I would think you guys would know more about this subject than anyone so what do you think?
I am so paranoid that I only buy my fish flown inat $10.50 a Lb , unless I am eating damn near minnows , crawfish , and bream from a spring feed creek.
I mean words like lesions, external parasites, odd pigmentation patterns, and diseased livers and ovaries. These may be signs of compromised immune systems in fish that are expending their energy dealing with toxins
raise a few red flags
rgd0913, with syntax like that you couldn't be an English muffin.
I don't claim to be an expert on English but come on.. You need a graduate degree to become a biologist.
That lady owns a company locally, her reputation is at stake. Making such comments about human health and how it relates to the oil spill isn't in her scope of practice. The health of marine life, yes... She isn't a physician, she is a marine biologist. I highly doubt she would be willing to stick her neck out this far on this forum.
lol thanks a lot guys lol.:thumbup:. Yes, especially in a quick blog, I am a grammatical nightmare. I certainly do not claim to be perfect, especially in writing. lol That's OK, correct me (if you have that kind of time), it keeps me alert Five O- I can't say the fish are safe or not- there really are not enough tests. It's good to err on the side of caution but if you eat it once in a while (like once a month) I wouldn't be concern- (NOT THE ORGANS). If you love fish and eat it everyday, well,I am not sure I would suggest or approve just yet. Oysters- lol like CatHunter- no comment. I would stick which Appalachiacola oysters for now. The agencies need to test out of State criteria and so there is more data on what's really going on. Cost is a factor and it took a while to figure out the RIGHT test to use. Anyone can test for oil but the results are different if you don't know WHAT to test for. Over 17 years research experience told me if the test do not fit the biological observations do differnt tests.. Which I did. Please remember like us, if the organs are overloaded with toxins then other areas of our bodies are affected, which may be where the lesions come from. Also, location is a big thing, are these fish from a bad area? I am curious if the lesions on these fish are an isolated case or if they are prevalent all over the Gulf. Has anyone seen any odd growths on the fish? I think when June comes around for recreational snapper season we may discover more information. Like I said commercial fishermen are smart and for their own reputation, they aren't going to sell bad fish. Also, could this be a BP claim set up? I don't rule out BP claims and some fishers finding bad fish in bad locations for that purpose. So I am cautious on this lesioned fish scare. Hamhands feel free to check my grammar. (Just kidding)
With all the bullshit washing down the Mississippi River, out into the Gulf, the BP oil spill may be the least of our worries...... With all the testing going on in the Gulf, there should be a great baseline to see what a major flood does to the Gulf, you would think!
Gulf research teams offer conflicting reports on health of red snapper
... Scientists on the hunt for sickness since oil spill
Since the 2010 Gulf oil spill, scientists with the University of South Alabama have captured close to 3,000 red snapper from 130 different artificial reefs - about 600 of them captured in the last three weeks - and none have been sick, Shipp said.
...
Shipp said it was possible that the number of fish with lesions or other problems this year is within the normal range.
"It's like with the dolphins dying. People are really looking for them now. Maybe people are more focused on the condition of the fish," Shipp said. "Perhaps the number of anomalies is not unusual, it's just attracting more attention."
It doesn't matter. No matter what is seen/found/heard, it's dispersant or crude. Kneejerk reactions will continue. It's DWH/BP's fault. Don't worry about the actual truth, be it WHOEVERS fault, or whatever is actually found. Don't want to eat the fish? Fine, it's a free world, don't. It's always easier to take the "The BP Boogie man" path rather than really seeking the truth.
hamhands ,I knew a math prof. at So.Poly Tech, taught linear algebra couldn't write a letter to his mamma, didn't understand grammar much less the word "syntax".
If you get the gist of the article or post. Is grammar and spelling so important?Trying to make a point and offer information, accept it or not.No need to hack her on her grammar.
hamhands ,I knew a math prof. at So.Poly Tech, taught linear algebra couldn't write a letter to his mamma, didn't understand grammar much less the word "syntax".
If you get the gist of the article or post. Is grammar and spelling so important?Trying to make a point and offer information, accept it or not.No need to hack her on her grammar.
all this talk about sick fish, I have not seen any, not in 67 bottom fishing trips since the oil spill. For the people that think they are everywhere I will bet them $1000 dollars that in a six hour fishing trip with 6 people you will not catch one single sick fish. Just add %10 to the bet for each person over 6.
I agree totally with Fairwater. I'd have to look at our books to say how many trips we've made since the spill, but I'm yet to see one fish "sick."
In the last 3 months, we have caught over 3000 fish and not one exhibited any sign of "illness". A couple of years ago, we were catching a few Red Snappers that had what appeared to be a paracite in the roe sac. I reported this to our resident FWC biologist and was met with ambivilance. I'm wondering if these fish were not placed in some solution that caused this condition.
:whistling: