NationStates Jolt Archive

I was talking with my mum a while back, and she seemed to think tuna should be outlawed.

Me: "Why?"

Mum: "Because of the mercury levels in it. It can cause brain-damage."

Me: "So can alcohol, and that's legal."

Mum: "I'm saying people don't know tuna can cause brain-damage, they buy it to eat."

Me: "It generally says 'surgeon's general warning' near any tuna I've seen."

Mum: "But a lot of people can't read!"

Me:":p"

Mum: "The fish people are making money, and the FDA are corrupt for letting them sell that."

Me: "Even if tuna are dangerous as you say, people should still be allowed to buy them. If you outlawed it, it would be like prohibition. remember alcohol sales went-up 600% during--"

Mum: "You don't mince topics like that, that gets you thrown out of a debate class."

Me *looking-over*: "I think you're wrong. But this isn't debate class, this is us talking in a car. Anyway, it's a basic human right to go-ahead and harm yourself if you want to. It's not the government's job to interfere."

Mum: "You sound like a liberal!"

Me: "Hah, I doubt that argument will work with the supreme court if you decide to bring this case there."

Mum: "That's not what Michael Savage would say."

Me: (I obviously do not need to repeat what I said to her at this point.)

Mum: "You're being brainwashed!"

Me: "I faintly recall Michael Savage saying he ate tuna all his life, and those who thought mercury was in it were being brainwashed...but then I couldn't be sure."

Mum: "This is about what's right, not about what the government's job is. God set down the Ten-Commandments, and those aren't...."

Me: "Whoa-ho. Lest we forget the separation of church and state, I bring it up now."

Mum: "It's about morals!"

Me: "Morals are for each individual to decide, not the government."

Mum: "You sound like a lawyer."

Me: "Forget it."

Mum: "That's like saying people should be allowed to rob and kill eachother because that's a matter of morals."

Me: "That's different..."

Mum: "MORALS!"

Me: "...you're harming some against..."

Mum: "Morals aren't for the government to decide."

Me: "their will. *further interruptions* forget it."

So where does NationStates stand on this whole debate?

Were you talking in the car while driving? Because once anyone within reach of me in a car brought up any conservapundit's name as a defense, they would be kicked out the fucking door. I don't care if it was Jesus.

tuna has mercury :eek: nobody ever told me......what surgeon general's warning?

Tuna tastes nice, but only with dolphin chunks in it.

*is lynched*

Were you talking in the car while driving? Because once anyone within reach of me in a car brought up any conservapundit's name as a defense, they would be kicked out the fucking door. I don't care if it was Jesus.

ROFL.

No, the car was parked outside of a "drive-thru".

*Munch munch*, "Michael Savage" *laughing* other person can't see what's so funny.

What I couldn't get is why she can't defend her own arguments. I mean you must really be out of argument if you have to refer me to someone else...especially...well, anyway, the funny thing is he was yelling about how tuna are healthy for you, and the mercury thing is Liberal conspiracy a while back.

tuna has mercury :eek: nobody ever told me......what surgeon general's warning?
It doesn't have a surgeon general's warning, but there are trace amounts of mercury in tuna. Allegedly.
Tuna tastes nice, but only with dolphin chunks in it.

*is lynched*
Chumblywumbly, an innocent, has been lynched. All Mafia are still active. Send night actions.

if you are going to park your car you might as well go in and eat, you are wasting fossil fuels and global warming is coming to eat us and stuff.

We already had food and the engine was turned-off. Besides, I don't want people hearing that kind of yelling.

ROFL.

No, the car was parked outside of a "drive-thru".

*Munch munch*, "Michael Savage" *laughing* other person can't see what's so funny.

What I couldn't get is why she can't defend her own arguments. I mean you must really be out of argument if you have to refer me to someone else...especially...well, anyway, the funny thing is he was yelling about how tuna are healthy for you, and the mercury thing is Liberal conspiracy a while back.

if you are going to park your car you might as well go in and eat, you are wasting fossil fuels and global warming is coming to eat us and stuff.

It doesn't have a surgeon general's warning

Evidently I need to shop somewhere besides Trader Joe's.

It doesn't have a surgeon general's warning, but there are trace amounts of mercury in tuna. Allegedly.


And here's the problem.

The mom in the scenario is right - there is mercury in our fish supply, and it IS being hidden by corporate interests and FDA protectionism.

Whether or not it should be banned is a different matter... it should certainly be labelled.

I bought a shark fin soup at the supermarket the other day. 69 kwai (yuan), which is 7 Euro, i.e. about 12 US dollars (11 Canadian dollars).

They had 7 different flavours; I choose Seafood one (with sea cucmber and seaweed).

Made in Thailand, not China. I guess that's why it was expensive (most ready made food in Chinese supermarkets costs about 25-35 kwai.

Taste was nothing special either. Don't think I'll be buying the other 6 flavours.

Whether or not it should be banned is a different matter... it should certainly be labeled.

That's what I said. But there is no way in hell I'd ever support banning it.

And here's the problem.

The mom in the scenario is right - there is mercury in our fish supply, and it IS being hidden by corporate interests and FDA protectionism.

Whether or not it should be banned is a different matter... it should certainly be labelled.

How did it get there? Why is it still there? Can't we remove it? Fish is probably the healthiest meat someone can eat...it pisses me off to think that a deadly substance is in the supply.

How did it get there? Why is it still there? Can't we remove it? Fish is probably the healthiest meat someone can eat...it pisses me off to think that a deadly substance is in the supply.

I'm a vegetarian so I don't care. :D

Chumblywumbly, an innocent, has been lynched. All Mafia are still active. Send night actions.
Damn, I lost. :p

That's what I said. But there is no way in hell I'd ever support banning it.

If the mercury concentration is higher than EPA Maximum Contamination Levels, I would close down any importer or packager that was putting such a product on the market.

Not actually a 'ban' as such, but the effect would be the same.

If the mercury concentration is higher than EPA Maximum Contamination Levels, I would close down any importer or packager that was putting such a product on the market.

Not actually a 'ban' as such, but the effect would be the same.

Along with alcohol and cigarettes?

Along with alcohol and cigarettes?
Actually, there is a significant difference. Alcohol and cigarettes are not food, whereas Tuna is. Many people like the taste of tuna but do not want mercury. I think it's highly unfair to force those of us who would like to eat tuna to have to put up with mercury when it is not a necessary part of the food.

Well, for one thing, I'm astonished you remember that conversation in every detail - obviously, your memory is not yet damaged by mercury.

