Scombroid poisonings have primarily been associated with the consumption of ahi (tuna), mahimahi (dolphin fish) and bluefish (blue marlin), however, other species are also capable of developing elevated levels of histamine when
temperature abused. Once the toxin is formed, it cannot be eliminated by heat (cooking) or freezing.
Symptoms of Scombrotoxin (Histamine Poisoning):
Initial symptoms may include a tingling or burning
- sensation in the mouth, a rash on the upper body and a drop in blood pressure.
- Frequently, headaches and itching of the skin are encountered.
- The symptoms may progress to nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and may require hospitalization, particularly in the case of elderly or impaired patients.
Normal Course of Disease:
The onset of intoxication symptoms is rapid, ranging from immediate to 30 minutes. The duration of the illness is usually 3 hours, but may last several days.
To prevent Scombrotoxin (histamine) formation the U.S.FDA recommends bringing the internal temperature of the fish to 50 degrees or below within six hours of death. The quickest
method of chilling fish requires a minimum of 45 lbs. of ice and sufficient seawater added to a fish bag or box to form an ice "slurry" in which to chill your catch.
APPROXIMATE SAFE SHELF-LIFE AT VARIOUS STORAGE
- 0 Degrees
- 32 Degrees
- 38 Degrees
- 40 Degrees
- 50 Degrees
- 70 Degrees
- 90 Degrees
WITH RAPID COOLING
WITH DELAYED COOLING
*Information from U.S. Food and Drug Administration. www.fda.gov
Save our Reef Hawaii Costly Consequences of Bad Research
Below are some of the costly consequences from the questionable erosion research done by the Unviversity of Hawaii. At the end of this page you can read the story of one erosion victim asking that UH's ethics policies for research be enforced when data are changed to get the results desired. Though local efforts to correct questionable research appear to be failing there are federal resources that can be brought to bear since federal grant money was used. This story is unfolding so check back for updates.
Bad research that attributes erosion to the wrong causes ends up protecting the real culprits. Laws and policies that would have been instituted to protect the reef and limited supplies of sand are not implemented because the public and government officials have been misled. Potentially irreversible damage to the environment could have been avoided.
A good example is the damage to the reef and the depletion of limited supplies of sand to feed the concrete industry. It may take centuries for the reefs to make up for the sand mined off Hawaii's beaches given the highly degraded state of the reefs' sand productivity. If that isn't bad enough, the concrete industry is using up the remaining inland dune sand and nothing is being done about it because the University of Hawaii has convinced the environmentalists and the government that beach retreat is natural and the reefs are healthy.
Exploiting the Environmentalists
The individuals who are passionate about saving the environment are exploited when their best intentions are misused for private agendas. Misleading them as to the real causes of the sand loss puts them in the position of helping to destroy the environment when they champion policies that turn out to be detrimental to their own environmental goals.
Needless to say, when Hawaii loses its reefs and beaches the tourist economy and all the related businesses will suffer as well. The personal toll on local families serving the tourist industry will be considerable.
Forbidding protection that maintains a sand buffer between the home and the sea when such properties are subject to man-made sand loss puts lives, homes and the family's economic well-being in jeopardy.
Victims of Bad Research
The human toll can also be considerable. Many people who own homes near the ocean but downdrift of man-made sand loss had to abandon their dreams of a peaceful retirement life and sell under duress. They are innocent victims of research that blames them for the loss of the sand taken by others. Not only should they be allowed to provide protection from the removal of sand but they should be compensated for the consequent costs resulting from the sand removal - including cost to erect protection and loss of use of a beach that would have been there had the sand not been removed.