Special for you sushi and swordfish lovers...

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labn ... sushi.aspx

Dammit Chef - I'm not giving up my swordfish!!!

Well, at least you'll always know what the temperature is.

Why must people rob all the joy out of life . . . . ?

True. But wasn't it people who put mercury into the environment in the first place?

You're not helping Larry . . . . please just let me go on in my ignorant bliss . . . .

Surprised I got nothing from the sushi contingent here. Well, in 20 or so years it will be moot as most of the most popular fish in sushi - most notably the bluefin tuna - will be extinct.

Jesus will save us.

Breaking news, a 4 month old story!

Some health professionals disagree:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 23,00.html

Personally, I eat swordfish about once every month of two, tuna steaks about the same, eat sushi for lunch about twice a month (usually a piece or two of tuna, but I like variety). Looking at charts, I almost certainly get more mercury from the halibut, bass, lobster, etc I eat than from tuna or swordfish.

Of course, even daily consumption of a tuna steak is nowhere near as dangerous as smoking.

As to the CCF, sound like a bunch of shills. But it's true that MADD sometimes uses junk science (I support efforts to reduce drunk driving, but they've turned into more abolitionist than anti0drunk driving)_

Breaking news, a 4 month old story!

Some health professionals disagree:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 23,00.html

Personally, I eat swordfish about once every month of two, tuna steaks about the same, eat sushi for lunch about twice a month (usually a piece or two of tuna, but I like variety). Looking at charts, I almost certainly get more mercury from the halibut, bass, lobster, etc I eat than from tuna or swordfish.

Of course, even daily consumption of a tuna steak is nowhere near as dangerous as smoking.

As to the CCF, sound like a bunch of shills. But it's true that MADD sometimes uses junk science (I support efforts to reduce drunk driving, but they've turned into more abolitionist than anti0drunk driving)_

A. I'm not a newsman. And my intention was not to feature the "story" as current events. I am more concerned about what is happening to the oceans than I am about what you eat, Dale. The smaller species do not have anything like the mercury content of larger predators. And, yes, halibut is one of the big guys. But if anything has changed in the ensuing years it's the tons and tons more of mercury China is pouring into the atmosphere with every new coal plant they build. And, boy can they build 'em. The amount of mercury going into the atmosphere is increasing dramatically every year.

B. Eat way and enjoy while you can. Here's a quote from a Scientific American article that's not quite so ancient:

In 1994, seafood may have peaked. According to an analysis of 64 large marine ecosystems, which provide 83 percent of the world's seafood catch, global fishing yields have declined by 10.6 million metric tons since that year. And if that trend is not reversed, total collapse of all world fisheries should hit around 2048. "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood," notes marine biologist Stephen Palumbi of Stanford University.

C. I'm old enough to remember that 50 years ago those Harvard doctors were selling cigarettes on television.

I too am concerned about both overfishing and pollution, but whether I eat sushi doesn't alter the amounts of pollutants going into the oceans. What I eat does affect overfishing , so I try to limit the amount of tuna I eat (because most is longline) as well as most over endangered fish. As far as overfishing, US swordfish is on Seawatch's "good alternatives" list, and in that respect is in far better shape than flounder, hake, monfish, atlantic cod, snapper, etc. The "best choices" are things like farmed tilapia and catfish, I limit my consumption of those because they aren't my favorite fish.

My only point was that no reputable scientist I've seen thinks that occasional consumption of tuna, swordfish, bluefish, striped bass, and mackerel is a serious health threat. 8 oz a day, sure it might be an issue. But a few pieces of sushi probably gives one less than you get from breathing (I'm as worried about mercury in the air as in fish).

I am more concerned about what is happening to the oceans than I am about what you eat, Dale.

This is old news as well, but a good guide about what seafood to eat without jeopardizing our oceanic fisheries is put out by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's "Seafood Watch" program:

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/S ... sheet.aspx

Mark Lipton

I am more concerned about what is happening to the oceans than I am about what you eat, Dale.

This is old news as well, but a good guide about what seafood to eat without jeopardizing our oceanic fisheries is put out by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's "Seafood Watch" program:

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/S ... sheet.aspx

Mark Lipton

Interesting that the lead article there was about my favorite seafood - abalone.

I am more concerned about what is happening to the oceans than I am about what you eat, Dale.

This is old news as well, but a good guide about what seafood to eat without jeopardizing our oceanic fisheries is put out by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's "Seafood Watch" program:

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/S ... sheet.aspx

Mark Lipton

Here's a chart from their site:

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694

Jesus will save us.

Would you mind explaining the joke? I always like a good laugh.

In 1975 Jacques Cousteau delivered a paper to the United Nations in which he stated (and demonstrated later from a quite valid statistical point of view) that in the quarter century between 1950 and 1975 we had managed to kill off more than half of the life in the seas of our planet. Frankly, that was the first time in my life that I became terrified for the future.

It now seems that M. Cousteau was quite correct and, at the same time, quite incorrect, for despite our ignoble efforts at killing, the seas of our planet are now more full of life than ever before. No dilemma there....what has happened is that many of the existing "popular" species have been decimated by over-fishing and by pollution, the sea has proven stronger than us and new forms of sealife are not only emerging but older, more primitive types are blossoming. The good news in all of this is that the various forms of algae and miscroscopic sea life will provide far better nutrition for far more people than the fish and seafood to which we have become accustomed.

And, not being politically correct perhaps, but facing realities - the wealthy of the world will never want for salmon, oysters, lobsters, tuna or whatever else. Much of the world will be dining on algae but the rich will continue to down their oysters.

As a side-note, indeed I have dined on algae. Not the artificial stuff grown in laboratories but that which comes from the sea and yes, including barnacles, and truth be told, prepared well they can be quite tempting.

Best
Rogov

Jesus will save us.

Would you mind explaining the joke? I always like a good laugh.

It's not really a joke. Don't you know bible-thumpers who don't care a whit about extinctions, recycling, global-warming, looming water shortages, population problems, etc. and stick their heads in the sand because Jesus, at the last moment, will save everything? I certainly know those people.

The history of Easter Island should be a lesson for the whole world.

But these arguments are better off on another forum.

Larry, I have former in-laws (would that now be out-laws?) who are those people.