• Re: Blackened Catfish

    From Leonard Blaisdell@leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net to rec.food.cooking on Wed Apr 1 00:53:46 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 2026-03-31, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    It's weird that some types are flesh are quite enjoyable very rare while
    others are not.... or maybe the risk factor is too high. I have no problem with Sashimi. I like grilled tuna that is basically just seared
    on the outside and raw in the middle. I had a friend who was part Inuit
    who introduced me to raw arctic char. If we cook salmon and part of it
    is under cooked I'll take it. I have no problems eating scallops or
    oysters raw. There are a number of seafood items that need to be
    cooked, like trout, shrimp, sole.


    We went to North Dakota when I was about six. My Dad and Uncle traveled
    to Lac la Ronge to fish for arctic grayling and char. They were warned
    to cook the fish thoroughly because of human transferable worms.
    That always stuck with me. Whether it's true or not? 🤔
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bruce@Bruce@invalid.invalid to rec.food.cooking on Wed Apr 1 12:01:03 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 1 Apr 2026 00:53:46 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
    <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 2026-03-31, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    It's weird that some types are flesh are quite enjoyable very rare while
    others are not.... or maybe the risk factor is too high. I have no
    problem with Sashimi. I like grilled tuna that is basically just seared
    on the outside and raw in the middle. I had a friend who was part Inuit
    who introduced me to raw arctic char. If we cook salmon and part of it
    is under cooked I'll take it. I have no problems eating scallops or
    oysters raw. There are a number of seafood items that need to be
    cooked, like trout, shrimp, sole.


    We went to North Dakota when I was about six. My Dad and Uncle traveled
    to Lac la Ronge to fish for arctic grayling and char. They were warned
    to cook the fish thoroughly because of human transferable worms.
    That always stuck with me. Whether it's true or not? 🤔

    You'll probably never see this reply because your one of RFC's
    goldfish, but anyway.


    First, a quick geographical heads-up: Lac la Ronge is actually in
    central Saskatchewan, Canada, not North Dakota. While North Dakota has
    some great fishing, you’d have to head quite a bit further north to
    find this specific lake or a wild population of Arctic grayling.

    About the fish: Yes, it is possible to get human-transferable
    parasites from eating undercooked Arctic grayling or Char, though the
    risk level depends on the specific "worm."
    </AI>
    --
    Bruce
    <https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VxXW9tcQL4c>
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dave Smith@adavid.smith@sympatico.ca to rec.food.cooking on Tue Mar 31 21:41:13 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 2026-03-31 8:53 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
    On 2026-03-31, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    I had a friend who was part Inuit
    who introduced me to raw arctic char. If we cook salmon and part of it
    is under cooked I'll take it. I have no problems eating scallops or
    oysters raw. There are a number of seafood items that need to be
    cooked, like trout, shrimp, sole.


    We went to North Dakota when I was about six. My Dad and Uncle traveled
    to Lac la Ronge to fish for arctic grayling and char. They were warned
    to cook the fish thoroughly because of human transferable worms.
    That always stuck with me. Whether it's true or not? 🤔

    The arctic char I had at my friend's place was from the arctic, probably
    too cold to worry about worms. His family up there ate it raw.

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bruce@Bruce@invalid.invalid to rec.food.cooking on Wed Apr 1 13:03:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 21:41:13 -0400, Dave Smith
    <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    On 2026-03-31 8:53 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
    On 2026-03-31, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    I had a friend who was part Inuit
    who introduced me to raw arctic char. If we cook salmon and part of it
    is under cooked I'll take it. I have no problems eating scallops or
    oysters raw. There are a number of seafood items that need to be
    cooked, like trout, shrimp, sole.


    We went to North Dakota when I was about six. My Dad and Uncle traveled
    to Lac la Ronge to fish for arctic grayling and char. They were warned
    to cook the fish thoroughly because of human transferable worms.
    That always stuck with me. Whether it's true or not? 🤔

    The arctic char I had at my friend's place was from the arctic, probably
    too cold to worry about worms. His family up there ate it raw.


