Group items tagged

Quantitative analysis of the benefits and risks of consuming farmed and wild salmon. Foran JA, Good DH, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Knuth BA, Schwager SJ. J Nutr. 2005 Nov;135(11):2639-43. PMID: 16251623 Contaminants in farmed Atlantic and wild Pacific salmon raise important questions about the competing health benefits and risks of fish consumption. A benefit-risk analysis was conducted to compare quantitatively the cancer and noncancer risks of exposure to organic contaminants in salmon with the (n-3) fatty acid-associated health benefits of salmon consumption. Recommended levels of (n-3) fatty acid intake, as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), may be achieved by consuming farmed or wild salmon while maintaining an acceptable level of noncarcinogenic risk. However, the recommended level of EPA+DHA intake cannot be achieved solely from farmed or wild salmon while maintaining an acceptable level of carcinogenic risk. Although the benefit-risk ratio for carcinogens and noncarcinogens is significantly greater for wild Pacific salmon than for farmed Atlantic salmon as a group, the ratio for some subgroups of farmed salmon is on par with the ratio for wild salmon. This analysis suggests that risk of exposure to contaminants in farmed and wild salmon is partially offset by the fatty acid-associated health benefits. However, young children, women of child-bearing age, pregnant women, and nursing mothers not at significant risk for sudden cardiac death associated with CHD but concerned with health impairments such as reduction in IQ and other cognitive and behavioral effects, can minimize contaminant exposure by choosing the least contaminated wild salmon or by selecting other sources of (n-3) fatty acids.

Written by, Samuel K. Burlum, Investigative Reporter and author of The Green Lane, a syndicated column Published on 4/30/16, a SamBurlum.com Exclusive Source: As we take a look at the poor water quality issues that have hit major metro centers such as Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey, we examine the source of these issues and what some are doing to rush in protecting the most important natural resource vital to the existence of the human race. As our world's population grows and our available sources of clean drinkable freshwater dwindle, the race to find ways to preserve and protect our current water supplies have rapidly increased; while other alternatives on how to clean up used and polluted water supplies are explored. Schools of thought and tech companies are eager to find ways to filter recycled water for reuse; fresh water supplies continue to be maxed out. According to the U.S. Geological Survey; only 2.5% of the Earth's water supply is fresh water. The main sources of available drinkable freshwater supply mainly come from glaciers and ice caps; ground ice and permafrost, and lakes and ground water. It is so surprising that with this natural resource being so scarce, we as a society don't do more to preserve and protect it. And so as a society, we continue to sabotage ourselves by contributing to actions and behaviors that increase pollution of our rivers and lakes. Only about half of the world's population has access to clean drinking water, leaving the other 3 billion people to fight for a source of quality water. In addition to that, according to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); 783 Million people have no access to any clean water sources. They must rely on "dirty" water or no water at all. This seems like a problem that would only plague impoverished countries, countries without infrastructure and societies without developed economies; however that stereo-typical outlook has been crushed by

Written by, Samuel K. Burlum, Investigative Reporter and author of The Green Lane, a syndicated column Published on 4/30/16, a SamBurlum.com Exclusive Source: As we take a look at the poor water quality issues that have hit major metro centers such as Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey, we examine the source of these issues and what some are doing to rush in protecting the most important natural resource vital to the existence of the human race. As our world's population grows and our available sources of clean drinkable freshwater dwindle, the race to find ways to preserve and protect our current water supplies have rapidly increased; while other alternatives on how to clean up used and polluted water supplies are explored. Schools of thought and tech companies are eager to find ways to filter recycled water for reuse; fresh water supplies continue to be maxed out. According to the U.S. Geological Survey; only 2.5% of the Earth's water supply is fresh water. The main sources of available drinkable freshwater supply mainly come from glaciers and ice caps; ground ice and permafrost, and lakes and ground water. It is so surprising that with this natural resource being so scarce, we as a society don't do more to preserve and protect it. And so as a society, we continue to sabotage ourselves by contributing to actions and behaviors that increase pollution of our rivers and lakes. Only about half of the world's population has access to clean drinking water, leaving the other 3 billion people to fight for a source of quality water. In addition to that, according to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); 783 Million people have no access to any clean water sources. They must rely on "dirty" water or no water at all. This seems like a problem that would only plague impoverished countries, countries without infrastructure and societies without developed economies; however that stereo-typical outlook has been crushed by th