Well, I was pretty worried by the same thing when I read about it, because I always loved tuna and propably ate a lot of it. But I don't believe the levels are high enough to seriously damage nervous sy... what was the question again? And why are my hands trembling?

I bought a shark fin soup at the supermarket the other day. 69 kwai (yuan), which is 7 Euro, i.e. about 12 US dollars (11 Canadian dollars).

They had 7 different flavours; I choose Seafood one (with sea cucmber and seaweed).

Made in Thailand, not China. I guess that's why it was expensive (most ready made food in Chinese supermarkets costs about 25-35 kwai.

Taste was nothing special either. Don't think I'll be buying the other 6 flavours.
I'm not going to touch the subject of shark fin soup, since I eat plenty of meat and my hypocrisy only goes so far. I'm sure someone else will pick it up and run with it.

I have to ask though... seafood flavour fish soup? Is that not a little redundant? Is it not a bit like beef flavoured steak? Ham flavoured bacon?



(If it's just a problem with the translation, ignore me :))

Actually, there is a significant difference. Alcohol and cigarettes are not food, whereas Tuna is. Many people like the taste of tuna but do not want mercury. I think it's highly unfair to force those of us who would like to eat tuna to have to put up with mercury when it is not a necessary part of the food.

I'm not against trying to stop mercury from getting in tuna. I'm just saying even if you can't stop it, it should still be legal to sell tuna.

How did it get there? Why is it still there? Can't we remove it? Fish is probably the healthiest meat someone can eat...it pisses me off to think that a deadly substance is in the supply.

We've been dumping it. Fairly haphazardly. Mainly in the form of methylmercury released into the air by industrial polluters (ironically, the current regime has been relaxing air pollution restrictions).

Albacore tuna is higher in mercury than 'light' tuna. Shark, Swordfish, shellfish (also, Tilefish and Kung Mackerel)... all are dangerously high in mercury, and the EPA recommends completely avoiding them if you are pregnant, nursing, likely to get pregnant, or are a small child. Even other types of fish have a recommended consumption limit for those 'at risk' groups... don't eat more than 12 ounces a week. Don't have fish in more than two meals a week. If it's fished inland or nearshore, eat half that.

Canned 'light' tuna and shrimp are actually some of the safest options - you are advised to skip most of the higher order feeders or sediment feeders completely if you are in an 'at risk' group.

I'm not against trying to stop mercury from getting in tuna. I'm just saying even if you can't stop it, it should still be legal to sell tuna.

Why? So the ignorant can feed it to their children and unwittingly damage future generations?

We've been dumping it. Fairly haphazardly. Mainly in the form of methylmercury released into the air by industrial polluters (ironically, the current regime has been relaxing air pollution restrictions).

Albacore tuna is higher in mercury than 'light' tuna. Shark, Swordfish, shellfish (also, Tilefish and Kung Mackerel)... all are dangerously high in mercury, and the EPA recommends completely avoiding them if you are pregnant, nursing, likely to get pregnant, or are a small child. Even other types of fish have a recommended consumption limit for those 'at risk' groups... don't eat more than 12 ounces a week. Don't have fish in more than two meals a week. If it's fished inland or nearshore, eat half that.

Canned 'light' tuna and shrimp are actually some of the safest options - you are advised to skip most of the higher order feeders or sediment feeders completely if you are in an 'at risk' group.
Damn.

What about catfish, or mai mai? Do they have mercury?

We already had food and the engine was turned-off. Besides, I don't want people hearing that kind of yelling.

but.....you were waisting gas idling in the drive thru. You should park your car and go in and get your food. Every time you waste fossil fuels Jesus eats a baby butterfly.

I'm not going to touch the subject of shark fin soup, since I eat plenty of meat and my hypocrisy only goes so far. I'm sure someone else will pick it up and run with it.

I have to ask though... seafood flavour fish soup? Is that not a little redundant? Is it not a bit like beef flavoured steak? Ham flavoured bacon?

(If it's just a problem with the translation, ignore me :))

No, it is called Seafood flavour because it is with a piece of sea cucumber (plus two shrimps). There are also Ginger, Mushrooms, Ginseng and Turtle Shell Jelly flavours and 3 more which I forget.

I do not eat the flesh of animals that have feet (feetless legs, such as shrimps or lobsters and crabs are OK), so I have to settle for fish.

I am sure they were not killing those sharks for me, as I tried it only once and probably won't ever again. I do eat salted shark steaks though (not fins), and -- yes, I do know it has a higher mercury level than previously. But we must eat something.

Why? So the ignorant can feed it to their children and unwittingly damage future generations?

Label it. Duh. And if you must...make it illegal to consume if you're under-age.

Along with alcohol and cigarettes?

My personal belief? Ban cigarettes completely, and allow alcohol only in controlled circumstances. (Like Opium houses, but for alcohol).

But that's beside the point. We're talking about hidden contaminants in food, not deliberate choice to ingest toxins.

but.....you were waisting gas idling in the drive thru. You should park your car and go in and get your food. Every time you waste fossil fuels Jesus eats a baby butterfly.

Jesus eats a baby butterfly? That's got to be the most ridiculous reason for not wasting fuel I've ever heard. :D

but.....you were waisting gas idling in the drive thru. You should park your car and go in and get your food. Every time you waste fossil fuels Jesus eats a baby butterfly.

The car was parked. Really, Smunks.

My personal belief? Ban cigarettes completely, and allow alcohol only in controlled circumstances. (Like Opium houses, but for alcohol).

Ban cigarettes? May I ask why in God's name it is any of our business if someone wants to rot their lungs?

how did you go through the drive-thru?

Drove. We didn't start arguing until after the car was parked.

Really, you're getting to be like Il Ruffino.

The car was parked. Really, Smunks.

how did you go through the drive-thru?

Jesus eats a baby butterfly? That's got to be the most ridiculous reason for not wasting fuel I've ever heard. :D

baby butterflies are our only defense against the zombies.

how did you go through the drive-thru?
They put it in neutral and pushed.

And they're our only defense against zombies, eh? No wonder Jesus eats them :D

I do not eat the flesh of animals that have feet (feetless legs, such as shrimps or lobsters and crabs are OK), so I have to settle for fish.



This seems slightly... odd to me. Any particular reason why? I prefer my meat with legs. Anything from the water... meh, I'm not a fan of.

That said, I don't know enough about mercury levels in Tuna to debate this. I know it's there, know you're not supposed to eat alot, and thus I don't(Which doesn't bother me-I'm not fan of the fish).

