Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 I am glad this question came up. . .I had heard that some Salmon have a lot of mercury. . .Maybe someone can tell me which one doesn't. I love Salmon. Thanks Sheryl ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: Trader Joe's offers a variety of salmons, most of which are farm-raised, and one wild sockeye, skinless. Bread and Circus offers wild salmon for a little bit under the price, but not significantly, with the skin on, and it is coho. My dillema is this: I'm pretty sure that eating the salmon skinless decreases the nutritional quality, but sockeye salmon *looks* like it's a lot more nutritious-- the hue is a deep red and is much more intense than other salmons, so there must be more of *something* in it. So I'm not sure to what extent each is significant, and am not sure which outweighs the other. My guess is to go with the sockeye, since the skin is such as small part of the salmon, salmon is fatty anyway, etc. Anyone else have an opinion? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 check out Dr. Mercola's site... he writes often about salmon and the mercury issues... Alaskan salmon has very little, according to him... Dedy Sheryl wrote - I am glad this question came up. . .I had heard that some Salmon have a lot of mercury. . .Maybe someone can tell me which one doesn't. I love Salmon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 i've read they dye salmon. could that be why it's so red? elaine ty sure that eating the salmon skinless decreases > the nutritional quality, but sockeye salmon *looks* like it's a lot more > nutritious-- the hue is a deep red and is much more intense than other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 >My guess is to go with the sockeye, since the skin is such as small part of >the salmon, salmon is fatty anyway, etc. Anyone else have an opinion? > >Chris No one but me eats the skin in our family. You have to scale it well too. I've been saving the skin and making jerky out of it -- it's nice and chewy that way. We tend to get whatever someone gives us, during salmon season. I'm not sure about nutrition vs. color -- the chum (mating) salmon are red and greasy, but one wildlife guide in Alaska says the bears only eat the guts because by the time the salmon reach their home pond, there is " no nutrition " in the meat. What he meant by that, I don't know, or if it is accurate, but it was at a bear-watching station and I guess the bears eat only the guts unless they are really hungry. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Thanks so much!!! Rundle <Dpdg@...> wrote:check out Dr. Mercola's site... he writes often about salmon and the mercury issues... Alaskan salmon has very little, according to him... Dedy Sheryl wrote - I am glad this question came up. . .I had heard that some Salmon have a lot of mercury. . .Maybe someone can tell me which one doesn't. I love Salmon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Elaine, farmed salmon all have dye added to their feed, otherwise their flesh is grey... organic farmed salmon is a lot paler than regular farmed salmon as the fish are fed a more natural diet/no dyes... in the wild the colour comes from the crustaceans they eat... Flamingos are red/pink for the same reason. Dedy <<i've read they dye salmon. could that be why it's so red?>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 This is a general response to the question of mercury in fish: Since fish that is not right along the coast of a polluted bay has no more mercury than the seafood that Price's subjects ate, it's probably not an issue. For some reason Mercola seems to think the mercury in the ocean is a product of industrial pollution, but it isn't. The ocean is naturally loaded with mercury, not to mention fluoride (at a greater concentration than iodine, btw)and in the absence of industrial pollution, rains deliver new mercury to the ocean every day. That said, industrial pollution can cause certain specific areas of the ocean to be polluted, case in point, Minimata. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Chris- The important thing to remember about natural vs. industrial mercury is that they're two very different forms. AFAIK the naturally-occurring form (forms?) is (are) harmless and biologically inert. The problem is that no mercury tests or data I know of distinguishes between the two. >The ocean is >naturally loaded with mercury, not to mention fluoride (at a greater >concentration than iodine, btw)and in the absence of industrial >pollution, rains deliver new mercury to the ocean every day. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Chris- > > The important thing to remember about natural vs. industrial mercury is > that they're two very different forms. AFAIK the naturally- occurring form > (forms?) is (are) harmless and biologically inert. The problem is that no > mercury tests or data I know of distinguishes between the two. Which form is inert? The biologically active form is the only organic form I'm aware of-- methyl mercury, which is the kind that is naturally in fish. Other forms of mercury are quickly converted to methyl mercury in biological systems, by my understanding. If this weren't true, the industrial form would be less harmful. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 ive also read this taht they do nto know how to tell the difference between a poluted fish with bad mercury and the mercury forming naturally in fish tha tis harmless _____ From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Monday, 27 October 2003 5:21 AM Subject: Re: Re: salmon type q Chris- The important thing to remember about natural vs. industrial mercury is that they're two very different forms. AFAIK the naturally-occurring form (forms?) is (are) harmless and biologically inert. The problem is that no mercury tests or data I know of distinguishes between the two. >The ocean is >naturally loaded with mercury, not to mention fluoride (at a greater >concentration than iodine, btw)and in the absence of industrial >pollution, rains deliver new mercury to the ocean every day. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Salmon nutrition info http://www.aboutseafood.com/dictionary/salmon_sockeye.html re mercury.. mercury is released into the air by coal fired power plants and other man-made sources. It comes down in the form of rain. The rain water where I live here in land was recently tested and far exceeds EPA safety standards. The actual rain is deadly. http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/nwfrainbad.htm Now, imagine what this does to the standing fresh water concentrations. The amount of mercury in fish is so bad that the state of land recently issued a warning to eat Rockfish only ONCE A YEAR. Rockfish is the staple fish of the Chesapeake Bay. 43 states nationwide have issued advisories warning people to limit consumption of fish caught from inland lakes, streams and coastal waters. Tons of resources about this on the net. In general I only feel safe eating fish from Alaska which is the only state to both test for it, and not issue any warnings about it. The lower 48 fresh and coastal are toast. --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Chris- >The biologically active form is the only >organic form I'm aware of-- methyl mercury, which is the kind that is >naturally in fish. Other forms of mercury are quickly converted to >methyl mercury in biological systems, by my understanding. If this >weren't true, the industrial form would be less harmful. I'm a little short on research, unfortunately; I was just taking an article I read at face value. However, I'm a little confused: if all forms of mercury are converted into methyl mercury in the body, and fish normally and naturally carry a certain methyl mercury load, then why is mercury (and mercury pollution) so toxic? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.