There are many kinds of water. Steam and ice are 2 extremes. Water used to drink is liquid. Liquid water can be affected greatly by the way it is obtained. Distilled water is usually clear of toxins but is also devoid of minerals. Municipally treated water is not too risky from a microbial perspective but contains chlorine and possibly other water treatment and sewage contaminants. Municipal water treatment systems do not remove other waste water contaminants such as excreted drugs, metals, pesticides, insecticides, etc. This is why municipal systems that use deep artesian water are the safest. The best water is obtained from deep artesian wells, uncontaminated by human agency or biologic accidents, where it has filtered through many layers of stone, earth and rocks. The rain water you may drink is very much like distilled water, except it carries with it whatever contaminants are in the atmosphere.

Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: evaluating the risks and the benefits. Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. JAMA. 2006 Oct 18;296(15):1885-99. Review. Erratum in: JAMA. 2007 Feb 14;297(6):590. PMID: 17047219

The European Food Safety Authority's Panel on contaminants in the food chain has set a reduced tolerable weekly intake (TWI)[1] for cadmium of 2.5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight (µg/kg bw), based on an analysis of new data. The TWI is the level at which adverse effects are not expected. Average dietary exposure to cadmium for adults across Europe is around this level. Some population groups - vegetarians, children, smokers and people living in highly contaminated areas - can have a higher level of exposure up to twice the TWI. However, the Panel concluded that even for these groups the risk of adverse effects would be very low. The Panel concluded that current exposure to cadmium at the level of the population should be reduced.

October 17, 2006 | Steve Stiles Boston, MA - A review of the literature on the health effects of dietary fish or fish-oil intake has a reassuring message for seafood lovers, anyone eating fish for health reasons, and perhaps most everyone else [1]. Levels of mercury and other contaminants in commercially bought fish are low, and their potential risks are overwhelmed by likely reductions in cardiovascular mortality, according to a report in the October 18, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "The main message is really that everybody should be eating one or two servings of fish or seafood per week for their health," Dr Dariush Mozaffarian (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) told heartwire. In his analysis, coauthored with Dr Eric B Rimm (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA), regular "modest" intake of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the two long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) abundant in finfish and shellfish (collectively referred to as "fish" in the article), is associated with a 36% drop in coronary disease mortality (p Those potential benefits are immense compared with the highly publicized but apparently low health risks associated with methylmercury, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that have been found in some fish species, they write. The evidence suggests a potential for neurodevelopmental deficits from early exposure to methylmercury, but the risk is likely diminished by limiting intake of fish with high methylmercur

If you drink Slim-Fast and suffer from diarrhea, cramps and vomiting, now there's a new reason for such effects, beyond the simple fact that Slim-Fast is made primarily from processed milk and sugar water:

Mortality and cancer incidence in cohorts of Swedish fishermen and fishermen's wives: updated findings.\nMikoczy Z, Rylander L.\nChemosphere. 2009 Feb;74(7):938-43. Epub 2008 Nov 28.\nPMID: 19041115

Mortality in a cohort with high fish consumption.\nTurunen AW, Verkasalo PK, Kiviranta H, Pukkala E, Jula A, Männistö S, Räsänen R, Marniemi J, Vartiainen T.\nInt J Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;37(5):1008-17. Epub 2008 Jun 25.\nPMID: 18579573

Foran SE, Flood JG, Lewandrowski KB. Measurement of mercury levels in concentrated over-the-counter fish oil preparations: is fish oil healthier than fish? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Dec;127(12):1603-5. PMID: 14632570 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]