Mercury in fish

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Mon 24 Apr 2006 14:01

<rrm>This thread was split off from another thread</rrm>

Forum meet Mr. Mercury!

Okay, all kidding aside, is eating fish daily safe these days? I love raw fish, but is eating it everyday okay?

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Tue 25 Apr 2006 07:09

Chin-Chin wrote:I also question if mackarel is really cheaper than salmon if you substract the discarded parts.

I buy my mackerel totally cleaned; ready-to-eat (cleaning it is so much hassle if you are not trained), and even with this service included its twice as cheap as salmon; At least at my local fishery shop.

avalon wrote: Forum meet Mr. Mercury!
Okay, all kidding aside, is that safe these days? I love raw fish, but is eating it everyday okay?

Hatchery salmon is free (or very low incidentally) from mercury, so if you worry about mercury in tuna for example, simply eat salmon from a hatchery.

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 25 Apr 2006 10:06

avalon wrote:Forum meet Mr. Mercury!

I feel quicksilver quick these days...

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Tue 25 Apr 2006 21:31

Oscar, what about the mercury in Mackerel?

Has anyone eating a lot of fish been tested for mercury levels? Just curious. I know Aajonus Vonderplanitz has the theory that raw fish is okay regarding mercury. Its the cooked fish that is the trouble.

Post by **Oscar** » Wed 26 Apr 2006 01:56

I have no idea how much mercury the mackerel I'm eating contains, but almost all kinds of (shell)fish contain traces of mercury. Mackerel, salmon and tuna are in the group of fish which contain lower levels of mercury. Salmon contains the least of the 3, then mackerel, then tuna.

I'm not sure what kind of research has been done, and whether the results do directly point to a high fish, and therefore mercury, intake. For instance the attributed memory loss can also be caused by lack of cholesterol.

As for now, I'm not really worried.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Thu 27 Apr 2006 10:26

Oscar, I've read that tuna contains high concentrations of mercury, because it is a predator fish and therefore prone to higher accumulations of metals in its fatty tissue from the vast quantities of other little fishes that it eats... So what is your source for the claim that tuna is in the low-mercury group?

Post by **Oscar** » Thu 27 Apr 2006 11:51

Duh, you're right, somehow I misread...

Let me try this again and more extensive:
Numbers are in ppm (parts pro million-I think translatable by mg/kg?).

Salmon: 0.014 (actual level might be a bit higher because only methylmercury was measured)

Mackerel, northern atlantic: 0.050
Mackerel chub, pacific: 0.088
Mackerel spanish, southern atlantic: 0.182
Mackerel spanish, gulf of mexico: 0.454

Tuna: 0.383 (0.205-0.639 depending on species)

Highest mercury level:
Mackerel king: 0.730
Shark: 0.988
Swordfish: 0.976
Tilefish (Gulf of Mexico): 1.450

Source: US FDA

Information available shows that 99% of the world's commercial catch has a total mercury content not exceeding 0.5 mg/kg, and 95% probably contains less than 0.3 mg/kg. In 1971 the United States Food and Drug Administration conducted a nationwide survey and found less than 3% of 1400 random samples of market fish (mainly deep ocean species) to contain mercury in excess of 0.5 mg/kg.

Tuna species make up only about 2% of the total world catch of fish, and almost all of this goes for human consumption. The average mercury concentrations are below 0.5 mg/kg but old and large specimens may contain levels above 1 mg/kg.

Estimated intake of mercury, mainly as methylmercury compounds, causing poisoning; 0.3 mg/day over prolonged periods.

PROVISIONAL TOLERABLE WEEKLY INTAKE: 0.3 mg total mercury, of which no more than 0.2 mg should be present as methylmercury, CH3Hg+,
(expressed as mercury).

Source: World Health Organization

0.3 mg/week means:
On average a bit less than 1kg tuna.
6kg of northern atlantic mackerel.
More salmon than you can imagine eating...

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Thu 27 Apr 2006 13:56

Thank you for this extremely useful information, Oscar!

Post by **Oscar** » Thu 27 Apr 2006 19:57

My pleasure.

Chin-Chin · Post by **Chin-Chin** » Thu 27 Apr 2006 23:26

So what's the verdict? Can someone explain to me in plain English what the risks are if we eat fish everyday? Does our body get accustomed to the mercury?

