| Pages:
1
2
3 |
bajarich
Nomad
Posts: 463
Registered: 1-13-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
High Mercury Level from Fish
I have spent the last three winters fishing on the East Cape. I usually catch and eat a lot of Sierra along with other fish, but my staple is Sierra.
I eat it at least once a day, usually a good size fillet or two for dinner.
I was curious about my mercury level and when I returned to Salt Lake and, in April there was a free mercury screening sponsored by Greenpeace. They
were trying to correlate mercury levels with environmental sources. I was more interested in just finding out about my particular mercury level.
When I got my results, I found that I had about 10 times the mercury in by body than my wife who has been spending only two weeks per winter with me.
The results of the Greenpeace study showed that the people who showed high mercury levels were people who ate fish more that twice a week.
Have any of you Baja fisherman been screened for Mercury?
I may have picked it up somewhere else, but eating a lot of fish is the most logical conclusion, especially because I eat so much of it, mostly in
Baja.
|
|
|
Al G
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wondering what is next???
|
|
BajaRich,
Do you think Greenpeace has an agenda?
Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....
The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
|
|
|
Frank
Senior Nomad
Posts: 861
Registered: 6-5-2005
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Is it time to leave yet?
|
|
I thought it was just me thinking that.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Wonder why the media never made a big deal about the Greenpeace ship smashing and destroying part of a living coral reef?
Are the fish you eat coming from an industrial area that dumps mercury? Where on the peninsula or Cortez coast is such an industry?
We used sierra for bait to catch good stuff... my family never ate the dark oily fish.
[Edited on 2-23-2006 by David K]
|
|
|
Sonora Wind
Nomad
Posts: 228
Registered: 9-25-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sierra are not
Dark and oiliy. They are light and make great fish tacos. Some of the best eating in the baja. But I too have high merc, just cann't give up the
great fish.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
OK, then I am thinking of something else that was called 'Sierra Mackerel'...? Also used to make ceviche, yes?
I will check out Gene Kira's site or book...
Ok, I see that Sierra and Mackerel are not the same... Who says you don't learn something new everyday!
Thanks Sonora Wind!
[Edited on 2-23-2006 by David K]
|
|
|
Paula
Super Nomad
Posts: 2219
Registered: 1-5-2006
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
The FDA reccomends limiting yourself to two fish meals, or 12 ounces of fish per week.
From my reading about a healthy diet, I assume that the two meals per week guideline is good advice, and it is a good idea to balance the benefits of
fish with the hazards of mercury accumulation.
In general, shellfish is safer than other seafood.
It's a shame-- fish is sooooo good.
|
|
|
Bruce R Leech
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6796
Registered: 9-20-2004
Location: Ensenada formerly Mulege
Member Is Offline
Mood: A lot cooler than Mulege
|
|
I wouldn't believe anything to do with Greenpeace
Bruce R Leech
Ensenada
 |
|
|
gringorio
Senior Nomad
Posts: 812
Registered: 4-10-2004
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Member Is Offline
|
|
of course
of course Greenpeace has an agenda. but the idea that pelagic fish accumulate mercury is not a new idea and not one first reported by Greenpeace. it
was first reported by *scientists* who studied the fish.
so, where did the mercury come from and how did it end up in the fish? well, it comes from pollution that is taken up by small organisms that are
then eaten by large organisms and the mercury accumulates at the higher tropic levels - the fish you eat.
so yea, Greenpeace has an agenda: eat fewer fish for your own wellbeing and recognize that we are polluting entire ecosystems which harms all the
organisms, including us.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Al G
BajaRich,
Do you think Greenpeace has an agenda? |
|
|
|
gringorio
Senior Nomad
Posts: 812
Registered: 4-10-2004
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Member Is Offline
|
|
Did you know that Greenpeace was the first group (1975) to bring national attention to Russian whaling ships killing California grey whales right off
the California coast?
Think about that next time you see Grey whales off Baja...
gringorio
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
I wouldn't believe anything to do with Greenpeace |
|
|
|
djh
Senior Nomad
Posts: 936
Registered: 1-2-2005
Location: Earth mostly. Loreto, N. ID, Big Island
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow fellow, plays a yellow cello...
|
|
Coincidentally....
Priest Lake, North Idaho, the cleanest large lowland lake in the US.... last check about a hundred of the lake cabins still drink unfiltered lake
water ! ! !
And the fish......
Mercury... Just reported in today's newspaper. Highly oligotrophic lake - no mining.
And the source? Initial suspicion by the state scientists doing the fish studies (a good fish biologist and an old friend).... mercury fallout from
air pollution....
This is happenning in salt and fresh water bodies all over that were thought to be safe from typical pollution sources.
You can like Greenpeace or not. You can ignore the mercury levels or not...
Its all just stuff and some numbers.
