The Truth Over Mercury in Canned Tuna Hysteria

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Sounds like the author of that piece may have been working for the tuna/seafood industry. Mercury warnings have been around for quite a while:

http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/mercury/backgrounder.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seamehg2.html

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01038.html

Pssst, your links AGREE with the article I posted.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Except that the FDA explicitly recommends eating light tuna and if you eat non-light tuna to eat half as much. So I'd say if there is a 6% chance that the mercury in light tuna is as boutniful as the mercury in non-light tuna, then the recommendation should be to eat 6 oz of light tuna (and not 12 oz as listed on the first link)

Secondly, the issue is not the FDA limit for mercury which is significantly higher than the "recommended limit" for pregnant women.

Albacore or "white" flakey tuna will have the lowest levels of Hg (Mercury). The Hg is transformed in the fish to dimethyl mercury, which is likely to concentrate in the fat deposits (dark meat).

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: torpid
Come on man, it's junk science. They don't even say what size can!!!

There is no science in that article, it is simply reporting. So by definition, it can't be junk science. The size of can is shown in the photo, but you are correct it is not explicitly written there.

Are you saying Amused is wrong?? :Q

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Sounds like the author of that piece may have been working for the tuna/seafood industry. Mercury warnings have been around for quite a while:

http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/mercury/backgrounder.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seamehg2.html

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01038.html

Pssst, your links AGREE with the article I posted.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Except that the FDA explicitly recommends eating light tuna and if you eat non-light tuna to eat half as much. So I'd say if there is a 6% chance that the mercury in light tuna is as boutniful as the mercury in non-light tuna, then the recommendation should be to eat 6 oz of light tuna (and not 12 oz as listed on the first link)

Secondly, the issue is not the FDA limit for mercury which is significantly higher than the "recommended limit" for pregnant women.

Albacore or "white" flakey tuna will have the lowest levels of Hg (Mercury). The Hg is transformed in the fish to dimethyl mercury, which is likely to concentrate in the fat deposits (dark meat).

The FDA says:
"Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week."

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Sounds like the author of that piece may have been working for the tuna/seafood industry. Mercury warnings have been around for quite a while:

http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/mercury/backgrounder.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seamehg2.html

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01038.html

Pssst, your links AGREE with the article I posted.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Except that the FDA explicitly recommends eating light tuna and if you eat non-light tuna to eat half as much. So I'd say if there is a 6% chance that the mercury in light tuna is as boutniful as the mercury in non-light tuna, then the recommendation should be to eat 6 oz of light tuna (and not 12 oz as listed on the first link)

Secondly, the issue is not the FDA limit for mercury which is significantly higher than the "recommended limit" for pregnant women.

Albacore or "white" flakey tuna will have the lowest levels of Hg (Mercury). The Hg is transformed in the fish to dimethyl mercury, which is likely to concentrate in the fat deposits (dark meat).

The FDA says:
"Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week."

TUNA(FRESH/FROZEN, ALL) 0.383 Avg, x<0.01 Min, 1.300 Max (ppm)
TUNA (FRESH/FROZEN, ALBACORE) 0.357 Avg, x<0.01 Min, 0.820 Max (ppm)

Source of data: FDA 1990-2004, "National Marine Fisheries Service Survey of Trace Elements in the Fishery Resource"

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Sounds like the author of that piece may have been working for the tuna/seafood industry. Mercury warnings have been around for quite a while:

http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/mercury/backgrounder.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seamehg2.html

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01038.html

Pssst, your links AGREE with the article I posted.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Except that the FDA explicitly recommends eating light tuna and if you eat non-light tuna to eat half as much. So I'd say if there is a 6% chance that the mercury in light tuna is as boutniful as the mercury in non-light tuna, then the recommendation should be to eat 6 oz of light tuna (and not 12 oz as listed on the first link)

Secondly, the issue is not the FDA limit for mercury which is significantly higher than the "recommended limit" for pregnant women.

Albacore or "white" flakey tuna will have the lowest levels of Hg (Mercury). The Hg is transformed in the fish to dimethyl mercury, which is likely to concentrate in the fat deposits (dark meat).

The FDA says:
"Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week."

TUNA(FRESH/FROZEN, ALL) 0.383 Avg, x<0.01 Min, 1.300 Max (ppm)
TUNA (FRESH/FROZEN, ALBACORE) 0.357 Avg, x<0.01 Min, 0.820 Max (ppm)

Source of data: FDA 1990-2004, "National Marine Fisheries Service Survey of Trace Elements in the Fishery Resource"

Thanks, now how about light tuna which is often skipjack and similar?

 

[ElFenix]

aren't these the same people that continually recommend bose speakers?

 

[OS]

The OP's article is terrible, grasping at straws from a straw man.

Besides, considering how the FDA fared with that Vioxx incident, you pick your poison who you want to believe.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
aren't these the same people that continually recommend bose speakers?

CR? no, they were sued by bose for publishing a bad review

 

[randay]

solution: eat a dolphin.

 

[Itchrelief]

The right has its own groupthink: everything is a conspiracy by the left and the left leaning media.

Ho hum.

 

[Strk]

You might want to read up on the author of the article before you take it too seriously

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Strk
You might want to read up on the author of the article before you take it too seriously

The left hates Steve Malloy because he keeps up on why Mann, et al, are pushing a badly flawed model as proof of global warming. You cannot disagree with the left or they will assinate you.

He gets paid as a consultant because he knows what he is doing and points out the flaws in bad modeling. Since he gets paid by folks the left hates, he is therefore evil. Too many of these published 'facts' don't pass statistical review. Unfortunately, once it is published, lots of folks assume it is correct. Hey, and now it is on the internet, so it must be true.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
aren't these the same people that continually recommend bose speakers?

so they know to recommend the best there is?