    Why "Too Cold for Worms" is a Myth:

    Parasites are survivors: Worms like the Diphyllobothrium (fish
    tapeworm) are perfectly adapted to the Arctic cycle. They live inside
    fish swimming in water that is just above freezing. The cold of the
    lake doesn't stop them; they essentially just "doze" until they hit
    the warmth of a human stomach.

    Cold water = Frozen solid: To kill parasites, fish must be
    frozen to -20°C (-4°F) for at least a week, or flash-frozen at even
    lower temperatures. A fish pulled from an icy lake or kept in a
    standard fridge is still "warm" enough for a parasite to stay alive.
    </AI>
    --
    Bruce
    <https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VxXW9tcQL4c>
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From dsi1@user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid to rec.food.cooking on Wed Apr 1 02:48:46 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking


    Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> posted:

    On 2026-03-31, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    It's weird that some types are flesh are quite enjoyable very rare while
    others are not.... or maybe the risk factor is too high. I have no problem with Sashimi. I like grilled tuna that is basically just seared
    on the outside and raw in the middle. I had a friend who was part Inuit who introduced me to raw arctic char. If we cook salmon and part of it
    is under cooked I'll take it. I have no problems eating scallops or oysters raw. There are a number of seafood items that need to be
    cooked, like trout, shrimp, sole.


    We went to North Dakota when I was about six. My Dad and Uncle traveled
    to Lac la Ronge to fish for arctic grayling and char. They were warned
    to cook the fish thoroughly because of human transferable worms.
    That always stuck with me. Whether it's true or not? 🤔

    Be afraid, be very afraid.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM4RNIAnv5s
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From chefly@deal@me.al to rec.food.cooking on Tue Mar 31 22:55:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On Wed, 01 Apr 2026 02:48:46 GMT
    dsi1 <user4746@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
    Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> posted:

    On 2026-03-31, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    It's weird that some types are flesh are quite enjoyable very
    rare while others are not.... or maybe the risk factor is too
    high. I have no problem with Sashimi. I like grilled tuna that
    is basically just seared on the outside and raw in the middle. I
    had a friend who was part Inuit who introduced me to raw arctic
    char. If we cook salmon and part of it is under cooked I'll take
    it. I have no problems eating scallops or oysters raw. There are
    a number of seafood items that need to be cooked, like trout,
    shrimp, sole.


    We went to North Dakota when I was about six. My Dad and Uncle
    traveled to Lac la Ronge to fish for arctic grayling and char. They
    were warned to cook the fish thoroughly because of human
    transferable worms. That always stuck with me. Whether it's true or
    not? 🤔

    Be afraid, be very afraid.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM4RNIAnv5s
    I wonder what the Sam's catch has in it?
    https://youtu.be/c6DkhBbFPik
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Leonard Blaisdell@leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net to rec.food.cooking on Fri Apr 3 01:30:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 2026-04-01, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    You'll probably never see this reply because your one of RFC's
    goldfish, but anyway.

    I'm a goldfish?

    <AI>
    First, a quick geographical heads-up: Lac la Ronge is actually in
    central Saskatchewan, Canada, not North Dakota.
    [Other garbage deleted]
    </AI>

    You need a better AI. Saskatchewan is due north of North Dakota and
    borders the state. Your AI buddy didn't take that into consideration.
    Duh!


    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bruce@Bruce@invalid.invalid to rec.food.cooking on Fri Apr 3 12:50:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 3 Apr 2026 01:30:42 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
    <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 2026-04-01, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    You'll probably never see this reply because your one of RFC's
    goldfish, but anyway.

    I'm a goldfish?

    <AI>
    First, a quick geographical heads-up: Lac la Ronge is actually in
    central Saskatchewan, Canada, not North Dakota.
    [Other garbage deleted]
    </AI>

    You need a better AI. Saskatchewan is due north of North Dakota and
    borders the state. Your AI buddy didn't take that into consideration.
    Duh!

    I'll leave that to you and AI. I don't even know which direction I'm
    facing as I type this.
    --
    Bruce
    <https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VxXW9tcQL4c>
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dave Smith@adavid.smith@sympatico.ca to rec.food.cooking on Thu Apr 2 22:02:54 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 2026-04-02 9:30 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

    First, a quick geographical heads-up: Lac la Ronge is actually in
    central Saskatchewan, Canada, not North Dakota.
    [Other garbage deleted]
    </AI>

    You need a better AI. Saskatchewan is due north of North Dakota and
    borders the state. Your AI buddy didn't take that into consideration.
    Duh!



