Ken Stuart wrote:

>     Has there been any firm connection of eating fish with contracting any
>illness?  ( Or is this just "health food store newsletter thinking"? )
>
>
Yes. Insofar as eating fish contaminated with methylmercury can cause
dangerous accumulations in the body. Also, insofar as pathogens carried
by fish can cause disease in humans.

>The only relatively clear cut danger appears to be to fetuses and developing
>small children.
>
>
I assume you are talking about methylmercury here. The danger to adults
is evident as well. Part of the problem is that the presenting symptoms
in adults are often psychological which makes the problem more difficult
to diagnose. Try this:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12844364

You also conveniently ignored the last citation I gave. So, here it is
again:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9501377&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=12

In addition, the issues of overfishing and pollution affect human health
indirectly both by raising the cost and lowering the quality of
available food sources.

>Beyond that, there seems to be no solid evidence.   The word "potential" is used
>by most of the abstracts you cited.
>
>
This is special pleading. Scientists often use words like "potential".
If you are interested in the actual risks look at the data.

>Although I don't care for epidemiological evidence, nevertheless the existence
>of specific illness amongst both the residents of Norway and Louisiana, that did
>not exist in the residents of Hungary and Iowa, would at least be a start.
>
>
I am not devoting a significant amount of time to this. If you are
really interested you could look for yourself, although I suspect you
are more interesting in argument than erudition. What I have provided is
merely the tip of the iceberg; there is more than enough evidence to
warrant caution.