Total and complete garbage. You know you post mostly reasonable stuff, yes slanted towards what you are thinking, but reasonable.

This is total trash! Want proof???

I challenge you to watch this and refute their conclusions. The consumer mentioned in your link ate fish twice a day. Yes I would say that might be excessive! Be very careful of 'non profits' doing studies. Most are funded by Pew, and are not unbiased.

I encourage EVERYONE to watch the 33 minute video contained in my link. It blows doors thru the biased garbage masquerading as truth in fish consumption.

Actually this is documented studies refuting the EPA. It says that selenium in fish cancels out the mercury. So just testing for mercury is pointless and worthless.

The bottom line is EAT YOUR FISH, its good for you.

I can see you refuse to watch the link. I could care less if you just want to hug ignorance. But, I encourage anyone else who wants to hear what's going on to watch.

It's very, very good.

It's conducted by NOAA and NMFS.

And PBS

Sounds fishy to me.

#8 | Posted by Harry_Powell

Then why not watch? It will change your opinion.

Actually there is direct correlation of such affect; the less fish consumed in prenatal and infancy, the lower the verbal IQ. They cite a study of 14,000 children in England.

Watch the link, go 20 minutes in if you have short attention span

Watch the link rcade. It's comments like yours based on fear that are the problem. The National Institute of Health and Sr EPA scientists concur.

Actually rcade they address that incident, obvious you refuse to watch and learn.

In fact I would say those who refuse to learn, and are closed minded, show indications of not eating enough fish. What's the matter rcade, afraid to have to admit you are wrong?

After all who knows better, a internet troll pulling one story from 1956 and 1965 off of wiki or NOAA NMFS and the National Institute of Health?

When it comes to baby's developing eyes and brain, ocean
fish are ideal. Ocean fish are the No. 1 source of the nerve
cell-building omega-3 fatty acid DHA. DHA and the other
nutrients in ocean fish are also critical for development of
baby's nervous and immune systems.
For moms, the omega-3s and critical nutrients in ocean
fish reduce the risk of many pregnancy-related disorders
as well as heart disease. In fact, studies indicate low
levels of omega-3s may increase the risk of postpartum
depression.
The American Mental Health Association recommends
at least 1000 mg of DHA a week for pregnant and nursing
women. That's the equivalent of 16 oz of canned tuna fish
or 4 oz of albacore tuna a week.
Experts say . . .
Scientists studying the effects of fish consumption by
pregnant women have learned that consuming more
ocean fish is better than avoiding or limiting intake.
Studies demonstrated that pregnant women who ate
more than 12 oz of fish a week gave birth to children who
performed better in school, had better social behavior, and
had better fine motor skills than those who ate less than

Turning the tables: mercury tackles selenium
It is well established that selenium can counteract
mercury toxicity. This antidotal effect has been
known since the 1960s and has been noted in all
investigated species of mammals, birds, and fish.
Until the importance of selenium was understood,
this phenomenon was speculated to be the result of
selenium binding to Hg, rendering it ineffectual at
creating mayhem. It is now understood that selenium's
antidotal effect for counteracting methylmercury occurs
by ensuring that normal selenoprotein synthesis is
maintained. Therefore, this can be viewed as a matter
of molar ratio: the number of selenium atoms versus
mercury atoms present or consume

Here it is in a nut shell.

Selenium in fish cancels out the mercury. So just testing for mercury is pointless and worthless. The benefits of eating fish vastly outweighs the worries of mercury toxicity.

Counting just the mercury, is almost like false advertising. You have to know the fishes level of selenium vs mercury to make wise choices. Ocean going fish have more selenium the fresh, and it you are to avoid anything, merely stay clear of whale, shark, sword, and king mackerel. Tuna in all forms is good for you.

Now should you eat it twice a day every day like the guy this retort is based on? No of course not, but a few meals a week is good for everyone, especially pregnant women, and children.

Of course Zat won't watch, and sites from a web link. Guess they know better then the National Institute of Health?

Remind me to NEVER listen to you in regards to anything scientific, you obviously are biased and operating with poor information.

Further, the Pew Foundation is behind much of this 'research'.

They hide behind grants, backing studies which slant public opinion. The RFA alliance has outed Pew many times, backing outright an agenda 100% against all types of fishing.

If you care to read how it's done.....

In late 2006, "
Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!"was the headline read and heard aroundthe world – at least in the world of Washington, DC. It justso happens that Congress was
debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-St
evens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act at that precise moment. The press stor
ies sighted a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of
Dalhousie University. While obj
ective observers might question elements of the study, it was
the media hype that the Pew Charitabl
e Trusts ("Pew" or "the Trust"
) wanted out there as part of
a carefully orchestrated campaign to influence th
e Congressional debate on the Nation's primary
fisheries law.

#43 haha No but I am an avid fisherman

Only an idiot would say there wasn't mercury in the oceans, or that pollution isn't a problem. It is!!

Why do you have refuse to watch my video and respond. Your post is directly talking about mercury in fish.

So why not refer to what the National Inst of Helath, NOAA and NMFS have said on record?

Caught a 278lb BFT last year. Hopefully there will be more....

At least American Recreational fisherman participate in season limits, size limits, and bag limits. Its NMFS that has done a horrible job, don't even get me started.

And they look like choir boys compared to what ICCAT has been doing (they can't stop themselves)

#46. See? I call Zat out for BS web link, based on hype not science. His response is garbage, completely ignoring scientific fact and research. No one is saying pollution doesn't exist. It does it's a huge problem. But this retort is about Mercury in fish

Zat Remind me to NEVER listen to you in regards to anything scientific, you obviously are biased and operating with poor information.