 

[destrekor]

the human body is supposed to be able to consume minute amounts of mercury because such small amounts will pass through the digestive system undetected.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Strk
You might want to read up on the author of the article before you take it too seriously

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

It's a biased pile of garbage. A hit piece by leftists whose world view is questioned and damaged by Milloy. I mean, even people who totally disagree with Milloy would, if they had any objectivity at all, see the obvious bias in that entry.

You'll have to try better.

 

[DrPizza]

All news has bias. It's impossible for Consumer Reports not to have some form of bias. But, people seem to automatically grant CR status as absolutely credible.

edit: it's nearly impossible for their reports to be 100% objective... a certain degree of subjectivity enters into decisions on most of the products.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
All news has bias. It's impossible for Consumer Reports not to have some form of bias. But, people seem to automatically grant CR status as absolutely credible.

edit: it's nearly impossible for their reports to be 100% objective... a certain degree of subjectivity enters into decisions on most of the products.

Actually, bring up one CR car review and you'll probably see a consensus on it being questionable. However, the article from the OP is an even bigger piece of crap. CR says a woman who may become pregnant should limit her intake of tuna, as should small children. A pregnant woman should not eat tuna due to uncertainties.

As Rummy would say, Steve Milloy is running around all "Henny Penny!"

 

[Descartes]

Why does anyone even bother arguing with OP? He'll find anything to support his view and simply discard everything else, all the while claiming objectivity and rationalism.

It never ends. It's always the same bs.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Why does anyone even bother arguing with OP? He'll find anything to support his view and simply discard everything else, all the while claiming objectivity and rationalism.

It never ends. It's always the same bs.

Hey, at least I don't follow people around to their threads and attack them personally when I run out of arguments.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Descartes
Why does anyone even bother arguing with OP? He'll find anything to support his view and simply discard everything else, all the while claiming objectivity and rationalism.

It never ends. It's always the same bs.

Hey, at least I don't follow people around to their threads and attack them personally when I run out of arguments.

If you ever actually presented an argument I'd be happy to join in; otherwise, it's pointless and a waste of time.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Descartes
Why does anyone even bother arguing with OP? He'll find anything to support his view and simply discard everything else, all the while claiming objectivity and rationalism.

It never ends. It's always the same bs.

Hey, at least I don't follow people around to their threads and attack them personally when I run out of arguments.

If you ever actually presented an argument I'd be happy to join in; otherwise, it's pointless and a waste of time.

I've presented plenty of arguments in my, and other threads. Your problem is you refuse to address them rationally.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Descartes
Why does anyone even bother arguing with OP? He'll find anything to support his view and simply discard everything else, all the while claiming objectivity and rationalism.

It never ends. It's always the same bs.

Hey, at least I don't follow people around to their threads and attack them personally when I run out of arguments.

If you ever actually presented an argument I'd be happy to join in; otherwise, it's pointless and a waste of time.

I've presented plenty of arguments in my, and other threads. Your problem is you refuse to address them rationally.

Yes Amused, we know; everyone is irrational but you. I don't believe you've ever acknowledged what anyone else has to say in any of your threads, including the threads you crap on with your trite faux arguments, arguments that are more hyperbole and histrionic than anything progressive.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Descartes
Why does anyone even bother arguing with OP? He'll find anything to support his view and simply discard everything else, all the while claiming objectivity and rationalism.

It never ends. It's always the same bs.

Hey, at least I don't follow people around to their threads and attack them personally when I run out of arguments.

If you ever actually presented an argument I'd be happy to join in; otherwise, it's pointless and a waste of time.

I've presented plenty of arguments in my, and other threads. Your problem is you refuse to address them rationally.

Yes Amused, we know; everyone is irrational but you. I don't believe you've ever acknowledged what anyone else has to say in any of your threads, including the threads you crap on with your trite faux arguments, arguments that are more hyperbole and histrionic than anything progressive.

The only histrionics here are yours.

 

[spaceman]

canned tuna hysteria?
is that a def leppard groupie in patent leather?

 

[moshquerade]

Amused, you eat tuna every day? This would explain your mental disturbances and moodiness. . .




Actually, have you experienced any of these signs of mercury poisoning (see below)? If not than viva la tuna. This wouldn't be the first time we were warned of the dangers of certain foods (remember how baaaad eggs were for us with all that cholesterol?) only to have it disputed and sometimes rescinded.

-Impairment of the peripheral vision
-Disturbances in sensations ("pins and needles" feelings, numbness) usually in the hands feet and sometimes around the mouth
-Lack of coordination of movements, such as writing
-Impairment of speech, hearing, walking;
-Muscle weakness
-Skin rashes
-Mood swing
-Memory loss
-Mental disturbance

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Amused, you eat tuna every day? This would explain your mental disturbances and moodiness. . .




Actually, have you experienced any of these signs of mercury poisoning (see below)? If not than viva la tuna. This wouldn't be the first time we were warned of the dangers of certain foods (remember how baaaad eggs were for us with all that cholesterol?) only to have it disputed and sometimes rescinded.

-Impairment of the peripheral vision
-Disturbances in sensations ("pins and needles" feelings, numbness) usually in the hands feet and sometimes around the mouth
-Lack of coordination of movements, such as writing
-Impairment of speech, hearing, walking;
-Muscle weakness
-Skin rashes
-Mood swing
-Memory loss
-Mental disturbance

Nope.

And as a matter of fact, there have been no documented cases of mercury poisoning from tuna in anyone.