So where does NationStates stand on this whole debate?
1) from experience... arguing with parents won't get you anywhere.

2) go after those that put the mercury in the water in the first place.

but.....you were waisting gas idling in the drive thru. You should park your car and go in and get your food. Every time you waste fossil fuels Jesus eats a baby butterfly.
Then don't go to Jack-in-the-box, they take so long in their drive thrus that people actually park their cars while waiting...

(slaps head as he realizes who he's replying to.)

baby butterflies are our only defense against the zombies.

*nods* besides... baby Butterflies eat veggies. Children all over the world knows, the less baby butterflies there are, the more veggies end up on their plates!

Damn.

What about catfish, or mai mai? Do they have mercury?

Basically, all fish can be safely assumed to be contaminated with mercury.

Catfish, Pollock, Salmon, 'light' Tuna, and Shrimp are considered the least contaminated options. That said - if you are fishing for your own Catfish, or eating it at a restaurant where it was 'caught locally' it is safest to assume that 6 ounce limit.

The problem with water contaminants, is that water interconnects globally, pretty much... and contaminant levels are cumulative as you head 'downstream'. And the oceans are 'downstream' of everything.

The other problem is that mercury contamination is one of the many types of contamination that progresses UP foodchains. If methylmercury is getting to the blue-green algae, it's getting into the zooplankton in higher concentrations - because zooplankton are feeding continually on the contaminated algae. Then crustacea are feeding continuously on zooplankton.. so they are even more contaminated. The same for krill and small fish. Then big fish eat the little fish, concentrating contamination again. Then mammals (like us, dolphins, orcas, polar bears) and sharks are feeding on the bigger fish.

As a smoker, I would not be at all dismayed or disappointed if cigarrette companies got their asses handed to them over and over. Not that I blame cigarette companies for smoking, in the least, but they are, quite frankly, one of the most stupifyingly corrupt business on the planet.

That is all.

But would you be dismayed if cigarettes got banned?

Ban cigarettes? May I ask why in God's name it is any of our business if someone wants to rot their lungs?

As a smoker, I would not be at all dismayed or disappointed if cigarrette companies got their asses handed to them over and over. Not that I blame cigarette companies for smoking, in the least, but they are, quite frankly, one of the most stupifyingly corrupt business on the planet.

That is all.

Label it. Duh. And if you must...make it illegal to consume if you're under-age.

Label it... that shouldn't even be being debated. We should be able to take it as read that mercury contamiation is being labelled in big red letters.

But, it isn't, is it?

And.. if we make it illegal to consume if you are underage... what, are children going to follow those laws? Okay - so kids won't buy it. But their moms might still feed it to them. Pregnant women will still be feeding it to their fetal offspring.

First of all

Mum: "The fish people are making money, and the FDA are corrupt for letting them sell that."

OMFG fish people!! :eek:

second

The reason why tuna, especially bluefin tuna, should not be on the shelves is because it is rapidly going the way of the dodo (or the Great Auk, Thylacine, Barbary lion, Bali/ persian/ Java Tiger, quagga etc.)

Tuna tastes nice, but only with dolphin chunks in it.

*is lynched*

It has to be Baby Dolphin. It tastes nicer....;)

Your mom rules :D I wish I'd have a mother who could discuss about politics like that and actually recognise that the 'harm principle' is a liberal idea, not communist. That discussion comes to show that people tend to become more conservative, moralistic and willing to give away their own freedoms for something as mundane as tuna.

But would you be dismayed if cigarettes got banned?

Eh, on the fence.

On the one hand, the corrupt industry would be taken down.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to have that smooth-mellow flavor that only Seangoli Brand Cigarettes provide. Only 3.50 a pack. Be Cool. Be Seangoli Cool. :cool:

Basically, all fish can be safely assumed to be contaminated with mercury.

Catfish, Pollock, Salmon, 'light' Tuna, and Shrimp are considered the least contaminated options. That said - if you are fishing for your own Catfish, or eating it at a restaurant where it was 'caught locally' it is safest to assume that 6 ounce limit.

The problem with water contaminants, is that water interconnects globally, pretty much... and contaminant levels are cumulative as you head 'downstream'. And the oceans are 'downstream' of everything.

The other problem is that mercury contamination is one of the many types of contamination that progresses UP foodchains. If methylmercury is getting to the blue-green algae, it's getting into the zooplankton in higher concentrations - because zooplankton are feeding continually on the contaminated algae. Then crustacea are feeding continuously on zooplankton.. so they are even more contaminated. The same for krill and small fish. Then big fish eat the little fish, concentrating contamination again. Then mammals (like us, dolphins, orcas, polar bears) and sharks are feeding on the bigger fish.
That's bad. Why are we still dumping it? It makes no sense! Clearly it is harming the environment and we can get rid of it in other ways that don't harm the environment. They might be a bit more expensive in the short run but in the long run we all benefit massively from it.

...we can get rid of methylmercury in some other way that doesn't harm anything, right?

This seems slightly... odd to me. Any particular reason why? I prefer my meat with legs. Anything from the water... meh, I'm not a fan of.

Just like it that way. When I was a child I was made to eat beef, chicken breast, lamb, even pork occasionally and I didn't like it.

Ban cigarettes? May I ask why in God's name it is any of our business if someone wants to rot their lungs?

I don't care if you rot your lungs. Makes no difference to me.

On the other hand... I don't want to be exposed to your waste products. Or to have to support the medical bills you'll inevitably incur. (And, before we hear something about how insurance will pay, I'm sure you are aware that insurance companies spread costs on premia).

And children shouldn't have to suffer to support your addiction.

The main reason we shouldn't be eating Tuna is because it's heading for fucking extinction.

The main reason we shouldn't be eating Tuna is because it's heading for fucking extinction.

QFT :(

That's bad. Why are we still dumping it? It makes no sense! Clearly it is harming the environment and we can get rid of it in other ways that don't harm the environment. They might be a bit more expensive in the short run but in the long run we all benefit massively from it.

...we can get rid of methylmercury in some other way that doesn't harm anything, right?

Basically - no. Methylmercury is still an ongoing atmospheric contaminant. Even if there were no sources of methylmercury addition into the atmosphere, it will continue to migrate into our water supplies for a very long time yet. Add to that, in nature, mercury will basically just collect. It isn't going to reduce in our oceans and watersources very much.

We keep on dumping it because corporations are more powerful than governments. And because those with short-term perspectives have continuously blocked the idea that we should try to be good stewards of our world. Even today, you could probably find people on this very forum, that would object to industrial regulation to prevent mercury releases.

