Why You Should Stop Eating Fish

October 18, 2006

It is likely that the situation is

worse in Bharat because there are

fewer environmental regulations, less

enforcement and more corrpution there.

- Jai Maharaj

Why You Should Stop Eating Fish

[ Why You Should Stop Eating Fish

[ Fidyl <Fidyl

[ Thu, 6 Jan 2005

Why You Should Stop Eating Fish

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jun/5/toxic_waste.htm

Toxic waste generated by U.S. industry jumped more

than 25 percent in 2000, according to data released on

May 21, 2002 by the U.S. EPA.

The data, part of the federal Toxics Release

Inventory, established by Congress in 1986 as the

nation's community right-to-know program, show about

38 billion pounds of toxic waste managed in 2000, with

another 7.1 billion pounds released directly to the

air, land and water. Louisiana led the nation in toxic

waste generated, with more than nine billion pounds

generated.

Analysis by U.S. PIRG, a public interest advocacy

organization, showed that current Bush administration

proposals to weaken environmental protections would

hinder progress toward reducing this toxic pollution

and in some cases would exacerbate the pollution. The

group argued that billions of pounds of toxic

chemicals released show the problems with current law

that make it nearly impossible to remove harmful

chemicals from the market.

Industries released 4.3 million pounds of mercury and

mercury compounds to the environment and generated 4.9

million pounds of mercury compounds in toxic waste.

By comparison, a teaspoon of mercury deposited every

year can contaminate a 20-acre lake to the point that

fish are unsafe to eat. A 2001 report by U.S. PIRG and

the Environmental Working Group found that fish

contamination is already so high that eating fish

exposes 1 in 4 pregnant women to levels of mercury

that could threaten a developing fetus.

Metal mining and utilities were identified as the

nation's biggest polluters, with 3.4 billion pounds of

toxic chemicals released by mines, nearly half of

total chemical releases, and 1.2 billion pounds

released by the utilities and by mines.

The Toxics Release Inventory reflects only a fraction

of the toxic hazards in the environment. The program

does not include releases from significant pollution

sources like oil wells, airports, and waste

incinerators, nor does it include significant sources

of exposure to chemicals, such as chemicals placed in

products.

In addition, the TRI represents only a fraction of the

chemicals on the market. While there are approximately

80,000 chemicals on the market, according to EPA and

American Chemistry Council studies, gaps in toxics

laws mean that at least some of the data needed to

perform a basic screen for health and environmental

effects were not publicly available for more than 90

percent of the chemicals.

U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office for the

state Public Interest Research Groups. State PIRGs are

non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy

groups.

U.S. PIRG May 23, 2002

- - - - -

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

Folks, mercury is extremely toxic and it only takes a

few mg of mercury to kill you. It is primarily

released from the burning of coal to generate

electricity and there is more than enough flying

-around in the environment to cause you serious

damage. Consider this there are 454,000 mg of mercury

in a pound and nearly 5 million pounds of mercury were

released into the environment in the US alone.

Bacteria and chemical reactions in lakes and wetlands

change the mercury into a much more toxic form known

as methylmercury. Fish become contaminated with

methylmercury by eating food (plankton and smaller

fish), which has absorbed methylmercury.

As long as the fish continue to be exposed to mercury,

mercury continually builds up in fish's bodies. Fish

that eat other fish become even more highly

contaminated.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the

National Academy of Sciences have determined that

eating mercury-contaminated fish is the primary route

of exposure to mercury for most people.

Some fish have less mercury then others, but it has

been my experience that nearly all fish are

contaminated with mercury. I have done thousands of

hair mineral analysis on patients and can confidently

tell you this is true.

Patients who don't eat any fish are the only ones who

have immeasurable levels of mercury in their hair. In

my experience anyone eating fish has mercury and

nearly always in direct proportion to the frequency

they are eating fish.

So it is my strong recommendation to stop eating all

fish now. Folks, listen to me carefully on this one.

AVOID EATING FISH

It has mercury that will absolutely compromise your

health.

We all need the omega-3 fats but you should get them

from a clean source.

End of forwarded message

October 23, 2006

One simple reason to not eat fish, or any animal products for that matter,

is that we are descendants of primates who eat mainly fruits, vegetables,

nuts and seeds, and sometimes small animals like caterpillars etc. We are

not true carnivores. Our anatomy is very similar to theirs. There are

several anatomical differences between carnivores and herbivores, and we fit

into the category or herbivores in all of them.

1. Herbivores have saliva in the mouth which digests carbohydrates,

carnivores do not.

2. Our teeth include more molars and are completely different to the jaws of

carnivores who can tear their prey apart. We depend on the knife when we eat

animals.

