Hacker News Reader

Comment by dev_throw | Hacker News Reader

Bioaccumulation is a serious thing. I suspect increase of plastic in fish might be related to the reduction in sperm count in men.[0][1]

[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-semen-quality...

[1] http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/10/a-story-about-fish-plasti...

View on HN

Per capita fish consumption is not radically different between East Asian and Europe/USA [0], while sperm count is.

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus99/per_capita99.pdf

Eating lower in the food chain is a practical and accessible solution.

yeah. that's certainly been the approach for reducing exposure to mercury.

but, with plastics, i wonder how significant the exposure reduction is for, say, consuming sardines, given that the plastic particles themselves may be mistaken for plankton.

in other words, what percentage of a low food chain fish's or mollusk's diet is pure plastic?

Lean meats are also preferable to fatty, and animals that grow fast are preferable those that grow slowly.

Pigs and chickens are fairly safe, and perfectly ethical if you source responsibly.

You have a trailing * leading to a 404 on the second citation. Try this: http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/10/a-story-about-fish-plasti...

Thanks, I was having trouble with italicizing things :)

'farmed' fish might also be a good option while we (as a species) work out our waste issues.

Do people really eat that much fish? I thought fish is mostly raised as fishmeal for cows. Making an even worse bioaccumulation chain.

yes, people do. Not all the countries are pure meat eaters...

You know that fish is a type of meat, right?

Lots of cultures don't class fish in with most meats. In traditional Catholicism the rule against meat on Fridays didn't apply to fish and likewise with Japanese Buddhist rules against meat eating. It's sort of like how most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables even though they aren't, scientifically.

Yeah, in 21st century English fish is a meat but it's non-centrally meat so the meaning is clear when you apply Gricean norms.

Woah woah woah, hold up there. Scientifically speaking, a vegetable is the edible part of a plant. Tomatos are vegetables and fruits scientifically. This is like arguing that a square isn't a rectangle! Okay, carry on <3

> In traditional Catholicism the rule against meat on Fridays didn't apply to fish

Beaver meat is also a-ok! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/once-...

Likewise chicken is often not considered 'meat' despite clearly being the flesh of an animal. It's kind of weird, but not as weird as the people who think "a little bit of ham" in a salad doesn't count as meat.

Judism also doesn't consider fish meat for the purposes of Kosher-ness.

> Yeah, in 21st century English fish is a meat

Having spent the best part of the last 17 years speaking 21st century English, this is a surprisingly strong assertion to me.

From http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/115517:

> The flesh of animals used as food, esp. excluding fish...

When I was visiting Brazil I met a bunch of people that called themselves vegetarians who would eat chicken and bacon. Turns out "vegetarian" means not eating beef. It led to some pretty funny misunderstandings.

I've found that "meat" is sometimes used in casual English as "Animal muscle/meat, but not fish"

I think there's a slight conceptual divide on both the hard-carnivore-against-fish and pescatarian groups.

Old world traditions tend to distinguish them separately as well.

True, but it's just stupid, fish are animals.

I know you're being flippant, but we'd lose a lot of what makes language beautiful if we beat the looseness and poetry out of conversational exchanges. Pendatic assertions often miss the fact that words drift in an ever-shifting consensus.

No it's more than that; perhaps you haven't discussed with some people, but a great many people actually do believe fish are not animals. It's not mere semantics, they don't actually consider them animals at all, as if animal, plant, and fish are all different categories. Don't dismiss as pedantry what is actually a very interesting topic.

Point generally taken, but that's a conceptual leap to make when talking about what "meat" means in a casual conversation. As an aside, I don't think I've encountered anyone who thinks fish aren't animals (but of course they exist)

> I've found that "meat" is sometimes used in casual English as "Animal muscle/meat, but not fish"

But also often monophylectically as "mammal muscle/meat".

Catholics don't consider fish meat. I'm not sure what they think it is, maybe some sort of creepily mobile mushroom?

And some Buddhist and Hindu sects consider mushrooms to be meat.

Ironically enough, fungi and animals separated later in the tree of life than plants. So, while certainly not correct, there is a kernel of truth there.

Not as meat. For some Hindus anyway mushrooms and leeks are prohibited just like meat.

> Not all the countries are pure meat eaters...

lmao... fish is meat.

well, I should have said "animal flesh". In my mother tongue (Spanish) fish (pescado) is different than meat (carne).

Sounds like a bug in Spanish (chill, I'm Spanish). However, fish is also animal flesh so that wouldn't have made the statement any better. Fish are animals. Fish muscles are meat in the same way any other meat is meat.

Downvoted for facts, gotta love it.

From the HN guidelines:

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

I am honestly stunned by this comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com