It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Study Finds Fish Don't Get Cancer, Cure for Cancer in Their Blood?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Illahee
 


Hi.

Thanx for your input.
In the ten years of my involvement with the industry i can honestly say the occurence of these growths has become more noticeable over the last four years.

When we used to find one before,everyone would stop and have a look and say "yuck".Now we jsut accept this as an everyday thing and no one mentions it now.

By the way,which fishing grounds were you dealing with?




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Alright, so heres a good question. . . i eat a lot of fish. . . A LOT of fish (i smoke a lot of weed, so therefore in theory it will help with my memory) so do they cut these cancerous tumors, or any tumor for that matter out? or does it go into the grinder to make fish sandwiches for fast food restraunts, or fish sticks? or is it simply not in the flesh section of the meat. . . i've fished all my life, and never caught a freshwater or salt water fish with a noticable tumor. . . well, i did catch a 6 foot fresh water (i dunno if sturgeons are salt water as well?) white sturgeon with a growth out of its head (really ugly) . . . but an interesting topic none the less!



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by immedicated
 


Hi.

Don't worry,i am very concientious about that.These tumors usually grow on either side of the spine,rarely on both sides,so the affected fillet is simply thrown away,as the job of a filleter is to produce consistently high quality fillets as quickly as possible.

If you dig these tumors out you are left with a huge ugly hole in the fillet,which most customers would simply reject.

However,i can't speak for others involved with the industry and what there measures may be regarding this.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
If this is a genetic feature it could be something implemented or that can be turned on in the human genome... Although the science behind this sort of thing is still very new and has caused some serious problems in human volunteers, even death... You might turn into a fish too, who knows?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Interesting find - thanks for posting!


reply to post by ixnay
 


Actually, sharks and rays are considered to be fish, although they are in a different class to bony fish:


Sharks and rays do not fall into the category of 'Bony Fishes' which makes up the majority of this Fish Library. They belong to the "Class Chondrichthyes" that includes nonbony fishes. Sharks and rays both fall into the "Subclass Elasmobranchii" which includes jawed fishes with cartilaginous skeletons, multiple gill slits, skin covered with tiny tooth-like scales, and rows of regenerating teeth.

Source


As for those here who say they have seen tumors on fish, I think it's worth noting than not all tumors/growths are cancerous.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Hi.

Perhaps you have a point about the shark family,as i have never noticed growths or tumors in any of the members of the shark species that i have worked with(Thornback Rays,Dogfish,also known as Rock Salmon).

I do know that Shark liver oil is one of the main ingredients in haemorrhoid ointment.(Don't ask me how i know).



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
As for those here who say they have seen tumors on fish, I think it's worth noting than not all tumors/growths are cancerous.


That's what i wonder. For scientists to come out and make a bold claim like NO FISH GET CANCER. They have to know something we don't, especially if fisherman can deny it and say yes they have cancers.

My assumption would be that these fish with growth are non-cancerous.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentShadow

That's what i wonder. For scientists to come out and make a bold claim like NO FISH GET CANCER. They have to know something we don't, especially if fisherman can deny it and say yes they have cancers.

My assumption would be that these fish with growth are non-cancerous.


Right, either the growths are never cancerous.

Or, the scientists were paid to knowingly put out bunk science. That's where my conspiracy ends, I don't know why they would, what would be the agenda?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUncleSam
Although the science behind this sort of thing is still very new and has caused some serious problems in human volunteers, even death...


What's 'this sort of thing'? Is there a thead on this? Or can you site some sources for me to look at?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I'm going to be the third person in the industry to assert that fish do indeed get cancer. Lymphosarcoma and Plasmacytoid Leukemia, to name two.

But hey, keep buying that fish oil to prevent cancer - Duzey needs a paycheque too.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I'm going to be the third person in the industry to assert that fish do indeed get cancer. Lymphosarcoma and Plasmacytoid Leukemia, to name two.


Alright! I think third times a charm. Fish get cancer



But hey, keep buying that fish oil to prevent cancer -


I take fish oil daily to keep my hair pretty and my brain strong



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join