Would you eat seafood from the Gulf of Mexico now?

[CHK91]

I ask because a lot of gulf seafood seems to come into Texas. I'm usually not too worried about mercury or other contaminants in fish, but this is different I think. The millions of gallons of oil is one thing but the toxic dispersant is another. The government says its safe, but I don't really ever trust our government . The rapid continuation of fishing and the weak economy makes me suspicious. Humans tend to be greedy and whenever the economy is bad, the people in charge are willing to stimulate it as soon as possible without looking at long term consequences.

[Snowflower]

I cannot vote because you don't have a time period long enough to submit a vote. I would not ever, in my lifetime, eat a bite of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. They have killed the gulf and potentially have killed the oceans of the world, and potentially - the species of oxygen breathing mammals as a result.

[CHK91]

Yeah. I'll probably get seafood from the north pacific or Canada for the time being.

Damn it... I bought a Spanish Mackerel thinking it was from Spain last night. I recently learned that it lives in the Gulf of Mexico and migrates through the exact area of the oil spill. I guess I'll stick with Alaskan salmon then.

[TylerDurden]

There is a horrible, twisted impulse that affects us humans from time to time, and urges us to sanitise everything, and unnecessarily make it ultra-safe, whether in terms of food or housing or anything else. While it is very occasionally beneficial, it is now a modern curse. We now have the Health and Safety Executive in the UK banning little boys from playing with conkers due to "safety" concerns,  and schools routinely banning countryside activities for fear that they will get sued if a pupil has an accident, and so on. Then there's the EU with their draconian attempts to ban UK weights and measures and their recent banning of herbal-medicine products etc.

As regards the rawpalaeodiet, there is sometimes too much excessive worry by many newbies about raw animal foods, though perhaps understandable given the media-driven hysteria on the subject(heck, when I first started, I too thought I was going to die eventually  from food-poisoning, and other foolishness).

 So, we constantly hear about the mercury-in-fish myth despite long-term rawpalaeos cheerfully continuing to eat plenty of raw wildcaught seafood without any issues. Then there's the absurd Sally-Fallon-derived notion that we must always freeze raw meats for 14 days beforehand in order to get rid of parasites; another overhyped bit of fluff.

The other scare is the issue of pollution. The fact is that the extra load of toxins created by cooking is way more than anything that the meat/fish could get from air-pollution etc(it's only during incredibly rare occasions such as what happened at Minamata Bay, when people have to avoid the relevant food). Oil-contamination is not an issue as fishmongers routinely have to check their fish for any serious contamination, before sale.

There was one amiable ancient  eccentric scientist who wrote a newsletter once which damned things like global warming. He pointed out that oil-spill scares only affected some wildlife, and that once the oil got broken down into basic chemicals, those chemicals then fuelled an explosion in wildlife numbers in later years  as the creatures furthest down the food-chain started lapping up those chemicals. Not sure re the correctness of the claims, but it sounds interesting, at least.


That reminds me, given all the recent b*ll re rabies, and mythical charges of mass-murder aimed at me because of my championing of the wonder of "high-meat", and past rubbish by others re mythical dangers of mercury-in-fish, I think it is highly appropriate that I change my sig to the litany of the Bene Gesserit, (re Frank Herbert's book "Dune"):-

" I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
 - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear(from Frank Herbert's book "Dune")

[miles]

That reminds me, given all the recent b*ll re rabies

It's not bull. Rabies is real.
 

[TylerDurden]

It's not bull. Rabies is real.
 

I meant that the fears re rabies were heavily overblown by you. I am sure that a little rabies exists in bats and raccoons and suchlike, but we rawpalaeos can safely ignore such so-called "dangers" as we don't even hunt those animals and, even if we did, I already pointed out a few things that would make rabies infection extremely unlikely indeed.

[miles]

I meant that the fears re rabies were heavily overblown by you. I am sure that a little rabies exists in bats and raccoons and suchlike, but we rawpalaeos can safely ignore such so-called "dangers" as we don't even hunt those animals and, even if we did, I already pointed out a few things that would make rabies infection extremely unlikely indeed.

I said that people buying their food didn't have to worry... I asked because I'm going to live in some woods, and there are even grey wolves there... This whole point of the thread was about people living in the wild and hunting their own food, and around wolves... I repeatedly responded to you that I wasn't talking about second-hand meat.

