Sunday, April 15, 2007

HumBay Oysters To Continue

Being an oyster lover, it's good to see Coast Seafoods will be continuing and perhaps expanding operations on Humboldt Bay. Sorry to see it took them so long to get the needed permits.

In the hard copy version of the story they have some sidebar info on how the oysters are raised and such. Fun stuff.

One question I have, and I hesitate to bring this up, is whatever came of the dioxins they found in some Humboldt Bay oysters a while back? I read some blurb in the news a few years ago regarding dioxin contaminated oysters and that was the last I've heard of it.

I guess that's something we probably don't want to know?
Along similar lines, I wonder about other sealife in The Bay: Are the fish and crabs polluted with dioxins? I've wondered about that since I moved up here since I used to fish in the bay regularly.

Back then I wasn't concerned about dioxins. If fact, I don't know that I'd even heard of dioxin back then. Still, there's all kinds of stuff that runs into the bay and I wondered if it ended up in the sharks or rockfish I'd often catch and eat.

Now we're told there's all kinds of pollution seeping into the bay. I'm not sure how much of that is hype and how much is really something to be concerned about.

I asked a marine biologist I'd met about the issue back in the early eighties. He was in charge of some ecological studies being done at Humboldt Bay Power Plant. He said you could tell if the fish had pollutants in them pretty much by looking at them, if memory serves me correct. I assumed he knew what he was talking about, but now I'm finding that a little hard to swallow- no pun intended.

I suppose, if the fish are polluted, it must not be too bad. I've eaten a lot of fish, crab and oysters out of Humboldt Bay over thirty- plus years, and I'm still least so far.


At 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, If you are worried about dioxins, don't put fireplace ash in your vegetable garden-I always did and can say I am still very much alive and healthy.

I must have a preferrence for dioxins because I eat as much crab as I can afford and absolutely love oysters of all types especially large amounts of bbq and raw at the oyster festival.

Either you like seafood and don't care what's in it because you've always eaten it...or you are worried about everything you put in your mouth and stay away from everything the newspaper tells you is bad this week. If it was REALLY bad it is my thinking they wouldn't be able to sell it in the stores at all.

At 10:10 AM, Blogger Fred said...

You would think so. I believe some parts of the San Francisco Bay you're not supposed to eat fish out of because of mercury poisining. I would think if it was really bad here they'd have notices not to eat fish or shellfish from the bay.

At 10:37 AM, Blogger Pogo said...

If one took all of the environmentalist bullshit seriously one would eat only alfalfa sprouts bought at the co-op.

At 1:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the dioxins are more a threat to kids and pregnant women.

At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Pogo-there is dioxin in alfalfa sprouts too. But yeah you're right-we should look at the Baykeeper website to see what's left that is safe to eat. Is anything?

Does anyone remember when tomatos were thought to be 'poisonous'?

At 1:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The EPA considers there to be no safe level of dioxin exposure - the average U.S. resident is already over-exposed and further contact with this chemical is to be avoided when possible.
Beyond humans, research has demonstrated that fish, marine mammals, and birds are highly sensitive to dioxin. The effects on these critters are principally reproductive and developmental but may also include problems with metabolism and immune system function. Bird eggs have been shown to suffer from increased mortality at dioxin levels as low as two parts per trillion (2ppt). Coho salmon have been found to be particularly sensitive to dioxin; juveniles can spend up to 2 years in Humboldt Bay before heading out to sea.

At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coho salmon aren't legal to catch last I looked-we're safe there. And bird you mean like hummingbird eggs because I get my eggs at the Co-Op and if you're saying I can't buy safe food at the Co-Op it won't matter much about my metabolism because starvation will set in first (I think). And Fred? Don't eat Marine Mammals either-the F&G will get mad at you.

At 3:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep. That's why people are living longer than ever and most of the populations of critters are increasing exponentially.

At 8:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is recomended that you eat fish only once a week. For adult males we really only have to loosely follow that recomendation. However for women who want to have kids and kids who are still developing they should not eat fish more than once a week. Remember at a bare minimum for every pound of meat we eat their were ten pounds of grain, seaweed, plankton that the animal had to ingest to make the meat. So one Oyster is like absorbing the dioxins within 20-30 pounds of whatever oysters eat (Plankton?).

At 10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'll get more dioxin from swapping spit with one of the EPIC honey's than you'll ever get eating good humboldt seafood products. Good for the oyster growers. Good for the people. Baykeepers will keep sueing till there's not a buisness with a bank account left.

At 10:49 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

We're talking little filters here. I love oysters, but everything in moderation.

At 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, what is interesting is how you're usually bashing government as bloated, incompetant, inefficient and self serving. But here you trust and expect Government agencies will warn you if there's a real health risk in food being sold.

You write that "I would think they'd have notices not to eat...." So unless the "they" you refer to are the companies who depend on selling you what they have, I'd say, in your heart, you have faith in Government to protect you from health hazards. Further, you rely on the Government and believe they are doing a good job.

So how about supporting that Government you depend on for protection against things you don't expect commercial companies will warn you about?

You're smug that you aren't sick therefore everything must be OK. Well if you get sick tomorrow, will you say "I Wuz deceived"? Is it possible your wife's illness might be attributable to chemical pollution? Or just as long as you personally aren't affected right now are you saying it doesn't matter to you? Now that would be really Libertarian of you.

At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dont bother trying to reason with Fred. He hates government because he used to work as a government employee. He couldnt cut it and was terminated. So instead of him being dysfunctional it must be the system, right? Thats what he tells himself. No matter what the government is in the wrong and Fred is in the right. Its sad, really. A broken old man...

At 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If what you've written is so, it's pretty damning. I worked for the Government for awhile and found it was essentially impossible to get rid of the deadwood. If Fred actually got axed for inept performance, thats a pretty low blow.

At 1:53 PM, Blogger Fred said...

5:20 wrote, "No matter what the government is in the wrong and Fred is in the right.".

You obviously haven't been visiting this blog long or need help with your reading comprehension. It wasn't that long ago I actually complimented the Department of Motor Vehicles here.

I call it the way I see it.

2:45 wrote, "I'd say, in your heart, you have faith in Government to protect you from health hazards.".

Nope. It's just an easy assumption to make since government is trying to ban other things we already eat that probably aren't nearly as harmful, if harmful at all.

Trans fats, for instance.


Post a Comment

<< Home