Drove. We didn't start arguing until after the car was parked.
wasted driving *nod*
Al Gore would be disappointed.
Really, you're getting to be like Il Ruffino.

:D *wears badge of honor*

" 'Don't eat the tuna fish!'
'What?'
'Don't eat the tuna fish!'
'Why not?'
'Dolphins are getting caught in the nets!'
'Well, what about the tuna fish?'
'Oh, fuck them! They taste good!' " -Denis Leary.
:)

Basically - no. Methylmercury is still an ongoing atmospheric contaminant. Even if there were no sources of methylmercury addition into the atmosphere, it will continue to migrate into our water supplies for a very long time yet. Add to that, in nature, mercury will basically just collect. It isn't going to reduce in our oceans and watersources very much.

We keep on dumping it because corporations are more powerful than governments. And because those with short-term perspectives have continuously blocked the idea that we should try to be good stewards of our world. Even today, you could probably find people on this very forum, that would object to industrial regulation to prevent mercury releases.
Then what can we do?

QFT :(

*eats Orange Roughie*

i like tuna, especially in a salad nicoise.

Then what can we do?

The sum-and-substance of current Environmental Protection Agency thinking on this matter is - get this - 'issue fish-consumption advisories'.

That'll cure all the problems.

I can't blame the EPA... they are basically neutered by the regime. They are one agency in one country. This is pretty much global ostrich behaviour.

"Die in Hell"... no longer just hollow words. Now they are the mantra or global industry.

You can have my tuna when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

You can have my tuna when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Thanks to the mercury poisoning, that will be less of a wait.

The sum-and-substance of current Environmental Protection Agency thinking on this matter is - get this - 'issue fish-consumption advisories'.

That'll cure all the problems.

I can't blame the EPA... they are basically neutered by the regime. They are one agency in one country. This is pretty much global ostrich behaviour.

"Die in Hell"... no longer just hollow words. Now they are the mantra or global industry.

Lovely...

You know, I'm wondering...do you think nanotechnology could be used to clean up mercury? What if we created a special brand of nanites that are powered on mercury that consume mercury from everything and leave everything else intact, and once they can no longer detect mercury they immediately deactivate? Is that possible, do you think?

I don't care if you rot your lungs. Makes no difference to me.

On the other hand... I don't want to be exposed to your waste products. Or to have to support the medical bills you'll inevitably incur. (And, before we hear something about how insurance will pay, I'm sure you are aware that insurance companies spread costs on premia).

And children shouldn't have to suffer to support your addiction.

Yeah I'd like to jump on this particular band wagon and using the same logic call for the banning of all motor viechles powered by fossil fuel derivatives, and ban cities or any place where humanity is squeezed tightly together, I don't want to be exposed to anybodies waste products.

Lovely...

You know, I'm wondering...do you think nanotechnology could be used to clean up mercury? What if we created a special brand of nanites that are powered on mercury that consume mercury from everything and leave everything else intact, and once they can no longer detect mercury they immediately deactivate? Is that possible, do you think?

Probably not... for the simple reason that there's unlikely to be that viable a fuel technology based on mercury. And the 'leave everything else intact' seems a little hopeful, too.

There are technologies to reduce mercury in water - you can physically (rather than chemically) remove it through distillation, reverse osmosis, or adsorption onto the surface of activated carbon, for example.

The problem is - those methods work in-stream. You have to put 'dirty' water in at one end, and collect 'clean' water at the other end. And... it's kind of impractical to even think of applying such 'in-stream' technologies to ocean waters. Especially when new contamination is taking place constantly.

The best news possibility come from emergent technologies like carbon nanotubes. The problem would be in creating a technology you could apply to large areas, that would combat a contaminant like mercury, without harming other balances... like salinity, or the ocean's value as a carbon-dioxide sink.

But there's no motivation. Big business doesn't want the extra regulation, or to claim responsibility. Governments have no interest in clearing-up that kind of contamination. Mercury contamination is cumulative, but slow. The effects are distant, and memories and attention-spans are short. So... it is just not a problem likely to be cured, or even realistically attacked, in the near future.

Yeah I'd like to jump on this particular band wagon and using the same logic call for the banning of all motor viechles powered by fossil fuel derivatives, and ban cities or any place where humanity is squeezed tightly together, I don't want to be exposed to anybodies waste products.

I agree with the first.

The second is a bit of a stretch.

Probably not... for the simple reason that there's unlikely to be that viable a fuel technology based on mercury. And the 'leave everything else intact' seems a little hopeful, too.

There are technologies to reduce mercury in water - you can physically (rather than chemically) remove it through distillation, reverse osmosis, or adsorption onto the surface of activated carbon, for example.

The problem is - those methods work in-stream. You have to put 'dirty' water in at one end, and collect 'clean' water at the other end. And... it's kind of impractical to even think of applying such 'in-stream' technologies to ocean waters. Especially when new contamination is taking place constantly.

The best news possibility come from emergent technologies like carbon nanotubes. The problem would be in creating a technology you could apply to large areas, that would combat a contaminant like mercury, without harming other balances... like salinity, or the ocean's value as a carbon-dioxide sink.

But there's no motivation. Big business doesn't want the extra regulation, or to claim responsibility. Governments have no interest in clearing-up that kind of contamination. Mercury contamination is cumulative, but slow. The effects are distant, and memories and attention-spans are short. So... it is just not a problem likely to be cured, or even realistically attacked, in the near future.
DAMN!

Okay...what about using the nanotechnology to just repair the damage the mercury does to our bodies instead until we figure out a way to get rid of it? (When it does start affecting us there will be plenty of motivation, I figure.)

Tuna is disgusting. It shouldn't even be considered fish. Fish is supposed to taste great, but tuna...blegh!

Label it... that shouldn't even be being debated. We should be able to take it as read that mercury contamiation is being labelled in big red letters.

But, it isn't, is it?

And.. if we make it illegal to consume if you are underage... what, are children going to follow those laws? Okay - so kids won't buy it. But their moms might still feed it to them. Pregnant women will still be feeding it to their fetal offspring.

The same goes for alcohol. A pregnant woman might drink it, and kids still get a hold of it.

The same goes for alcohol. A pregnant woman might drink it, and kids still get a hold of it.

What's your point?

As it stands, a lot of people don't even know there IS a problem with mercury in fish. How can they be protected against it? At least alcohol has publicised health risks, so people can make some kind of informed decision.

