Re: Toxicity

[Guest guest]

Interesting point about PCBs in farmed fish. But I do not think your

comment fairly reflects what that material in post 5363 said.

A) It sounds as if you are saying that fish farmers **USE** PCBs as

a nutrient or a treatment of some kind for the fish. I think it is

saying that somehow traces of PCBs find their way into the fish from

unknown sources.

Clearly PCBs are best avoided, but when it says 'contain ten

times as much as wild fish' I would ask: " But is ten times as much

significant? " How much is there in wild fish? If it were, say, one

part per trillion in wild fish and ten parts per trillion in farmed

fish, then, frankly, who cares?

C) If there is a lot in wild fish and even more in farmed fish, then

should we not be avoiding both the wild fish as well as the farmed?

The actual data, from a reputable independent source, and an opinion

as to the significance of the levels would be necessary before I

would feel comfortable that I understood the importance of the issue.

I did a Google search for " farm fish PCB " and in the first thirty

sources listed I did not see a single one where the link address

was 'xxx.edu' - which may tell us something, possibly. (I did not

bother to look beyond thirty).

As to the PCB levels - as you may know 'sea salt' is radioactive.

Regular table salt is not. So sea salt is not just ten times as

radioactive as regular salt, it is INFINITELY more radioactive.

Should you be worried about eating sea salt? No. No more so than

about eating regular salt. Do you see the analogy I am trying to

make here?

In other words we (I?) need more information.

Rodney.

--- In , " WTHarvey " <wtharvey.geo@y...>

wrote:

> ..................... Fish farmers routinely use

> PCBs ........... to keep fish free of disease

> (see post 5363) ...............

[Guest guest]

I am not sure if this will work. The following table, if it works,

shows the relative concentrations of PCBs in various foods.

The concentration in farmed salmon was 67 picograms per six ounce

serving. I do not know if reputable sources would regard that as

harmful or not. The chart shows that many foods contain PCBs, and

that there is more in farmed salmon than in the other foods for which

data is shown in the chart.

(Another relevant question is " who are 'The Environmental Working

Group'? " )

Now here goes. I hope the chart will print here:

http://www.ewg.org/reports/farmedPCBs/images/table_allfoods_470x500.gi

f

Rodney.

> > ..................... Fish farmers routinely use

> > PCBs ........... to keep fish free of disease

> > (see post 5363) ...............

[Guest guest]

My final post on this: That appears to be LESS THAN one part per

TRILLION for farmed salmon.

Rodney.

> > > ..................... Fish farmers routinely use

> > > PCBs ........... to keep fish free of disease

> > > (see post 5363) ...............

[Guest guest]

Rodney: aren't there other problems with farmed salmon? Less Omega 3's?

Also they are raised in outlandish conditions, such as swimming around in

their own feces infested water etc? I've been led to believe that wild

salmon is superior for such reasons. From Gifford's post # 8215:

...............Personally, I avoid farmed salmon for a host of reasons,

but mainly because they basically live in their own feces, are infested with

lice, and cause damage to wild runs (and besides, I prefer Pacific salmon,

whereas even farmed salmon in the Pacific are actually Atlantic breeds). I

believe (don't quote me) that they are associated with other health and

disease issues, but since I avoid farmed fish, I never bothered to follow it

up.

Cheers,

on 10/25/2003 3:14 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> My final post on this: That appears to be LESS THAN one part per

> TRILLION for farmed salmon.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:04 pm

Rodney" <perspect1111@y...> WROTE:

Interesting point about PCBs in farmed fish. But I do not think yourcomment fairly reflects what that material in post 5363 said.A) It sounds as if you are saying that fish farmers **USE** PCBs asa nutrient or a treatment of some kind for the fish. I think it issaying that somehow traces of PCBs find their way into the fish fromunknown sources.

Hi Rodney & ALL:

The 5363 message w/article is misleading or the quotation is where it's written:

"GUPTA: It's all part of the farming process. They actually raisethese farmed fish (with large numbers in pens) ... You actually haveto give them antibiotics. And a lot of the PCBs and toxins are allpart of the farming process that are used to try and keep these fishfree of disease.Daryn, they sometimes even inject fish like salmon with red dye orpink dye to make them look more pink, more like their wildcounterparts."

The sentence that is misleading is: And a lot of the PCBs and toxins are allpart of the farming process that are used to try and keep these fish free of disease.

Of course, PCBs & toxins should NOT be a part of the farming process "that are used to try and keep these fish free of disease". (How bizarre this is.)

The problem with farmed fish is the FEED that is used to nourish the fish is NOT regulated for PCB's ( & pesticides too) at high enough Quality Assurance Controls, so some Farmed Fish gets (dangerously) contaminated, IMO.

What's also NOT GOOD about Farmed Fish is the FA contents can be skewed so dramatically from norms that one is NOT eating anything close to comparable FA profiles of the same fish caught in the wild. (That article is misleading in that sense too, because it implies the FA profiles are not that different. This is not correct, because the feed source can skew the FA profiles dramatically from norms.)

We need something similar to Certified Organic Standards for Farmed Fish too, so one can be assured the feed is NOT contaminated by PCBs & pesticides too. For these reasons & some to follow below I would recommend never eating Farmed Fish on a monthly basis or more often. Perhaps eating Farmed Fish a few times per year MIGHT be safe playing the percentages or odds, but why not just make safer choices to begin with???

Clearly PCBs are best avoided, but when it says 'contain tentimes as much as wild fish' I would ask: "But is ten times as muchsignificant?" How much is there in wild fish? If it were, say, onepart per trillion in wild fish and ten parts per trillion in farmedfish, then, frankly, who cares?

Well, Dr. Walford does. In Walford's book B120D he refers to parts per billion. See chart page 79. Furthermore, on page 80 the question is posed... What levels of toxic residues is too much? Walford answers: ANY! (my emphasis) level is too high, (...but a certain amount cannot be avoided because of the environment in which we live.)

For this reason he recommends losing weight slowly over time.

I got into heated debate here a couple of years ago about how slow one should lose weight, I even lost my posting privileges over this debate, but I think Walford could easily be INCORRECT to suggest it's safe to lose weight faster than four to six years. (Four to six years were his original recommendations, which I emphasized further by stating Dr. Walford's daughter took 12 years to lose about 12 pounds. That's a pound a year folks!)

See page 78 where he offers a new range for weight loss of one to two years but as little as six months too.

I would disagree with these reduced time frame suggestions IF you have a lot of weight to lose (over 25 lbs) AND you ate-eat mostly NON-certified organic food. Why?

Because there is scientific research available now that states it takes about SIX YEARS for your body to break down PCBs. See Links:

http://tinyurl.com/scg6

http://tinyurl.com/jud3

or

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030210080251.htm

The actual data, from a reputable independent source, and an opinionas to the significance of the levels would be necessary before Iwould feel comfortable that I understood the importance of the issue.See my Walford quote about ANY level not being "safe" & also his reference on page 80 that IQ can be affected by slightly elevated levels of PCBs.

My suggestion would be to lose weight slower, take 3-6 years if more than 25+ lbs to lose, never yo-yo your weight up & down to avoid fat toxin releases, eat certified organic to reduce pesticide exposure, avoid farmed fish, eat better meat sources ( see http://www.eatwild.com ), AND give blood regularly, as often as possible, while losing weight. Probably giving blood after weight loss is a good idea too. (The idea being this will remove a percentage of toxins from your body.)

..