See the start of the thread: "What do you guys think about rabies? Particularly if one was going to be living off of self-hunted genuinely wild-animals. There would be grey wolves around too."

You're the one who likes blowing..

[CHK91]

So are you saying that fish coooked from pristine waters is more dangerous than raw fish from polluted waters?

And yes I have been trying to deprogram myself from the fear campaigns. It seems that fear is used nowadays to get people to do anything, but in this particular case the government agencies are not promoting fear because it works against economic interests. I am always skeptical when some  The consumers have expressed concern mostly, not some animal activist group.

EDIT: Does anyone have information on how long it takes for the oil or Corexit to biograde into harmless components?

[TylerDurden]

Hmm, you certainly have a strong homophobic tendency. I recall a study which showed that people with such tendencies were usually repressed homosexuals, but anyway!.... 

One point  I made earlier was that if rabies was indeed so dangerous to hunters, we would by now have seen a mass epidemic of rabies among hunters. No such record exists.

By "wolves" , I presume you mean you are moving abroad, as wolves do not live in the wild in the UK as yet, according to reports.

[TylerDurden]

So are you saying that fish coooked from pristine waters is more dangerous than raw fish from polluted waters?

And yes I have been trying to deprogram myself from the fear campaigns. It seems that fear is used nowadays to get people to do anything, but in this particular case the government agencies are not promoting fear because it works against economic interests. The consumers have expressed concern mostly, not some animal activist group.

Yes, I am saying that cooked fish from pristine waters is worse. Please read up on the nasty effects of advanced glycation end products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocycic amines, so as to get more info on the damage inflicted by cooked foods.

As for the oil-pollution scandal, actually most of the scare-stories I have been receiving have come from environmental groups like Greenpeace etc.

And government has previously acted against economic interests all the time. The US government has acted against the raw dairy movement, raw-oyster production in Florida etc.  All that matters is that another bigger food-producing movement is more powerful(such as the grainfeeding movement).

[miles]

By "wolves" , I presume you mean you are moving abroad, as wolves do not live in the wild in the UK as yet, according to reports.

What about the 'Wanderers'? But anyway yes, I'll be moving abroad.

Hmm, you certainly have a strong homophobic tendency. I recall a study which showed that people with such tendencies were usually repressed homosexuals, but anyway!....  

I'm not a homosexual.

[KD]

probably not, but I didn't eat much or any gulf or river fish previously for reasons of pollution. I still will eat ocean fish. I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that all ocean fish are contaminated, and will continue to eat them for now even though I don't agree entirely about heavy metals and other environmental pollution being less harmful factors to health than cooking. Years ago, I used to work around chemicals where I would cough up black phlegm at the end of every day and have suffered similar things from basic molds and 'dust'. never happened then from even McDonald's breaded fish fillet  . I personal do buy the nonsense about raw fish being less problematic than cooked in regards to certain issues, and possibly being healthful in removing and replacing the toxic debris that exist internally - particularly as part of a 100% raw diet, or close. Sounds counter-intuitive but I would still even post-spill take my chances with possibly contaminated fish than 100% certainly problematic farmed fish. Exceptions would be bivalves and a few other things which can be safely and ethically farmed in some cases.

In short, I think there is a point where these things become obsessive (and kind of ridiculous sometimes in comparison to past diet choices/obliviousness), but there are indeed some genuine concerns around these issues. Not eating any fish whatsoever for this reason seems closer to the former.
 

[CHK91]

Yes, I am saying that cooked fish from pristine waters is worse. Please read up on the nasty effects of advanced glycation end products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocycic amines, so as to get more info on the damage inflicted by cooked foods.

As for the oil-pollution scandal, actually most of the scare-stories I have been receiving have come from environmental groups like Greenpeace etc.

And government has previously acted against economic interests all the time. The US government has acted against the raw dairy movement, raw-oyster production in Florida etc.  All that matters is that another bigger food-producing movement is more powerful(such as the grainfeeding movement).

Are scientists not willing to report the dangers of cooked food because it is a socially acceptable practice and would be politically incorrect to do so? It does seem like a feasible explanation.

Isn't the fishing industry as a whole very big? Raw dairy would be a very insignificant part of the economy, at least now.