A day spent sailing isn\'t deducted from one\'s life.
Peace, Love, and Music
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
Nobody ignores mercury levels for long...because it won't ignore you. Bordering ND and MN, The Red River of the North flows northward into huge 400
mile-long Lake Winnepeg, carrying high mercury levels from the prairie farmland states of the central US. Thanks to our earlier farming methods and
industrial plant run-offs into the watershed. The Assinaboine and Cree natives in particular, who live along Lake Winnepeg have a very high mercury
level in their bodies...a dangerous level. Eating a lot of fish coming out of the Red River these days is not recommended...nor has it been for over
20 years now. This situation is not an anomaly...mercury in varying amounts is present almost everywhere today. It is the price of the Industrial
Age, I suppose?
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
bajarich
Nomad
Posts: 463
Registered: 1-13-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
I can't find anything on the internet that tells you how much mercury is too much in parts per million. I know it is much worse for pregnant women,
and that too much can cause you to go crazy.
Maybe that's why I'm crazy about Baja.
|
|
|
turtleandtoad
Senior Nomad
Posts: 730
Registered: 1-20-2005
Location: Wherever I park. See sig for current location.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good if fishing
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajarich
I can't find anything on the internet that tells you how much mercury is too much in parts per million. I know it is much worse for pregnant women,
and that too much can cause you to go crazy.
Maybe that's why I'm crazy about Baja. |
1ppm according to the FDA.
See FDA Mercury in fish
Mike & Robin; Full-Time RV\'ers
37\' Georgetown w/3 slides & 275 Watts of Solar Power
06 Taco TRD
www.turtleandtoad.com
I am here
To paraphrase Frank Lloyd Wright; I\'m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let\'s start with keyboards. --
Mike Dean |
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Does anyone on this board know when or at what Level Mercury causes illness or Death???
My Son-in Law did his Diseceration{SP} on the Mercury Level below a Plant on the Tennesee River. He is now one of thos PHD People.
Mercury and some things have been banned from the States such as Metholate{Which I have to buy in Baja". It is one of the Best or The Best for small
cuts that can be used.
I was told by mySon-in-law that I wouldnot be able to get enough mercury in my system unless I drank a bottle a week for the rest of my Life.
I suspect there should be some accruate informtion{Not from GreenPeace}" about the Truth of Mercury.
Was that not the same Scare about Cranberries??
Skeet/Loreto
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
You are right on, Skeet. Per current levels of contamination in our general natural surroundings, a 2006 human being would have eat vast quantities
for that person to die from mercury poisoning. But it is this start of an escalating and alarming trend that worries most.
I too, would be interested in reading any information put forth on the exact levels and amounts ingested that would be fatal.
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
sancho
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2524
Registered: 10-6-2004
Location: OC So Cal
Member Is Offline
|
|
What's with the anti Greenpeace sentiment?
This coming from some of the Old Baja Hands
including The Patriarch, you guys also
against the Surfrider Foundation?
These stewards of the oceans who make
an attempt at preserving whales, trying to
reduce drift nets, longlines other
indescrimate fishing methods, you fellows
who claim to love Baja, does that
not include the water around it?
Who's your next rant against?
Jacques Cousteau?
|
|
|
capn.sharky
Senior Nomad
Posts: 686
Registered: 9-4-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
David K. Sierra Mackeral are the same as Sierra. The Sierra is a smaller (much smaller) version of the Wahoo. Tastes about the same to me. Very
good in tacos or ensalada. Great little fighters on light tackle but watch out for their teeth. They (like the wahoo) have razors for teeth.
If there is no fishing in heaven, I am not going
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Another ShortStory;
In 1968 we would go out Southof Coronoda Ilsa ,troll a small white Feather and catch Sierra and use for Bait for some very Large Yellows.
Anything left over we use for Cerviche{ I think it is the best }
In all of the Areas the yellowtail would follow the Sierra into the Beach and comsume them in Large Quanitys.
In 1976 the Ferterlizer Boats came in and took all the sierra out.. It is taking years to for them to come back, but they are coming Back.!!
Sancho
There are some people who like the things that Greenpeae is trying to do. It is their Methods and "In your Face' antics that are causing people to
distrust them.
Commom Sense tells you that If people will use the tatics they use then Lying is also included. Very si,miliar to P.E.T.A. The Sierra Club etc.
To do all their things they need money,so they Color and Spin the negatives to get the Donors to send money so that they can "Live High of the Hog on
other peopls Money.
They could use some lessons in "Salesmandship".Confrontation is not the Only way to get things done.
If everything was stopped like no more Fish, No more Chicken, no more BEEf, then the only meat that would be left would be YOU!!!
Rhink about it. everyone does not want to be a Veggie.
What doe you suggest ?????