    Lac la Ronge is a long way up there, but then it is a long way between
    just about two place in Saskatchewan. We have friends who were both born
    and raised out there. He used to indicate the distance/driving time
    between cities in cases... the number of cases of (24) beer you needed
    for the trip. The laws on drinking and driving are a lot tougher now so
    you can't drive as far.

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bruce@Bruce@invalid.invalid to rec.food.cooking on Fri Apr 3 13:08:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 22:02:54 -0400, Dave Smith
    <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    On 2026-04-02 9:30 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

    First, a quick geographical heads-up: Lac la Ronge is actually in
    central Saskatchewan, Canada, not North Dakota.
    [Other garbage deleted]
    </AI>

    You need a better AI. Saskatchewan is due north of North Dakota and
    borders the state. Your AI buddy didn't take that into consideration.
    Duh!

    Lac la Ronge is a long way up there, but then it is a long way between
    just about two place in Saskatchewan. We have friends who were both born
    and raised out there. He used to indicate the distance/driving time
    between cities in cases... the number of cases of (24) beer you needed
    for the trip. The laws on drinking and driving are a lot tougher now so
    you can't drive as far.

    Somehow that doesn't tell me whether Leo or AI were correct, probably
    both in their own way.
    --
    Bruce
    <https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VxXW9tcQL4c>
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Leonard Blaisdell@leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net to rec.food.cooking on Fri Apr 3 03:16:30 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    On 2026-04-03, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    Lac la Ronge is a long way up there, but then it is a long way between
    just about two place in Saskatchewan. We have friends who were both born
    and raised out there. He used to indicate the distance/driving time
    between cities in cases... the number of cases of (24) beer you needed
    for the trip. The laws on drinking and driving are a lot tougher now so
    you can't drive as far.


    Hmmm, my friends and I used to do that. It's a long way between towns in Nevada. When a cop came in view, someone always said, "Cop! Act sober!"
    That always worked for us. What were the odds?
    How far is it to Winnemucca? About a six-pack. [That's per individual]
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dave Smith@adavid.smith@sympatico.ca to rec.food.cooking on Fri Apr 3 15:19:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.food.cooking

    overan
    On 2026-04-02 11:16 p.m., Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
    On 2026-04-03, Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:

    Lac la Ronge is a long way up there, but then it is a long way between
    just about two place in Saskatchewan. We have friends who were both born
    and raised out there. He used to indicate the distance/driving time
    between cities in cases... the number of cases of (24) beer you needed
    for the trip. The laws on drinking and driving are a lot tougher now so
    you can't drive as far.


    Hmmm, my friends and I used to do that. It's a long way between towns in Nevada. When a cop came in view, someone always said, "Cop! Act sober!"
    That always worked for us. What were the odds?
    How far is it to Winnemucca? About a six-pack. [That's per individual]

    Six pack? That was an American thing back then. Beer was most often sold
    by the case of 24. Lightweights bought 12 packs. Back then you get get
    away with drinking and driving as long as you didn't crash. When they
    did charge people for impaired driving they had to prove that they were impaired. They had a number of field sobriety tests they used to make
    drivers go through and a good lawyer could usually get cases thrown out.

    They ended up bring in the breathalyzer and legislated BAC levels. I
    consider those limits to be arbitrary. They are based on studies on the effect of alcohol levels on performance. Accordingly, that means they
    are dealing with averages and some people can handle a lot more alcohol
    than others. My older brother is pretty much an alcoholic but does not
    show signs of impairment. Another brother's wife almost never drinks
    sticks to one drink. I remember one time she had two drinks and she was loaded.

    The other reason I think they are arbitrary is that they vary from one
    place to another. The Canadian provinces and US states are pretty
    standard by it 2in different countries. BAC over 0.0will get you charged
    and over 0.05 gets a warning and roadside 24 hour suspension. Some
    countries a 0 BAC limit. Others are 0.0, 0.02, 0.03 0.05 or 0.08. Some
    have 0 alcohol for new drivers and some have 0 for drivers under a
    certain age.




    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2