But I personally don't think pregnant women should be drinking alcohol either, by law if necessary. People just aren't good at making decisions for themselves, much less their offspring.

DAMN!

Okay...what about using the nanotechnology to just repair the damage the mercury does to our bodies instead until we figure out a way to get rid of it? (When it does start affecting us there will be plenty of motivation, I figure.)

Okay... it's kind of a horror story really. Mercury doesn't just jump out on you and - bam, your head falls off. It sneaks up on you.

The most sensitive and easy to affect things are the brain, and tissue on the other side of a placenta. Thus - mercury toxicity actually favours attacking the brain and the unborn.

Worse than that, mercury accumulates. It builds up in your brain. It builds up in your embryo.

Direct effects of mercury are subtle. Brain damage of greater or lesser extent... retardation, reduction of IQ, attention deficits, memory deficits, damage to language processes. Other effects include weakening the heart (increasing risks of cardiovasular disorders), and weakening the immune system.

High dosages result in more pronounced effects.. but high dosages will be accumulated gradually (usually) and so onset is gradual. High dosages of mercury can cause lack of coordination and other motor problems, blindness, deafness and other sensory disorders... and even, eventually, death.


At this stage, it is safe to assume nanotechnology won't be much of a help. There won't be any big panic on it, because not everyone gets equally sick, and they get sick through accumulation... so it's not consistent. It won't ever look like an epidemic. And - the damage it does is the bad kind - it breaks us, but not in the ways we can repair. We can't rebuild brains or brain function. We can't rebuild destroyed nerve systems. We can't rebuild dead immune systems. We can't repair a crippled heart.

Mercury poinsoning isn't high profile (except when massive amounts get dumped in a bay, or people eat mass shipments of mercury coated grain), and it isn't glamourous. Don't hold your breath for the cure.

What's your point?

That these are not valid reasons to outlaw something.

As it stands, a lot of people don't even know there IS a problem with mercury in fish. How can they be protected against it? At least alcohol has publicised health risks, so people can make some kind of informed decision.

So publicize it more, but for Christ's sake don't outlaw it.

But I personally don't think pregnant women should be drinking alcohol either, by law if necessary. People just aren't good at making decisions for themselves, much less their offspring.

Just so. Of course someone could also use this argument against legalizing abortion.

That these are not valid reasons to outlaw something.


According to you? My definition of 'valid' might be different to yours.

Regardless - wasn't it your idea to outlaw feeding it to children?

I just said impose the same controls we do for mercury in water, for example... and remove any overly toxic product from supply, which would have the same EFFECT as a ban.


So publicize it more, but for Christ's sake...


I don't acknowledge the validity of this 'christ' argument.


...don't outlaw it.


Why? Some arbitrary libertarian banality?


Just so. Of course someone could also use this argument against legalizing abortion.

Except that abortion is neither 'hidden' in it's effects, nor silently damaging established people. Abortion is only 'damaging' to non-people. Mercury is killing real people.

According to you? My definition of 'valid' might be different to yours.

Valid, as in give me one good reason to restrict people's rights here.

Regardless - wasn't it your idea to outlaw feeding it to children?

It's illegal to drink if you're under-age. I think the same of seat belts. If you're underage you must wear them, if you're of age it's up to you.

I just said impose the same controls we do for mercury in water, for example... and remove any overly toxic product from supply, which would have the same EFFECT as a ban.

That sounds slightly more reasonable.

I don't acknowledge the validity of this 'christ' argument.

Worst yet: you don't acknowledge the validity of my argument. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Why? Some arbitrary libertarian banality?
Liberal, really. The government better have a damn good reason to stop people from doing something. "You'll hurt yourself" isn't good enough. When people are adults they don't need parents, even the government.
Except that abortion is neither 'hidden' in it's effects, nor silently damaging established people. Abortion is only 'damaging' to non-people. Mercury is killing real people.
If I had a choice: born retarded, or not born at all, I'd pick retarded. You can see a mother's right of the latter, but not the former. Why?

It doesn't have a surgeon general's warning, but there are trace amounts of mercury in tuna. Allegedly.

Chumblywumbly, an innocent, has been lynched. All Mafia are still active. Send night actions.

And for that, you just won "First kill" the next time I'm one of the mafia.

"Mercury is killing real people."

Name one.

If we were all to stop eating Tuna, we would save many Tuna lives.

"Mercury is killing real people."

Name one.


1,784 people are recognised as having died from the Minimata incidence alone.

http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/hs/minamata2002/ch2.html

"Mercury is killing real people."

Name one.

If we were all to stop eating Tuna, we would save many Tuna lives.

I am all for tuna's rights (like I said, I'm a vegetarian), but is it the government's job to look-out for animal welfare? And if so, shouldn't we ban meat altogether?

1,784 people are recognised as having died from the Minimata incidence alone.

http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/hs/minamata2002/ch2.html

So you don't think people have a right to harm themselves?

1,784 people are recognised as having died from the Minimata incidence alone.

http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/hs/minamata2002/ch2.html


Which notes:
"it is thought that no conditions exists for a new occurrence of Minamata Disease at least since the early 1970s."

So what you are saying is that people died from this, once upon a time, but that it is not killING people now, (note the present tense) so that it is currently not a serious issue? And has not been in over 70 years? And that this disease occurred in a fluke situation where tons of the stuff was poured into waters off Japan, where people eat lots and lots of locally caught fish?

Case dismissed. Eat Tuna. Not Dolphin. What do we have around here that's relevant?

Valid, as in give me one good reason to restrict people's rights here.


Because 'rights' are a construct of society. If our society is killing itself, why accord them the right to such stupidity? It's not even like they are killing themselves clean and willingly... they are killing themselves slowly, getting increasingly sick first, and largely without realising the truth of their actions.

Sounds like a damn good reason to 'restrict their rights'.


It's illegal to drink if you're under-age. I think the same of seat belts. If you're underage you must wear them, if you're of age it's up to you.


That is nonsensical, as I'm sure you know. Children do not have the same rights and responsibilities under law. They are not under the same legal burdens. You can't shape a law that says children have to wear seatbelts - you have to shape a law that says children must not be ALLOWED to not wear them.

And, of course, why would you shape a law that says 'parental unit a' has to put a seatbelt on every OTHER person in the car, but not himself.

Regardless - the 'choice' to not wear a seatbelt is a stupid choice. Anyone who refuses to wear a seatbelt shouldn't be trusted to drive, since they obviously have no respect for even their own life.


That sounds slightly more reasonable.


