On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:02:46 +0900, Thomas Bridgeland <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 07:57  AM, Adam Sroka 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.
>
>There was a serious mass poisoning in the 50s here in Japan. Mercury
>from a factory contaminated the Minamata bay and many who ate the fish
>over time developed severe symptoms and died. Just a year or so ago
>some fish from that bay are now being allowed to be eaten.
>
>But it is hard to go from such an acute case to the far lower levels of
>mercury in deep sea fish like tuna or salmon. Not really comparable.

In a lot of conventional wisdom, there is the reasoning "if a implies b, and b
implies c, then a must imply c".

However, actual evidence often shows that in such cases, " a does not imply c ".
Further investigation then shows that other factors (d, e and f) are involved.

Thus, laboratory conditions can seem to show ill health results from a
condition, and certain foods produce that condition, BUT in real life it doesn't
happen.

I'm reminded of Dr. Dianne Schwarzbein, who for a research paper, happened to
need to cite a study showing that fat consumption produced illness, and was
shocked to find that a thorough search produced nothing at all (i.e. fat
consumption produced certain conditions, certain conditions sometimes produced
illness, but a did not actually produce c).

--
Cheers,

Ken