements had no effect at all (positive or negative) on heart > > health of study participants. > > > > In at least one study, Fish oil supplements (1 gram/day) were found > to reduce the risk of sudden death in heart attack survivors: > > http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/CHNReports/fattyacids_suddendeath.h > tml > > Clyde 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.