That has been my argument all along - it was you that raised the spectre of making it illegal for children to do such-and-such.


Worst yet: you don't acknowledge the validity of my argument. Not that there's anything wrong with that....


That's because you have no argument. You seem to be arguing that corporations should be allowed to kill people, because you think some mythical power of the 'free market' will cure all ills.

I don't believe in any interventionist gods, not even this benevolent ghost of mammon.


Liberal, really. The government better have a damn good reason to stop people from doing something. "You'll hurt yourself" isn't good enough. When people are adults they don't need parents, even the government.


On the contrary. People are collectively stupid. They should have to earn the 'rights' to be allowed to self-govern. Most people appear incapable.


If I had a choice: born retarded, or not born at all, I'd pick retarded. You can see a mother's right of the latter, but not the former. Why?

I don't see what you mean. If you poison a foetus continually throughout pregnancy, and yet STILL carry it to term, you will yield a child damaged through no cause but your own selfishness or carelessness.

On the other hand, if you abort... no child. No foul.

Which notes:
"it is thought that no conditions exists for a new occurrence of Minamata Disease at least since the early 1970s."

So what you are saying is that people died from this, once upon a time, but that it is not killING people now, (note the present tense) so that it is currently not a serious issue? And has not been in over 70 years? And that this disease occurred in a fluke situation where tons of the stuff was poured into waters off Japan, where people eat lots and lots of locally caught fish?

Case dismissed. Eat Tuna. Not Dolphin. What do we have around here that's relevant?

First: People died from this in Minimata. Nowhere did I say, and nowhere did the article say, that these are the only cases or deaths related to mercury. I just presented an article on Minimata because you asked for evidence of a single death, and Minimata alone accounts for almost 2,000.

Second: The article I presented said the conditions for new occurrence of Minamata Disease "is thought" to have not been replicated since. That isn't the same is being sure it hasn't been ongoing, nor the same as saying no more incidents have occured there, nor the same as saying that the problem ONLY exists there.

Third: I didn't say it is not killing people now. Neither did the article.

Fourth: I didn't say it is currently 'not a serious issue', and neither did the article. The article I presented was specific to the 'Minimata Disease' incidence.

Fifth: "And has not been in over 70 years"? You think the 1970's were 70 years ago?

Sixth: You actually make my point for me - Minimata is big news because several thousand people were affected, and almost 2,000 died with one obvious, identified origin. Methylmercury poisoning is ongoing, but it's no longer big news... that's the problem.

So you don't think people have a right to harm themselves?

I "don't think" that was, in any way, related to the quote you connected it to...?

Because 'rights' are a construct of society.

Negative. RESTRICTIONS are a construct of society.

If everyone else instantly vanished somehow, it is the restrictions on you that would vanish- not the rights. Ergo, restrictions on behaviour are socially imposed.

Example: You have the right to remain silent. In the absence of any imposition or compulsion NOT to be silent, how could the right to remain silent possibly not exist?

I am all for tuna's rights (like I said, I'm a vegetarian), but is it the government's job to look-out for animal welfare? And if so, shouldn't we ban meat altogether?

There is a difference between ethical treatment of animals, and complete abstinence. Similarly, there is a difference between arbitrarily avoiding meat, and choosing not to contribute to extinctions that could be avoided.

Negative. RESTRICTIONS are a construct of society.

If everyone else instantly vanished somehow, it is the restrictions on you that would vanish- not the rights. Ergo, restrictions on behaviour are socially imposed.

Example: You have the right to remain silent. In the absence of any imposition or compulsion NOT to be silent, how could the right to remain silent possibly not exist?

Poppycock.

A tiger is about to eat me. There are no other people. Show me how my 'right to live' is going to protect me my striped friend.

First: People died from this in Minimata. Nowhere did I say, and nowhere did the article say, that these are the only cases or deaths related to mercury. I just presented an article on Minimata because you asked for evidence of a single death, and Minimata alone accounts for almost 2,000..

Actually I asked for a name of one currently being killed. Which the article does not supplu.

Second: The article I presented said the conditions for new occurrence of Minamata Disease "is thought" to have not been replicated since.
Third: I didn't say it is not killing people now. Neither did the article. .

Actually, yes, it does. And it isn't ongoing, and it does note no more new cases.

Fourth: I didn't say it is currently 'not a serious issue', and neither did the article. The article I presented was specific to the 'Minimata Disease' incidence.

Fifth: "And has not been in over 70 years"? You think the 1970's were 70 years ago?.

70 was a typo. 30 years.

Sixth: You actually make my point for me - Minimata is big news because several thousand people were affected,
.

We have a name for 30 year old big news. We call it History.

If it is "Killing" and not "Has killed", then name a current case to prove your point that it is an ongoing crisis. I'm open minded on the subject. Just give me something happening now.

And pass the tartar sauce.

Poppycock.

A tiger is about to eat me. There are no other people. Show me how my 'right to live' is going to protect me my striped friend.


Oh that's easy! Four ways, right off the bat:

1) You have a right to live.
The Tiger is about to violate that right.

2) That does not mean that the right does not exist- merely that you aren't going to protect that right. Rights do not cease to exist merely because we choose not to exercise them, or are incapable of doing so.

3) The Tiger, in this instance, is acting in the role of "Other Person" creating a restriction.

4) The existence of your right to life justifies your use of that spear to defend yourself. If you thought you had no right to life, you would have no justification in picking up that pointy stick.

You sets'em up, I knocks'em down.

Oh that's easy! Four ways, right off the bat:

1) You have a right to live.
The Tiger is about to violate that right.

2) That does not mean that the right does not exist- merely that you aren't going to protect that right. Rights do not cease to exist merely because we choose not to exercise them, or are incapable of doing so.

3) The Tiger, in this instance, is acting in the role of "Other Person" creating a restriction.

4) The existence of your right to life justifies your use of that spear to defend yourself. If you thought you had no right to life, you would have no justification in picking up that pointy stick.

You sets'em up, I knocks'em down.

You favour your own arguments too much, perhaps.

If I had a 'right' to live, it couldn't be invalidated as capriciously as through the simple predations of a predator. If it can be dismantled that simply by random vicissitude, I can't see how it is worthy of being called a 'right'.

A 'right' that only exists in the absence of challenge is meaningless. It is a nonsensical term.

If we look at 'rights' applied to human society.... we can see the meaning of 'rights' even more clearly, although the tiger example is simpler (as would be trying to argue your 'rights' to resist gravity).

