Eating Lake O Salmoniods

[bigturk_80]

Here's a good report titled "up to the gills" put out in 2009. Read it, and make your own informed decision.

http://environmentaldefence.ca/sites/de ... 0Final.pdf

[J.D.]

I have the same opinion as TCON, I have never seen a news story or read a DEC report about any human becoming ill or diseased from eating great lakes fish..

[Capt Vince Pierleoni]

The fact is, cold water fish like Salmonoids are one of the few foods that can actually REVERSE heart disease. Moderation is always the key, but it's pretty well known that the risks are no more than eating ocean fish, and definitely safer than farm raised fish.

[Knotlost]

How much common sense would it take for the people testing fish to say "lets do a test that will realistically determine how much is actually being eaten by people". I'm talking about not testing bones, organs, skin, just clean well prepared meat with the veins and fat properly removed. The test i have read about cant possibly be accurate for the guy eating fish. The idea they mix it and separate it would only fool the most ignorant of readers. The second the fats and organs are mixed with meat the test is contaminated and worthless.

It seems to me that would be a nature test to make along with the other testing for real world results, by a group supposedly concerned with the effects of pollution. I understand it would not directly reflect on the heath of the lake, granted, but it would never the less be a very important test.

If these types of tests have never been done, then I question the the general intelligence of those running the programs.

Now no where do I ever find a test like that posted, ever! I for one do not believe they have never been done, but have been done and the results just not posted. Why would they not...

1. Perform that test.

2. Post that test results.

I can think of many answers but they all come back to the same motivation, job security and fear of loosing support on the testers behalf.

I hope im wrong and the test are out there, but I sure would like to see them.

[TyeeTanic]

I think I read in the "Up to the Gills'" report that the fish samples are actually a slice of meet taken from the fillet - and not the entire fish.

[Tim Bromund]

IMO, the Canadian health advisories and "reports" that I have read are nothing more than way over the top, excessive CYA statements.

I think you'd be hard pressed the find any Doctor, even one North of the border that won't tell you that the health benefits from eating these properly cleaned, Omega 3 rich fish, far outweigh the negligible risk from some residual trace chemical contaminants, especially in light of the fact that the farm raised and/or canned stuff you get in the Supermaket is far more contaminated.

Sure does make the hardcore C&R Nazis think they have an excuse to look down on and feel superior to us fish killing barbarians that actually keep and eat some of the fish they catch though.

Tim

[Knotlost]

I read the "UP to the Gills" and saw no such statement, can you point to the location?

[bigturk_80]

I like that the "up to the gills" report covers both sides of the argument too. I mean, it's not telling you to stop eating fish, it clearly says it's beneficial to eat fish. I think it's just saying moderation.

Other than paying for your own private test of fish you have cleaned, no body will be able to tell you if it's safe or not safe. I'm sure every other food we eat is contaminated with the same compounds to some extent.

It is pretty alarming to read just how much volume of toxins are flowing into those lakes every day though, especially that one reference to mercury. Hard to believe that much mercury makes it into the water.

I eat fish whenever I feel like eating fish. I choose not to give it to my little guy, but that's a personal choice.

[dreamsteelie]

Good topic and discussion going here:

Here's my take.

1. There are many more articles claiming that eating fish far outweigh the LONG TERM risks. These have all been written by very credible sources.

2. What most don't know is that these warnings of 1 meal per month etc.. are based on 60 years of continual consumption at that rate.

3. Many of the fish tested are in the whole and not just the edible part of the fillet.

4. The State or governmental agencies MUST post warnings (conservatives ones) to Cover Thy Butt.. So they do...

5. It has been reported that consuming a diet beverage is FAR more harmful that eating fish.

6. What you don't know is that beef have very similar test results. The runoffs, atmospheric conditions that deposit toxins in the water also deposit them on the ground where cattle graze.

Our sport fishing association in Erie, PA pays to have steelhead and walleye tested on a bi-annual basis. An independent lab does PCB and Mercury testing on them. Now granted, they are from Erie and not Ontario but the results are Minimal=eat as much as you want. The same monthly warnings are issued on both Lakes so one can assume, they "may" have similar toxin levels.

I got into this whole thing years ago and did hours of research and read many, many studies. I cross referenced the articles, FDA levels, etc.. with our results as well as others. WHY?? Because I wanted to better educate myself as well as feel better about feeding those same fish to my children (I did not want to be guilty of NUKING them )

End result=we eat lots of fish.

There is a lot of viewable data on the right sites. You will see that Ocean fish and shell fish have far more toxins in them than Great Lake fish.

So eat fish and have a

Captain Pete

Vision Quest

[idn713]

dreamsteelie- great post!