[bSquared949]

i put on weight by squatting more

[T.J.T]

Originally Posted by BLOCK

shark and other pelagic or migratory deep water fish have waaay lower levels of mercury actually... inshore species have much higher mercury levels... heres a pic from lastnight btw ;) I'm the one on the right with 2 much ink...

Mercury is in the ocean/sea from polution, what happens is everything in the ocean/sea absorbs small amounts, the problem is, the little fish eat stuff, bigger fish eat those fish, BIGGER fish eat those big fish, on and on until these fish are consumed by sharks. we eat shark and we basicly get all the saved up mercury levels from all the fish they eat.

This was the way i understood it anyways, and the chart thats linked also confirms that usualy the bigger fish(higher on the food chain) has more mercury.

With all this D&S talk though this is my understanding, but i may be wrong but i thought i would pass on my reasoning for my comment about sharks containing higher mercury.

[BLOCK]

Originally Posted by T.J.T

Mercury is in the ocean/sea from polution, what happens is everything in the ocean/sea absorbs small amounts, the problem is, the little fish eat stuff, bigger fish eat those fish, BIGGER fish eat those big fish, on and on until these fish are consumed by sharks. we eat shark and we basicly get all the saved up mercury levels from all the fish they eat.

This was the way i understood it anyways, and the chart thats linked also confirms that usualy the bigger fish(higher on the food chain) has more mercury.

With all this D&S talk though this is my understanding, but i may be wrong but i thought i would pass on my reasoning for my comment about sharks containing higher mercury.

^ not bad reasoning and it probably has some truth to it... Myself and other fisherman will never agree with this tho due to the fact that sharks and swordfish are a deep water migratory fish and spend most of their time a good ways offshore in cleaner water...thus the other fish they mainly consume will be in the deeper cleaner water...

heres the 1 thing that throws me way off... when you look at the limitations to "commercially" caught fish...in the past 20 years commercial shark fishing has been pushed to outside 20 miles from our coast during the main season..whereas "sardines" and many of the other small fish listed on that chart have almost no limitations and can be fished very close to the beach in our "polluted waters" ...so it makes me think that the data is BS because either a.) the merc levels in shark and many other small fish listed in that chart should be getting closer every year and end up higher than shark eventually...or b.) they are sampling fish from different coasts and flawing the data completely.. ok I'm tired of typing now..Kinda tough to explain..

[T.J.T]

I see your reasoning, and it makes me wonder where the data is comming from, near shore or are they sampling from all over... hmmm the plot thick'ins.

[ronin0352]

Originally Posted by T.J.T

Mercury is in the ocean/sea from polution, what happens is everything in the ocean/sea absorbs small amounts, the problem is, the little fish eat stuff, bigger fish eat those fish, BIGGER fish eat those big fish, on and on until these fish are consumed by sharks. we eat shark and we basicly get all the saved up mercury levels from all the fish they eat.

This was the way i understood it anyways, and the chart thats linked also confirms that usualy the bigger fish(higher on the food chain) has more mercury.

With all this D&S talk though this is my understanding, but i may be wrong but i thought i would pass on my reasoning for my comment about sharks containing higher mercury.

This was my understanding too, as well as what ninjajesus said. Don't the larger fish generally live longer as well?

I am far from an expert on seafood, although I love it. I live in Colorado, and it's about a 14 hour drive to the nearest shore

[BLOCK]

Originally Posted by ronin0352

This was my understanding too, as well as what ninjajesus said. Don't the larger fish generally live longer as well?

I am far from an expert on seafood, although I love it. I live in Colorado, and it's about a 14 hour drive to the nearest shore

I mean half of the fish listed on the chart was baitfish that is less than 6 months old when caught... sharks and tuna as well as other large game fish caught commercially actually grow pretty damn fast...The size caught by commercial guys is usually less than a few years old..

[BLOCK]

heres some good info ;)

Fish Scam

[ronin0352]

Originally Posted by BLOCK

heres some good info ;)

Fish Scam

Pretty cool. According to that I can eat like 12# of salmon a week without problem.

However, that also seems to have shark as the highest in mercury, followed closely by swordfish. I can only eat about 1.3# of either of those per week. Like that'll be a problem, lol.

[BLOCK]

^yeah I have no problem admitting that shark might have higher levels than other small fish because it consumes them...my arguement was more that even the level of merc that shark and swordfish have is not dangerous at all...the only fish that could actually be bad for ya are fish that live in and around the bays..spotted baybass...halibut, bass, and sculpin, caught in the harbor...ect...looking back at my posts i didn't make much sense

[One Time]

I remember when I was 28 and trying to gain weight...10 years later and I've turned a 180. My ****bolism has slowed with age so I do the same exercises to lose weight...go figure.

(Although the diet has changed soemwhat)