High Mercury Level from Fish

Sierra are not

Dark and oiliy. They are light and make great fish tacos. Some of the best eating in the baja. But I too have high merc, just cann't give up the great fish.

The FDA reccomends limiting yourself to two fish meals, or 12 ounces of fish per week.

From my reading about a healthy diet, I assume that the two meals per week guideline is good advice, and it is a good idea to balance the benefits of fish with the hazards of mercury accumulation.

In general, shellfish is safer than other seafood.

It's a shame-- fish is sooooo good.

of course

of course Greenpeace has an agenda. but the idea that pelagic fish accumulate mercury is not a new idea and not one first reported by Greenpeace. it was first reported by *scientists* who studied the fish.

so, where did the mercury come from and how did it end up in the fish? well, it comes from pollution that is taken up by small organisms that are then eaten by large organisms and the mercury accumulates at the higher tropic levels - the fish you eat.

so yea, Greenpeace has an agenda: eat fewer fish for your own wellbeing and recognize that we are polluting entire ecosystems which harms all the organisms, including us.

Did you know that Greenpeace was the first group (1975) to bring national attention to Russian whaling ships killing California grey whales right off the California coast?

Think about that next time you see Grey whales off Baja...

gringorio

This is a long one...

Well, I don't think it's the 'fatal' part that is bad. It's what it does to your (or any organisms) brain and nervous system. That's partly why they warn pregnant women and children to stay away from it or limit consumption of fish that may have high levels.

As for the comments by Skeet and others about not trusting enviro organizations I have to suggest: Think about what we would *not* have if it wasn't for their efforts alone and also their efforts combined with local citizens and scientists. Sure, people will 'spin' things to adjust them to their agenda (Even the Blue Ribbon Coalition does that), but wouldn't you rather act (or have your government act) in a way that takes into account ecological priorities that ultimately sustain human life? I believe this is what is at the heart of many (not all) environmentally oriented campaigns.

gringorio

Here's more to consider:

from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss2/resp7/

Costanza (2000) has solicited the participation of his readers. In furtherance of his goal (and my own goal of promoting brevity on the Internet) I offer the following observations for the consideration of Costanza and others.


To the degree that wealth is gained by exploiting earth resources, that wealth may be expected to decline along with, and at a similar (related) trajectory, of the exploited resource. But indirect damage to ecosystems and earth structures upon which they depend may be a more potent force for destruction and extinction than direct exploitation?much like "incidental take" on a grand scale.

The problem with consensus is that it is by definition an average, appealingly democratic, but not necessarily, nay, unlikely, to be the optimum path toward a future that can sustain both a dynamically stable world (or local) ecosystem and a cash/credit economy with excess at its core.
Opinions are by definition connected to perceived individual self-interest. "Expert" opinion may be little better, sometimes far worse, than "inexpert" opinion. A nuclear scientist, for example, may persist in the opinion that technology will someday be developed to neutralize nuclear wastes; an inhabitant of a remote tribal/barter economy may believe that he/she needs an Internet connection to market his/her art work. There is a kind of seductive optimism in both positions; neither may foster a better world in the long run; either, to some extent, may--at least temporarily. That is to say that most "public judgments" will require the application of principles through a continuous process that questions those judgments?and the principles themselves. Opinions are adversarial; seeking a common truth in the recognition that all opinions share both truth and error and contain independent error and truth is more intellectually and scientifically defensible. This is the essence of intellectual discipline, and it can be learned; it can supplant winner-take-all debate and adversarial "law." To attempt to secure unanimity, even with public policy power, is a Gordian Knot of infinite proportions.

Resolving the conflicts is a large enough chore, but by what means and by what standard is "judgment" to be defined?
Regardless of the time remaining before the "ultimate" point of no return is reached, it should be at least theoretically possible to move the "ship" (Tyson 2000a) of destiny toward betterment and away from disaster by adding increments of reasoned judgment and action at all levels?personal, group, community, state. It is also possible to transcend such rigid hierarchical structures by emphasizing interconnected strands of relevance across them. Conservation Ecology is an exemplary example. It is perhaps no accident that "Internet" and "Worldwide Web," like those superior structures woven by eight-eyed arthropods, are a combination of superior strength and resilience. It may similarly be no accident that when they do break, their weavers simply keep weaving.

"The vision thing" has been discussed elsewhere in this Journal (Holling 1999, Tyson 2000b) but suffice it to say that vision needs to be organic and dynamic, continuously adjusting itself as the uncertainty principle does its work, much as organisms and ecosystems do. One need look no further for an "appropriate" model.

It may be necessary and desirable to accept "irreducible uncertainty" as a norm rather than an obstacle. Movement toward betterment that has organic, ecological origins may beat "appropriate analysis" and "innovative implementation" in the long run.

Certainly a cooperative, precautionary "policy" is preferable to a competitive zero-sum game that is more "rational," since both rationality and policy have dismal records of performance. Something quite different in the human psyche is likely to be a precondition for these pop-philosophy elements to produce the "intended" result. Perhaps just as religions grew out of the parables of oracles to amuse and guide the distracted masses in the early days of civilization, a network of common, interconnected webs of new eternal verities will be needed to move world religions and secular thought into an integrated whole. Christianity and Islam can be honestly interpreted as requiring a respect for the Earth and its life, and secularism should welcome an enlightenment consistent with its own principles. Ultimately the final power and decision rests within each individual, not a universally "shared vision." The real challenge is to imbue the disparate expressions of uncertainty-fear with an invisible shared web of principle common to all.