[TylerDurden]

Are scientists not willing to report the dangers of cooked food because it is a socially acceptable practice and would be politically incorrect to do so? It does seem like a feasible explanation.

  Scientists are only willing to report about heat-created toxins in cooked foods, because those toxins are at their highest levels in cooked animal foods, and there is a definite government bias against animal foods, overall.

Isn't the fishing industry as a whole very big? Raw dairy would be a very insignificant part of the economy, at least now.

Not that big, though the anti-raw oyster movement by the government eventually failed due to grassroots support for raw oysters. Raw dairy is much less important than raw oysters, so it is more effectively and successfully attacked by the government.

[djr_81]

Sounds counter-intuitive but I would still even post-spill take my chances with possibly contaminated fish than 100% certainly problematic farmed fish. Exceptions would be bivalves and a few other things which can be safely and ethically farmed in some cases.

I completely agree.
I'll continue to eat my fish when I have a hankering. If it's from the gulf so be it.

[Snowflower]

Well this thread is telling me I don't belong here.

[laterade]

If they were tasty, I would eat them. 
Fish is only an occasional treat for me so f*ck it.

[raw-al]

Tyler,
These mass scare campaigns really are used by governments to further their own agenda. Because governments are composed of people who just happen to have power.

GW Bush went into Iraq not because of 9/11 but because he wanted to and he suspended civil liberties because he wanted to. The king of England pulled the same stunt after the gunpowder plot to blow up Parliament. (Guy Fawkes) That was another trumped up BS campaign.

The current green campaign is another BS thing used by people to sell stuff.

[raw-al]

Well this thread is telling me I don't belong here.

Why?

If you stick around you will find that there are some interesting thoughts, explanations, etc. that are after all only opinions.

I think it is healthy to see other points of view. Personally I started out thinking that the Gulf oil spill was "the end of the world as we know it" but I am starting to realize that the environment is resilient. Not that I am suggesting that we should do as we please....... but.....

Basically we are fishing the oceans to the point where fish are going the way of the dodo bird. That is a fact. Cod are very scarce around Newfoundland where it was a cornucopia of them in the past. However what are we supposed to do? Stop eating?

If you fish the nice fish in your enclosed pond you will extinguish them and their ecosystem too.

Farmed animals also damage the environment with their effluent etc.

So I guess we'll all have to crawl into a hole and die. But even then the rotting will affect the atmosphere and the ozone layer..... Ow gud, what will we do?

[CHK91]

Basically we are fishing the oceans to the point where fish are going the way of the dodo bird. That is a fact. Cod are very scarce around Newfoundland where it was a cornucopia of them in the past. However what are we supposed to do? Stop eating?

Then we should try to eat fish that aren't so few in number. I think we should give time for some species to recover and start eating them again when numbers are plentiful. Extinction would be bad...

Anyways, I saw some figures that gave me some perspective. There is an estimated 6.43 X 10^17 gallons of water in the gulf. About 206,000,000 or 2.06 X 10^8 gallons of oil were spilled. In terms of percentage of the gulf it would be 3.2 X 10^-8% or .000000032%. It's probably less than that now since bacteria have been working on it for a long time. Since the gulf is usually very warm, the bacteria would probably work faster than it did for the Exxon Valdez spill. Some have expressed concern that the oil is accumulating on the seabed as if it was a bad thing, but won't it eventually get buried back to where it originally was? It is very likely that there are pollutants in much greater concentration at fish farms.

[Iguana]

Thanks CHK91, I was just wondering about that. Now I got a rather precise answer.

Happy New Year!

[raw-al]

It's interesting, we all whinge about environmental disasters, but I haven't noticed the widespread return of people travelling around on asses in Canada or the US. 

[CHK91]

It's interesting, we all whinge about environmental disasters, but I haven't noticed the widespread return of people travelling around on asses in Canada or the US. 

I believe we are all hypocritical to some degree.

[raw-al]

What about the 'Wanderers'? But anyway yes, I'll be moving abroad.

I'm not a homosexual.

Miles what a great poster.. LOL

[raw-al]

I believe we are all hypocritical to some degree.

True, but actually I hope that I didn't give the impression that we should carelessly disrupt the patterns in nature with thoughtless ill conceived destruction.