My society grants me the 'right' to be unmolested. The nation across the border does not recognise that 'right'. Fortunately, my society engineers that 'right' for me - it simply doesn't exist as anything but wishful thinking in the absence of sympathetic society.

By words, or by swords, our 'rights' are granted TO us, by the societies we dwell within.

Because 'rights' are a construct of society. If our society is killing itself, why accord them the right to such stupidity? It's not even like they are killing themselves clean and willingly... they are killing themselves slowly, getting increasingly sick first, and largely without realising the truth of their actions.

Sounds like a damn good reason to 'restrict their rights'.

They fully realize their actions (if there are labels), and absolutely have the right to be as stupid as they wish. Who are we to say they can't?

That is nonsensical, as I'm sure you know. Children do not have the same rights and responsibilities under law. They are not under the same legal burdens. You can't shape a law that says children have to wear seatbelts - you have to shape a law that says children must not be ALLOWED to not wear them.

But you can shape a law that forces everyone? Absurd.

And, of course, why would you shape a law that says 'parental unit a' has to put a seatbelt on every OTHER person in the car, but not himself.


Yes. I've seen parents who smoke who tell their kids not to.

Regardless - the 'choice' to not wear a seatbelt is a stupid choice. Anyone who refuses to wear a seatbelt shouldn't be trusted to drive, since they obviously have no respect for even their own life.

I wear a seatbelt because I don't want to die (I think my odds are what--seven times as good?). My mother won't wear one because they make her feel uncomfortable. My dad only wears one because he hates fines. I would trust both of my parents as drivers in a car-crash more then myself, so your argument holds no water. Many years ago our car's brakes went out in a Las Vegas intersection. My mother was driving, and handled the situation admirably. No-one was even slightly hurt, even her (though she was not wearing a seatbelt).



That has been my argument all along - it was you that raised the spectre of making it illegal for children to do such-and-such.


Correct. Children don't have the same rights adults do.


That's because you have no argument. You seem to be arguing that corporations should be allowed to kill people, because you think some mythical power of the 'free market' will cure all ills.

Not corporations. For some reason you think anyone who argues for liberties you don't is a money-grubber. If someone made poison I think they should be able to drink it, and there aren't any corporations in that.

I don't believe in any interventionist gods, not even this benevolent ghost of mammon.

Whatever. I'm a non-religious theist, and I think people don't know jack about the force that created the universe, much less what it wants.

On the contrary. People are collectively stupid. They should have to earn the 'rights' to be allowed to self-govern. Most people appear incapable.

Ah, I see. This is what Napoleon said: "The common man does not deserve liberty. It is a privilege for the gifted." Do you agree with that?

I don't see what you mean. If you poison a foetus continually throughout pregnancy, and yet STILL carry it to term, you will yield a child damaged through no cause but your own selfishness or carelessness.

A mother's choice up to a certain fetal development.

On the other hand, if you abort... no child. No foul.

Not pleasant prospect. Like I said if I had to choose I'd prefer my mum ate tuna while pregnant to getting an abortion.

Negative. RESTRICTIONS are a construct of society.

If everyone else instantly vanished somehow, it is the restrictions on you that would vanish- not the rights. Ergo, restrictions on behaviour are socially imposed.

Example: You have the right to remain silent. In the absence of any imposition or compulsion NOT to be silent, how could the right to remain silent possibly not exist?

Exactly. *applause * :)

Actually I asked for a name of one currently being killed. Which the article does not supplu.


I said 'mercury is killing real people'. You said 'name one'. If, by that, you mean I am supposed to actually present the specific name of someone currently in the process of dying of mercury poisoning, then you are right - my answer doesn't suffice. But then - patient confidentiality probably means I'd find it hard to track THAT kind of data anyhow, unless someone was SPECIFICALLY open about it. (Like this example - not someone CURRENTLY dying though, which is just a really oddly specific request: http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/dimethylmercury/dmmh.htm)

On the other hand - if all I need to do is prove that mercury poisoning is fatal, then the historical data blows your 'name one' out of the water.


Actually, yes, it does. And it isn't ongoing, and it does note no more new cases.


No - it doesn't. It specifically doesn't say that. It says 'it is thought' - which is not the same as a clear assertion of fact. It doesn't say it is not ongoing - it says it is thought the conditions no longer are right for it THERE. It says there are still cases, but all the KNOWN cases were pre-existant. That doesn't mean there are no new cases... just none that are being directly linked.

Also - again - just because no one has suddenly fallen ill in the Minimata catchment, that doesn't mean mercury is safe, or that people aren't getting ill from it elsewhere.


We have a name for 30 year old big news. We call it History.


And? So mercury is non-toxic now, just because all those people dying of it happened a while back?

As I said before, Minimata isn't the only example of mass mercury toxicity - it's just the one I chose to use to show that people have been documented as having their fatalities linked directly to methylmercury contamination.


If it is "Killing" and not "Has killed", then name a current case to prove your point that it is an ongoing crisis. I'm open minded on the subject. Just give me something happening now.


Mercury is still toxic. I could present you with sources showing a number of medical papers, government reports etc dealing with the risks of contamination. I'm not sure what you think you WANT by way of 'evidence'... and what it is you want me to prove?

Poppycock.

A tiger is about to eat me. There are no other people. Show me how my 'right to live' is going to protect me my striped friend.

It gets supplanted by the tiger's (he can enforce his rights better) "right to live", which is in actuality a restriction placed upon you by the tiger.

I said 'mercury is killing real people'. You said 'name one'. If, by that, you mean I am supposed to actually present the specific name of someone currently in the process of dying of mercury poisoning, then you are right - my answer doesn't suffice.

Right. Just like a picture of slaves during the civil war would not prove the U.S. was racist nation.

The other problem is that mercury contamination is one of the many types of contamination that progresses UP foodchains. If methylmercury is getting to the blue-green algae, it's getting into the zooplankton in higher concentrations - because zooplankton are feeding continually on the contaminated algae. Then crustacea are feeding continuously on zooplankton.. so they are even more contaminated. The same for krill and small fish. Then big fish eat the little fish, concentrating contamination again. Then mammals (like us, dolphins, orcas, polar bears) and sharks are feeding on the bigger fish.

Yep, I thought that mercury bioaccumulates. (Thanks, Grave_n_idle.) Personally, I believe everyone should be permitted to pick their own poison. I happen to like tuna.

They fully realize their actions (if there are labels), and absolutely have the right to be as stupid as they wish. Who are we to say they can't?


Haven't we already established that there aren't labels?