3. Like herbivores we drink by gulping. Carnivore drink by lapping

4. We have a long intestine - 12 times the length of the spine - a

carnivore's intestines are 3 times the length of it's spines. This is

because meat decays and must pass out fast, otherwise the toxins will be

absorbed. When we eat meat - and also refined foods with no fibre(like oil,

sugar, white flour, white rice etc), we predispose ourselves to cancers of

the intestines and various other disorders including piles, colitis, Crohns,

etc etc and all of these can be cured by the natural diet which we were

meant to have.

There are many other anatomical differences between carnivores and

herbivores. You can see them all at

http://www.earthsave.bc.ca/materials/articles/health/comparative.html

Today the biggest epidemics in the developed world (which is where maximum

refined and animal foods are eaten) are heart disease, hypertension,

diabetes and cancer. All of these can be avoided by eating what nature meant

us to eat. Milk too is the natural food for a baby calf, not human beings. A

calf grows to full size in 18 months, and the milk contains all the

nutrients for this growth. Humans grow to full size in 18 years. The

composition of cows milk is similar to meat - high in protein , fats and

cholesterol and devoid of fibre. It is meant for fast growth. Is there any

wonder why we are suffering from obesity, and all kinds of growths including

cancer? Thanks to refrigeration and factory farming we are consuming more

dairy now than ever before in the history of man. When we ingest an ounce of

cheese we are rarely aware that it is the product of 12 - 16 ounces of milk!

Many argue that disease is due to stress, and this is true. Our stress

levels are rising despite our relatively safe existence. But food plays a

role in stress too! When we are stressed, we produce adrenaline. All the

stressed animals you eat (because of the way they are raised, transported

and slaughtered are full of adrenaline) transfer their stress to you. If you

read the accounts of patients in Dean Ornish's book " Reversing Heart

Disease " you will see that each and every one of them experiences a change

in his state of mind for the better when switching over to a plant based

diet.

A superb book on diet and health is T. Colin Campbell's scholarly " The China

Study " where he has taken up each and every common disease separately. I am

including a book report on this book separately.

Apart from anatomy it is obvious if you eat something that the higher up in

the food chain you get many more toxins as a result of the heavy metals

/pesticides /antibiotics / hormones / other environmental pollutants they

have unwittingly ingested or been fed. All animals are higher up in the food

chain than plants. Sure its hard to change old habits but we don't need to

delude ourselves that this is not true.

We don't need help. Each one of us can take full responsibility for his or

her own health. Doctors and medical help is rarely required if you allow

yourself to think logically and eat right, exercise and breathe properly. In

fact it is the medical profession with all the vaccines, drugs and other

things which is killing us!

Dr Nandita Shah

October 26, 2006

Re: Why You Should Stop Eating FishPosted by: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjyaThu Oct 19, 2006 10:08 am (PST)Namaste,Agreed there are pollutants everywhere. But there is an exception. The fresh water fish, particularly caught upstream of the polnts where the pollutants are discharged,will not pose any health hazard. Let us all switch over to river fish, particularly from the rivers, which are not polluted. Fish from the pisciculture tanks can also be obtained pollutant-free.Regards,SKBJyotishi <jyotish2000 > wrote:It is likely that the situation is worse in Bharat because there are fewer environmental regulations, less enforcement and more corrpution there.- Jai Maharaj sorry for the lateness of my reply...it is very important to gather as much information as you can about the fishfor eg, for the fish you speak of, what species are they? do they predate on smaller fish? do they migrate down-river at some point as part of their natural life cycle?generally speaking, inland waters are more polluted than ocean waters, due to the simple fact of dilution, but of course it depends on where - for example, a pristine watershed in a wild area is going to be a lot different than creeks, streams, rivers and lakes near urban areasdr bhate and i were discussing this, and i have to agree with him that if i lived in india, i would be very suspicious about the safety of locally caught fish - however, i am sure there are still some areas that are relatively pristine, but they are few and far betweeni undertook an informal environmental assessment of our local salmon species that are now just beginning to spawn, so i could best understand the risks of consuming them (actually we are waiting our typical cold and wet fall weather to raise the river levels so the fish can more easily travel up river and spawn - right now they are all hanging out and accumulating in the river delta)even for the local river, this is a huge number of fish, up to 50 million, comprising 5 different species (coho, king, sockeye, chum, and pink) that all have different life cycles - for eg. the sockeye are relatively small fish that spend up to 4 years or more inland and growing very slowly, whereas pinks head out to sea in their first year, grow rapidly in the nutrient rich waters of the ocean and then return to spawn in a 2 year cycle - thus the quality of the inland waters versus the quality of the open waters is an important issue to consider, and generally speaking, the preference should be for smaller, shorter lived fishthe one thing the sockeye have going for them is that they eat mostly plankton, so while a longer lived fish, they are relatively low on the food chain - the bigger fish including the coho and king are probably best avoided or consumed irregularlygenerally speaking however, salmon is one of the safest fish to eat, with very low levels of mercurybest... Todd Caldecotttoddwww.toddcaldecott.com