Skeet/Loreto
|
|
|
gringorio
Senior Nomad
Posts: 812
Registered: 4-10-2004
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Member Is Offline
|
|
This is a long one...
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pompano
You are right on, Skeet. Per current levels of contamination in our general natural surroundings, a 2006 human being would have eat vast quantities
for that person to die from mercury poisoning. But it is this start of an escalating and alarming trend that worries most.
I too, would be interested in reading any information put forth on the exact levels and amounts ingested that would be fatal. |
Well, I don't think it's the 'fatal' part that is bad. It's what it does to your (or any organisms) brain and nervous system. That's partly why
they warn pregnant women and children to stay away from it or limit consumption of fish that may have high levels.
As for the comments by Skeet and others about not trusting enviro organizations I have to suggest: Think about what we would *not* have if it wasn't
for their efforts alone and also their efforts combined with local citizens and scientists. Sure, people will 'spin' things to adjust them to their
agenda (Even the Blue Ribbon Coalition does that), but wouldn't you rather act (or have your government act) in a way that takes into account
ecological priorities that ultimately sustain human life? I believe this is what is at the heart of many (not all) environmentally oriented
campaigns.
gringorio
Here's more to consider:
from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss2/resp7/
Costanza (2000) has solicited the participation of his readers. In furtherance of his goal (and my own goal of promoting brevity on the Internet) I
offer the following observations for the consideration of Costanza and others.
To the degree that wealth is gained by exploiting earth resources, that wealth may be expected to decline along with, and at a similar (related)
trajectory, of the exploited resource. But indirect damage to ecosystems and earth structures upon which they depend may be a more potent force for
destruction and extinction than direct exploitation?much like "incidental take" on a grand scale.
The problem with consensus is that it is by definition an average, appealingly democratic, but not necessarily, nay, unlikely, to be the optimum path
toward a future that can sustain both a dynamically stable world (or local) ecosystem and a cash/credit economy with excess at its core.
Opinions are by definition connected to perceived individual self-interest. "Expert" opinion may be little better, sometimes far worse, than
"inexpert" opinion. A nuclear scientist, for example, may persist in the opinion that technology will someday be developed to neutralize nuclear
wastes; an inhabitant of a remote tribal/barter economy may believe that he/she needs an Internet connection to market his/her art work. There is a
kind of seductive optimism in both positions; neither may foster a better world in the long run; either, to some extent, may--at least temporarily.
That is to say that most "public judgments" will require the application of principles through a continuous process that questions those judgments?and
the principles themselves. Opinions are adversarial; seeking a common truth in the recognition that all opinions share both truth and error and
contain independent error and truth is more intellectually and scientifically defensible. This is the essence of intellectual discipline, and it can
be learned; it can supplant winner-take-all debate and adversarial "law." To attempt to secure unanimity, even with public policy power, is a Gordian
Knot of infinite proportions.
Resolving the conflicts is a large enough chore, but by what means and by what standard is "judgment" to be defined?
Regardless of the time remaining before the "ultimate" point of no return is reached, it should be at least theoretically possible to move the "ship"
(Tyson 2000a) of destiny toward betterment and away from disaster by adding increments of reasoned judgment and action at all levels?personal, group,
community, state. It is also possible to transcend such rigid hierarchical structures by emphasizing interconnected strands of relevance across them.
Conservation Ecology is an exemplary example. It is perhaps no accident that "Internet" and "Worldwide Web," like those superior structures woven by
eight-eyed arthropods, are a combination of superior strength and resilience. It may similarly be no accident that when they do break, their weavers
simply keep weaving.
"The vision thing" has been discussed elsewhere in this Journal (Holling 1999, Tyson 2000b) but suffice it to say that vision needs to be organic and
dynamic, continuously adjusting itself as the uncertainty principle does its work, much as organisms and ecosystems do. One need look no further for
an "appropriate" model.
It may be necessary and desirable to accept "irreducible uncertainty" as a norm rather than an obstacle. Movement toward betterment that has organic,
ecological origins may beat "appropriate analysis" and "innovative implementation" in the long run.
Certainly a cooperative, precautionary "policy" is preferable to a competitive zero-sum game that is more "rational," since both rationality and
policy have dismal records of performance. Something quite different in the human psyche is likely to be a precondition for these pop-philosophy
elements to produce the "intended" result. Perhaps just as religions grew out of the parables of oracles to amuse and guide the distracted masses in
the early days of civilization, a network of common, interconnected webs of new eternal verities will be needed to move world religions and secular
thought into an integrated whole. Christianity and Islam can be honestly interpreted as requiring a respect for the Earth and its life, and secularism
should welcome an enlightenment consistent with its own principles. Ultimately the final power and decision rests within each individual, not a
universally "shared vision." The real challenge is to imbue the disparate expressions of uncertainty-fear with an invisible shared web of principle
common to all.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