Greenpeace and heavy metals

mercury

Since the local fishermen probably eat a lot of their catch, they would be the local equivalent of the old hatters.

Anyone noticed any panga operators acting a little crazy

or should I say crazier than usual?

Yea, Skeet , good point. The population thing is a big deal, especially when nations strive to live the lifestyle we do in the US and other first world countries. Strange though, it seems to me that a lot of what scientists, environmentalists, and governments do (or are only able to do) is address the symptoms of over population: pollution, dis-ease, over consumption etc. - and never really directly face over population as the point from which many of our other problems arise.

But, I'm too tired right now to think of solutions ...

Greg, that photo is funny! I googled them and found their website. If anyone is interested, here it is:
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Glad to see they help clean up litter in Arizona!

You never know what you're going to find on the Nomad board!

You edited out the second half of that post:

"Please provide the details of the coral reef destruction by the SS Rainbow Warrior or whatever Green Peace vessel did it, as you may be more informed about that organization than I...
Many thanks! "

Please set me straight... obviously I have it all wrong, yes???

This is a discussion forum... I knew if I posted a conservative opinion, it would promote a liberal responce... Now, please provide some facts and not just emotional rant! Many thanks, again!

Quote:

Originally posted by David K You edited out the second half of that post: "Please provide the details of the coral reef destruction by the SS Rainbow Warrior or whatever Green Peace vessel did it, as you may be more informed about that organization than I... Many thanks! " Please set me straight... obviously I have it all wrong, yes??? This is a discussion forum... I knew if I posted a conservative opinion, it would promote a liberal responce... Now, please provide some facts and not just emotional rant! Many thanks, again!

David,

Label my opinion what ever you want, but we have all benefited from the actions of groups like Greenpeace. When whales are saved from whaling ships and marine and biosphere reserves are created, when pollution levels are reduced in part by the efforts of 'liberal' environmental groups/persons we all benefit, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. What have you done to help preserve the oceans and the animals in them? If you've helped in some way, does that mean I can call you a liberal? Why do you act as if trying to protect the environment is bad thing?

As far as Greenpeace damaging a reef, I believe it's true. Accidents do happen and it's unfortunate. But that one accident does not erase all the *good* Greenpeace strives for and has accomplished.

It's interesting that the anti-environment crowd always asks for facts to be provided to them - You are as able as the rest of us to use google or the local public/university library to find out all sorts of facts. In this way you can educate yourself without the getting involved in the emotional response these kinds of discussions often bring on.

gringorio

Quote:

Originally posted by David K You edited out the second half of that post: "Please provide the details of the coral reef destruction by the SS Rainbow Warrior or whatever Green Peace vessel did it, as you may be more informed about that organization than I... Many thanks! " Please set me straight... obviously I have it all wrong, yes??? This is a discussion forum... I knew if I posted a conservative opinion, it would promote a liberal responce... Now, please provide some facts and not just emotional rant! Many thanks, again!

Greg, I am very pro enviroment... I bet most consrvatives are (To conserve something is to keep it as it was, if that was good)...

I fear that many of you have been blinded by years of lies from the left.

I ask you to prove, so that you can see the facts... I knew about the coral reef disaster afterall, and was the one to bring it to everyone's attention here... So, isn't awareness of this something good?

Have a great weekend... I need to get going, still have some work to do before Baja!

By the way, I don't raise anyones thinking here to get them angry, but to get them to think... IE. Greenpeace isn't ALWAYS good and Conservatives aren't ALWAYS bad!

Quote:

Originally posted by David K You edited out the second half of that post: This is a discussion forum... I knew if I posted a conservative opinion, it would promote a liberal responce... Now, please provide some facts and not just emotional rant! Many thanks, again!

Good point!

It is beneficial to try to understand WHY opposing views are held - and to respect others' right to believe whatever they want. Often times it leads to some creative and healthy dialoge, solutions, and even coalitions on common interests.

Your comment "The one big Problem with the Envior Groups is "leadership", so many go off on their own little path, not realizing that if they had the thing called "common sense" they could get a lot more done."

I've seen that... I've also seen some good work done by several local ones. Most of my own work on environment issues (legislative work, scientific studies, legal work, and public forums, etc.) has been done as a concerned local resident rather than as part of any group.

Your comment, Skeet is a good one. I believe it often times applies to our government, our agencies, and our industries. hindsight is 20/20 (unless of course someone's trying to cover their trail....). And I've experienced enough "good ol boy backroom deals" between industry and politics, that I am often as skeptical of their sound bites as you are of some large environment groups

PS... no offense to Texans, who often think of "good ol boy" in a totally different way!

BTW, I imagine a little Googling would help find Mercury Toxicity Studies and tolerances.... ? ?

djh

Well if I wont know the difference then cut me a big slab of that Yellowfin tuna with a side of Wahoo, for desert give me some fried Lobster, beans and tortillas.

Does the amount of mercury in your body rise and lower depending on the temperature?