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.

I got it from the FDA web site, but I'm going to refer you to my other
response ...I took the time to look into it again and realize that my
statement doesn't apply to fresh water so much, but is ok for the marine
environment in most locations.

Brian


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Interesting theory, but I'd like to see where you got it from. Oh....and
we'll need at least 3 unrelated sources, and none of them can come from
Rush Limbaugh's web site.


"Brian D" wrote in message
...
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


"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.

"Jim," wrote in message
...

[snip]

I'm all for nuke power just as soon as you figure out to do with the spent
fuel

Iraq wants it....

Brian

There's still a problem.

1) Your political comment assumes that the "listener" is completely
unaffected by context. You may recall that your president has yet to reveal
the identity of many participants in the creation of his so-called "energy
policy". That is obscene. If a president meets with a CIA operative, it
makes sense to keep that person's identity secret. To do otherwise could
endanger the person's life, or whatever project he/she may be involved with.
But, when a president won't reveal the identities of business executives or
scientists, it's only for two reasons. First, he knows it'll cause trouble
if his selection of advisors is all tilted toward stockholder happiness. And
second, he does it to be divisive via the secrecy alone. So, when you talk
about "a ploy by the greenies", that's absurd. Anyone with a brain should be
suspicious of the game your president plays with pollution regulations.

2) An example of something to ponder: In some upstate NY bodies of water,
the health warnings for fish like walleye have changed from "eat no more
than X amount", to "eat none". I know some mercury occurs naturally and
leaches into lakes & streams. But, not all of it, and as I mentioned
elsewhere, the source is traceable.


"Brian D" wrote in message
...
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.

Interesting theory, but I'd like to see where you got it from. Oh....and
we'll need at least 3 unrelated sources, and none of them can come from Rush
Limbaugh's web site.


"Brian D" wrote in message
...
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


"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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
A.Melon wrote:
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.

You don't have to like Salon -- but what about these studies?

Browngoehl's remarks are backed by several alarming studies of mercury
in the past decade. One study, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, and Europe's Environment and Climate
Research Program, showed that children exposed to mercury in utero did
poorly on tests measuring their attention span, memory and speaking
abilities. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, both
the brains and nervous systems of children who have been exposed to
mercury can be damaged. Their language and visual spatial skills can
also suffer.

Karen Perry, deputy director of the environmental health department at
Physicians for Social Responsibility, has this advice: "For women who
are of child-bearing age, we would advise they learn more about which
fish are the cleanest and the safest and continue to eat fish in
moderation and choose the lowest-mercury fish. The sad part of all of
this is that fish is such a healthy food, we don't want to tell people
not to eat it. So you have to give them more information, so they can
make the best choices."

You would have seen them had you read the article

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.


What a biased report. US coal fired plants are some of the cleanest
plants in the world. And since we have the possibility to make very
clean power via nuclear which most likely you and your political allies
oppose, we are stuck with firing plants with coal or expensive imported
oil. You want dirty, go to China. When my friends went over there in
2001, they said, they never saw the sun because of all the pollution and
smog. Go to China and complain.


1) Particulates from coal burned in power plants is easily traced to its
source using marker chemicals designed for that purpose. That's how we
know where the crud comes from. They may be the cleanest in the world,
but they're still no panacea. If scientists say that the crud (including
mercury) in lakes in the Adirondack Mountains of NY came from Ohio, it
came from Ohio. End of discussion.

2) Regarding your comment on about opposition to nuclear power, I'd
suggest you either throw away your script, or stop speaking to whomever
feeds you your lines. The opposition involves the total lack of a
solution to the disposal problem, something you cannot argue against. At
this moment, you're getting ready to respond with a comment about how
Yucca Mountain is a good solution, according to "experts". But, hang on
before you respond. You probably did NOT catch the news about 10 days
ago, describing how scientists (at Los Alamos lab, if I recall) doctored
the research data that supposedly "proves" YM is a great place to bury
nuclear waste.


Bury it in a salt mine. They have been stable for lots of millioins of
years. Bury it in the former blast cavern of an underground nuclear test.
Spread it over syria, or some other country we dislike. (France?)


Thanks to the crew in the peanut gallery......