Actually, I think that I may have gotten the wrong impression from info that
I read at the FDA web site. I just went bac, as a result of your "got a
bridge to sell" remark and did more research (web). Ocean fish (marine
fish) do not tend to be largely impacted by mercury from industry. That is
true. It's also true that the exact impact level is unknown, however larger
fish that eat other fish tend to collect more mercury. The primary exposure
seems to be from sediment exposure first, and then somewhat from atmospheric
exposure. Freshwater lakes, rivers, and bays are the worst at increasing
the exposure of mercury to fish, and the fish's mercury levels reflect that.
Most freshwater locations that were problematic have been cleaned up and the
mercury levels in fish are dropping, not rising. There are still some
problem areas. Even though not as much is known about the marine
environment, I would suspect that there is an effect there too, just not as
large. The FDA has a nice web site that shows typical mercury levels for
various species of fish. So far, all those that I regularly catch are
pretty clean, other than the larger halibut ...which are just 'ok', not
'high'.

Sorry for the inaccurate/incomplete statement that I made. I made it before
doing as much reading as I did just now ...last time I looked into it, I was
primarily concerned with the sal****er fishing that I normally do, and for
that, my statement is pretty close to the truth (only off by a percentage
point or two). Freshwater mercury is a much larger problem. Mercury
emissions should be stopped regardless.

Brian D



"Jim," wrote in message
...
Brian D wrote:
It's nothing more than a ploy by the greenies to hurt more industry. 99%
of the mercury found in fish comes from natural sources. If the overall
level of mercury in fish is rising, it just means that they are getting
older and bigger before being harvested. That means the ecosystem is
BETTER than it was.

Brian

ANd if you believe that, I have this bridge...


"A.Melon" wrote in message
news:e3216fb4c4f19bdcd0d5b0caf0b7d502@melontraffic kers.com...

Just because it is on the internet does not make it true. Simply copying
and pasting a political slam does not excuse you from being a spammer.
Salon.com is a far left organization that invents their own stories. Just
cause a rag smells like fish does not make it worthy of posting here.

Get a life.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ury/print.html

Extract

Millions of fetuses whose mothers eat fish are being exposed to
brain-damaging mercury. But critics charge the Bush administration's
regulations are like bailing the ocean with a thimble.

"Children who suffer the consequences of methylmercury toxicity often
appear like other children who may have been affected for a genetic
reason," explains Leo Trasande, the assistant director of the Mount
Sinai School of Medicine's Center for Children's Health and the
Environment in New York. "A child with mental retardation may have had a
significant environmental exposure in the perinatal period. But there
are no hallmarks." One study found that an affected child could score
lower on IQ tests by as little as .20 of a point to as much as 24
points.

While the Bush administration cajoles women to follow its fish warnings,
it's proved unwilling to take on the root of the problem. Fish, after
all, are only the pathway of mercury to our bloodstreams. Coal-fired
power plants, in the United States and abroad, are the largest source of
man-made mercury pollution. But Bush and company stand in the way of
international efforts to prevent mercury pollution and are doing little
the stop it at home.