Tuna???
Moderators: Boss Man, cassiegose
Well there is enough evidence for medical / scientific people to pretty much say, how much Mercury is in different Fish species pretty much.
It's also classed as a heavy metal, same as things like Lead and Cadmium, it's not chelated very easily from the body, and it has almost certainly zero use or benefit in any situation, but almost definitely negative connotations for physical health.
Yes medical people can say xyz amount won't do anything really, but if the amount ingested per day is minimal, then yeah, but if it's high enough what then, and what constitutes high enough? The body is so different from person to person, especially including any potential dysfunctions or disease in the equation, that "high enough", might be a lot lower in some than others, so general maxims are probably employed, and medical people say don't have this much or that much, rather than just give people thorough physicals, and then say Person A can have 3 portions of Fish a week, Person B better limit to 2 or else.
So the question is, if you're eating Tuna, or any Fish with high Mercury in it daily, what happens in 30 - 40 years time, and would you be willing to play Fish Roulette with your bodies ability to function, bearing in mind if you got a Mercury related problem when you're 60+, it would be a lot harder to correct it, providing of course you could.
If someone wants Fish, something like Salmon for example has a much lower Mercury yield, so there's more piece of mind, and potentially less risk of long-term Mercury consumption, coming back to bite you when you're older.
It's a case of Fish consumer beware, and at least if you know the score, you can then hopefully rationalise any price to pay, in later years.
It's also classed as a heavy metal, same as things like Lead and Cadmium, it's not chelated very easily from the body, and it has almost certainly zero use or benefit in any situation, but almost definitely negative connotations for physical health.
Yes medical people can say xyz amount won't do anything really, but if the amount ingested per day is minimal, then yeah, but if it's high enough what then, and what constitutes high enough? The body is so different from person to person, especially including any potential dysfunctions or disease in the equation, that "high enough", might be a lot lower in some than others, so general maxims are probably employed, and medical people say don't have this much or that much, rather than just give people thorough physicals, and then say Person A can have 3 portions of Fish a week, Person B better limit to 2 or else.
So the question is, if you're eating Tuna, or any Fish with high Mercury in it daily, what happens in 30 - 40 years time, and would you be willing to play Fish Roulette with your bodies ability to function, bearing in mind if you got a Mercury related problem when you're 60+, it would be a lot harder to correct it, providing of course you could.
If someone wants Fish, something like Salmon for example has a much lower Mercury yield, so there's more piece of mind, and potentially less risk of long-term Mercury consumption, coming back to bite you when you're older.
It's a case of Fish consumer beware, and at least if you know the score, you can then hopefully rationalise any price to pay, in later years.