#73 Would you eat red meat twice a day for the rest of your life, and not expect complications? Everything should be done in moderation, and a variety in one's diet is best.

#73 Additionally if you watched the link, you'd learn that mercury is naturally occurring in the oceans. The Smithsonian analyzed some swordfish the had kept frozen since the 1800's and found it full of mercury

One popular myth is that the amount of mercury in our environment (and in the fish we eat) is dangerously increasing. However, the truth is that there is considerable evidence that the amount of mercury in fish has remained the same (or even decreased) during the past 100 years.

One team of researchers from Duke University and the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum compared 21 specimens of Atlantic Ocean blue hake preserved during the 1880s with 66 similar fish caught in the 1970s. They found no change at all in the concentration of mercury.

In another study, Princeton scientists compared samples of yellowfin tuna from 1971 with samples caught in 1998. They expected to find a mercury increase of between 9 and 26 percent, but they found a small decline instead.

And in a unique experiment, curators of the Smithsonian Institution tested tuna samples that were archived between 1878 and 1909, and compared them with similar fish tissue from 1971 and 1993. They found significantly less mercury in the more recently caught fish. In some cases, the difference was more than 50 percent.

There's even some evidence that human beings are exposed to less mercury today than in the past. Alaska's Public Health Department, for example, reports that when the hair of eight 550-year-old Alaskan mummies was tested for mercury, the results showed levels averaging twice the blood-mercury concentration of today's Alaskans.

Trace amounts

Another popular myth is that mercury in fish presents a serious health risk to Americans. Actually, the truth is that the best science suggests that the tiny amounts of mercury in fish aren't harmful at all.

A recent twelve-year study conducted in the Seychelles Islands (in the Indian Ocean) found no negative health effects from dietary exposure to mercury through heavy fish consumption. On average, people in the Seychelles Islands eat between 12 and 14 fish meals every week, and the mercury levels measured from the island natives are approximately ten times higher than those measured in the United States. Yet none of the studied Seychelles natives suffered any ill effects from mercury in fish, and they received the significant health benefits of fish consumption.

In November 2005, The American Journal of Preventive Medicine published new research from Harvard University that put the risk from fish-borne mercury in its proper context. Dr. Joshua Cohen, the study's lead author, summed up the issue for MedScape Medical News: "[W]e're talking about a very subtle effect of mercury … changes that would be too small to measure in individuals."
Benefits outweigh the risk

Finally, consumers are falsely led to believe that the health risk from mercury outweighs the health benefits of eating fish. On the contrary, the opposite is true.

Omega-3 fatty acids found in fish can decrease the risk of heart attacks, strokes, kidney disorders, Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, uterine cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, type-2 diabetes, low birth-weight, post-partum depression, and pre-term delivery. Partially because of the health scares surrounding mercury, Americans' intake of Omega-3 acids is 3 to 6 times lower than the levels recommended by the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association.

Harvard's Dr. Eric Rimm told The New York Times in 2004: "The message of fish being good has been lost, and people are learning more about the hypothetical scare of a contaminant than they are of the well-documented benefits."

A 2005 study published in Archives of Neurology showed that elderly people who eat fish at least once a week can slow their rate of mental decline by between 10 and 13 percent. Research published in the same journal in 2003 found that adults who consume fish once or more each week have a 60 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. A 2004 study of children in Bristol, England showed that the children of pregnant women who consumed high amounts of fish scored higher on mental development tests. That same study found "no adverse developmental effects associated with mercury."

And studies published in the November 2005 American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that even eating small amounts of fish each week can result in a 17 percent lower risk of heart disease, a 12 percent lower risk of stroke, and (when eaten by pregnant women) a modest 1 to 8-point increase in children's IQ.

I see the tables my links refer to are supported by...

U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services Dietary Guidelines

Play the video, the scare of mercury fare exceeds the risks, especially true for children and expecting mothers. Selenium in fish neutralizes the mercury. The benefits exceed the risks.

The LSM campaign against fish, pushing the fear factor, in reports like zat, does a great disservice to nutritional information.

Many would say "Why risk it". That's EXACTLY why should watch the video. And is exactly why I am on such a campaign against fear mongers like zat.

And I am backed up by the top Nat Inst of Health, NMFS, NOAA, and U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services Dietary Guidelines

[...] Since when have I ever been for pollution, destruction, anti environment?

Most arm chair QB have no idea how much hunters and fisherman support game preserves, catch limits, bag limits, size limits...all geared towards sustainability of the species/wild. [...]

[...] I watched some of your video. You have to be kidding me.

[...] Do you watch alex jones a lot? It's the same POV as Zat only much worse. You grasp on one idea, and refuse any and all evidence to the contrary. Once finally proven wrong, you tap dance away to another irrelevant idea....never acknowldeging you were wrong and how that affects your overall conclusions.

In other words, raving lunatics.

And that's too bad, cause you sometimes post some interesting links re financial crisis.

Oh that's powerful! "Let's build a boat".

You are certifiable......as I said do you also go by jeffindenmark?

I feel like charging you for the time you wasted for me

I said that like 70 posts ago. BUT what is lost in that food advisory, is the health benefits of eating fish. Mother,s out of precaution, avoid fish after hearing the warning.

The benefits far outweigh the risks, but yeah shark sword tile king mackerel should be avoided.