Corinne · Post by **Corinne** » Fri 12 May 2006 22:19

I'm not sure chin chin and I don't know what the risks are...yet
i'm waiting for my blood test results. Especially since mercury can cause problems with foetuses (brain damage, malformations).
But I'm hoping that on this diet we are better able to deal with the mercury or better able to eliminate it...
I'm still eating fish almost daily though.

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Fri 12 May 2006 23:03

Corinne, do let us know your mercury levels. Ive been trying to find out which test would be best as there is also urine and hair etc...check out these links.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... tests.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... rcury.html

Who do you believe these days! DOHHH!

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Sat 13 May 2006 19:35

Chin-Chin wrote:So what's the verdict? Can someone explain to me in plain English what the risks are if we eat fish everyday?

You can safely eat salmon every day (or 'normal' atlantic mackerel), for example, particularly hatchery salmon is safe. (which is the normal commeercial vartiety)
To be on the safe side, you might consider eating tuna no more often than once a week.

Does our body get accustomed to the mercury?

No, it accumulates in your body, but doesnt get less toxic.

justmarvin · Post by **justmarvin** » Thu 29 Jun 2006 08:12

<rrm>Edited by RRM; the 2nd part of this post comes from another thread (which was about the same topic, so I combined them)</rrm>

The longer the fish lives, and the bigger the fish is, and if it eats other fish.. well you can expect it to be mercury contaminated as the source of methylmercury is in the food chain.. the higher up the food chain the more mercury contaminated.

Remember that methyl mercury is cumulative in nature so it gets more toxic the more you eat it. The only way to totally get rid of methyl mercury is to stop putting it in the body. Your body gets rid of it but gradually as methylmercury is a bit more complicated for the body to detox than regular mercury.

I've read that chlorella does have efficacy in helping detox the body of mercury.

_____________________________

Fish in general has once used to be the healthiest source of protein. However, it is not so anymore. Feel free to research this, but our ocean is contaminated with methylmercury that ends up in the living organisms there.

What happens is that inorganic mercury from the environment makes its way to the ocean and the bacteria in the ocean converts it to organic or methylmercury. Methylmercury is actually WORSE than regular mercury for the body.

The body is able to detox regular mercury quicker than methylmercury. Methylmercury (organic mercury) is bio-accumulative in nature. Meaning that the more you eat something contaminated with methylmercury, there will be a build up. The mercury is BOUND to the protein of the organism. This is why you can't simply "bleed" out the mercury from fish.

Mercury is not just a problem for "canned" tuna. It is a problem for ALL fish both fresh and canned. Certainly there are safer type species that have shown to contain less mercury such as certain types of wild alaskan salmon. But for the most part, the fish you are getting in the grocery store is probably mercury laden.

Furthermore the FDA testing is very lax in regards to the mercury problem. They'll tell you that one type of fish has less mercury and is a safe alternative to the other type of tuna. This is NOT the case and has been shown in independent research and testing. It is very hit & miss when consuming the "safe" type canned tuna.

Anyway, the methylmercury is found in raw fresh tuna. As I mentioned before, methylmercury is bio-accumulative.. so the bigger the fish, the more predatory the fish (eats other fish, etc) the more mercury WILL BE in the fish.

This is not a "this fish might have mercury" issue. This is a definite WILL HAVE mercury issue.

The FDA puts a limit on consumption of fish actually and this is because of the bioacumulative nature of methylmercury. If you constantly depend on fish as your main protein source then over time you will overwhelm your system with methylmercury.

Methylmercury attack the immune system and causes all sorts of subtle to serious symptoms depending on the exposure.

I love raw fish, but I now limit my consumption and don't eat it as much or depend on it as my main source of protein.

Cheers,

justmarvin

PS: sorry i didn't get a chance to proofread this. So I'm submitting it as is... I gotta go, take care!

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Thu 29 Jun 2006 20:23

I've read that chlorella does have efficacy in helping detox the body of mercury

Can you please give us a source?

JustMarvin wrote:Furthermore the FDA testing is very lax in regards to the mercury problem. They'll tell you that one type of fish has less mercury and is a safe alternative to the other type of tuna. This is NOT the case and has been shown in independent research and testing

Where is it located?
I couldnt find it.