Omron Blood Pressure Monitors

Before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill even happened, there were aguments for and against the eating of fish and seafood. On the one hand, we often hear about mercury toxicity in fish, but on the other hand we do know that fish provide Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs) which are essential for human health. Right now however, there are real health and ethical reasons to completely stop eating fish and other seafood. At the very least to cut down considerably.

Why? Well, because the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is a huge disaster that will have a long-term effect on the environment.

I won’t pretend to know much about he technical details of the leak itself, but even if the well is successfully closed soon there is still the issue of the existing level of pollution and its impact on sea-living species.

Obviously the US government will not allow fishing in the water that is being directly affected by the oil spill, but that does not mean that we are ‘off the hook’ so to speak.

We have two serious issues to look at when we decide whether we are comfortable eating seafood: firstly what types of toxins could find their way into fish and shellfish, and secondly what would be the effects of overfishing in the non-oil-affected parts of the world to make up for the shortfall in the supply of fish?

In terms of toxins, we have a number of different substances building up in fish that are living in oil affected waters. Firstly we have crude oil and secondly we have the dispersant being used, currently Corexit 9500. Crude oil contains both mercury and lead, which are obviously highly poisonous heavy metals. Crude oil also includes benzene, toluene and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), all of which cause cancer. While scientists claim that PAH does not accumulate in fish, they concede that it does accumulate in shellfish. The dispersant Corexit 9500 is a highly poisonous substance, roughly four times more poisonous than oil.

Heavy metals (such as mercury and lead) dispersed in water accumulates in the bodies of fish as the water is filtered through the fish’s respiratory system. Additionally predatory fish tend to eat other fish, resulting in a greater heavy metal load. By the time a larger fish, prized by humans as a tasty morsel, is caught and sold as human food the heavy metals have been recycled and accumulated many times over.

Mercury is associated with brain impairments, both degenerative in adults and the development of autism and chromosomal disorders (such as Down’s syndrome) in children. Mercury crosses the placenta in pregnant mothers and has its greatest effect on babies and children due to being significantly more concentrated.

Lead affects the brain, nervous system, reproductive system and kidneys. In laboratory tests on animals, no minimum quantity of lead has been considered a safe dose; even the smallest quantities have had a harmful effect. As with mercury, lead has its greatest impact on the health of small children due to being so concentrated. It has been associated with low IQ, slow growth and hearing defects in children.

Corexit 9500 is BP’s oil dispersant of choice, but was reputedly banned in Britain over a decade ago due to its highly toxic affects on both the environment and people. It is both more toxic and less effective than other chemical dispersants, requiring a larger application in order to be effective.

The use of this chemical in such quantities and at such oceanic depths is unknown in human history, and the exact contents of the mixture are a trade secret. Expected health effects are respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders, again grossly affecting children due to their smaller size. At this time over 600,000 gallons of Corexit 9500 have been utilised in an attempt to clean up the oil spill. To make things even worse, the toxicity of Corexit 9500 in a solution of water increases with water temperature, and oil in the water is resulting in higher water temperatures.

Clearly the sea-creatures living in and around the Gulf of Mexico are going to be off the menu for some time. The government won’t willingly allow people to eat contaminated seafood right?

Well unfortunately the Gulf Coast is responsible for about half of the total US harvest in its high season. Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is an estimated $2.4 billion industry. Not only is fishing a good source of income for the government (via taxation) but people are currently eating those fish and so assuming the demand remains, the supply of fish for food will have to come from someplace else.

Do not also forget that some fish are highly migratory, particularly deep ocean fish, sometimes travelling up to 200 miles for feeding and reproduction. It is not possible to identify whether any individual fish has ever come into contact with the oil or the disbursant that is choking the Gulf of Mexico area.

In addition to the issue of caught fish containing human-toxic substances, there is also the significant issue of overfishing to contend with. Overfishing occurs when the commercial fishing operation in an area catches the fish faster than the fish can replenish their population. This is happening globally already and will only be made worse if the same number of fish are required from fewer and less-dense fishing areas. According to overfishing.org, almost 80% of the world’s fisheries are fully to over-exploited, depleted or in a state of collapse, and over 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone. Who can tell what the full impact will be when the ocean ecology is already under stress, and we increase the stress by overfishing from the surrounding areas.

Overfishing has a large effect on the ocean ecology as a whole. As fewer fish are caught in commercial fishing nets, ocean mammals and birds (such as dolphins, whales and pelicans) either have a hard time finding food, or are caught in nets themselves. Once caught in fishing nets, these animals and birds are usually killed and discarded.

So while those of us who are not yet affected by the disaster in the USA can sit back and watch everything unfold, it will be our fish stock that will be systematically removed from the oceans to make up for the shortfall in US fishing.

In my opinion, the only way we can feel confident that the pollution will not reach our own bodies via the consumption of fish is to no longer consume fish. Likewise, by saying no to eating fish, we can take an active stance against the overfishing of the waters in our backyards. We need to look into getting our EFAs from other sources such as flaxseeds, spirulina, chlorella and phytoplankton. Fortunately, fish do not create their own EFAs, but instead break down the EFAs in the microalgae food that they consume. Humans are able to do the same, and so we can replace fish in the diet with supplemental sources of EFA. There are already a number of supplements being manufactored for vegans who want to increase the number of EFAs in their diet; your local health food shop should have them available. Personality I only consume fish as the occasional fish oil supplement, but I have already switched over to a marine phytoplankton supplement.

Looking to increase your health? Visit www.PetraSmirnoff.com to find the best advice on diets for you.

No related posts.