Regardless of which - the government controls all kinds of toxic chemicals. It does so, because they can be directly harmful, but also carelessly harmful. You might choose to eat mercury if you wish, but your child coming across the unmarked tuna-salad you made yesterday is a victim of your choice.


But you can shape a law that forces everyone? Absurd.


Why is that absurd? Isn't the law that prohibits murder just such a law?


Yes. I've seen parents who smoke who tell their kids not to.


Errr... okay. I'm not sure how 'yes' is an answer to 'why'... but, whatever.


I wear a seatbelt because I don't want to die (I think my odds are what--seven times as good?). My mother won't wear one because they make her feel uncomfortable. My dad only wears one because he hates fines. I would trust both of my parents as drivers in a car-crash more then myself, so your argument holds no water. Many years ago our car's brakes went out in a Las Vegas intersection. My mother was driving, and handled the situation admirably. No-one was even slightly hurt, even her (though she was not wearing a seatbelt).


Your mother 'won't wear one'? And her reason is being 'uncomfortable'? Are you seriously reporting here that your mother is an ongoing criminal, simply because she thinks the law is less important than if she gets her 'comfies'?

You trust both your parents blah blah... I don't personally think they should be allowed on the road. The simple fact that seatbelts save lives - and NOT just those of the occupants of the car - should be a good enough reason for everyone to do it.

You say my argument holds no water because you trust them... I say I don't trust them. By your logic, my argument is watertight again.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence anyway...


Not corporations. For some reason you think anyone who argues for liberties you don't is a money-grubber. If someone made poison I think they should be able to drink it, and there aren't any corporations in that.


Not a parallel. The parallel would be someone making poison, then putting it in unmarked cans and leaving them on supermarket shelves.

Should someone have the 'right' to do that?


Ah, I see. This is what Napoleon said: "The common man does not deserve liberty. It is a privilege for the gifted." Do you agree with that?


No. I find the concept of 'liberty' to be a nonsense.


A mother's choice up to a certain fetal development.


What is? Deliberately harming a foetus she intends to carry to term? A bizarre argument...


Not pleasant prospect. Like I said if I had to choose I'd prefer my mum ate tuna while pregnant to getting an abortion.

Not at all. If your mother had had an abortion, you'd have no opinion on the matter.

It gets supplanted by the tiger's (he can enforce his rights better) "right to live", which is in actuality a restriction placed upon you by the tiger.

So - a 'right' isn't actually a concept at all, just the absence of the concept of 'restriction'?

Right. Just like a picture of slaves during the civil war would not prove the U.S. was racist nation.

Which is it - you don't understand how parallels work, or you are deliberately avoiding the issues?

Yep, I thought that mercury bioaccumulates. (Thanks, Grave_n_idle.) Personally, I believe everyone should be permitted to pick their own poison. I happen to like tuna.

To a certain extent I agree.

The problem is - the 'poison' isn't being 'chosen'. Indeed, it is being largely hidden.

The other problem - it doesn't usually kill straight-out. People should be able to 'choose their poison' if it isn't going to adversely impact everyone else.

Tuna are being good.
Thear are not being enuff food for people in the world, so tuna are being good.
The Amount of mercury in tuna is being no higher then the mercery in other fishies.

Tuna are being good.
Thear are not being enuff food for people in the world, so tuna are being good.
The Amount of mercury in tuna is being no higher then the mercery in other fishies.

Depends on the type of tuna, actually.

I don't think there will be bootleg tuna...

I don't think there will be bootleg tuna...

Which is a symptom of why the comparison between controlling a substance like mercury-contaminated tuna, and controlling alcohol or tobacco, is ridiculous.

Tobacco is a perfect example of the libertarian ideal made a lie - corporations DO specifically design to harm their customers, and customers DO continue to fail to punish them for it.

Alcohol is addictive. Tobacco is addictive. To my knowledge, Tuna (even mercury-spiked tuna) is not. So - no parallel.

Tuna, not yummy.

Vaccinations use a mercury based compound - ban vaccines? :p

Vaccinations use a mercury based compound - ban vaccines? :p

Vaccinations have used mercury-based compounds as preservatives. I can't speak for the rest of the world (my 'environmental' expertise is mainly local) but the US doesn't use them any more, mainly because of a suspected possible link between low-dose mercury poisoning and autism.

I'm a vegetarian so I don't care. :D

All you need to worry about is the high amount of pesticides on your veggies.

And for that, you just won "First kill" the next time I'm one of the mafia.

:(

Meanie.

All you need to worry about is the high amount of pesticides on your veggies.

And, maybe amusing, maybe ironic... the other 'big' scare over mercury was over seed contaminated with mercury as a preservative....

:(

Meanie.

I callz them az I seez them.

Worse than that, mercury accumulates. It builds up in your brain. It builds up in your embryo.

Direct effects of mercury are subtle. Brain damage of greater or lesser extent... retardation, reduction of IQ, attention deficits, memory deficits, damage to language processes. Other effects include weakening the heart (increasing risks of cardiovasular disorders), and weakening the immune system.

To summarize. Humanity is making itself weaker and stupider than it already is by artificial means.

Hooray for self destruction.

Vaccinations have used mercury-based compounds as preservatives. I can't speak for the rest of the world (my 'environmental' expertise is mainly local) but the US doesn't use them any more, mainly because of a suspected possible link between low-dose mercury poisoning and autism.

They use them in Australia for flu vaccines - the same country using Chlorine in the water to "clean" it.

They use them in Australia for flu vaccines - the same country using Chlorine in the water to "clean" it.

Actually - I believe they still use a mercury compound for some flu vaccines here - where the vaccine isn't carried in 'individual' application dosages. There are supposed to be a couple of other vaccinations where some mercury compounds are still used, and some anti-venins the same. In general, mercury has been pretty much phased out though.

As I said - the reason has largely been concern about autism. Mercury contamination has been especially targetted in children's vaccines here.

In Australia, I'd not be too surprised to find mercury compounds in the vaccines... the World Health Organisation has said that thiomersal (the mercury compound used as a preservative) is sufficiently low dosage, sufficiently easily eliminated (ethylmercury is excreted much more quickly than methylmercury), and sufficiently irregular in exposure, to be effectively harmless.

What's wrong with chlorinating water to clean it?

Actually - I believe they still use a mercury compound for some flu vaccines here - where the vaccine isn't carried in 'individual' application dosages. There are supposed to be a couple of other vaccinations where some mercury compounds are still used, and some anti-venins the same. In general, mercury has been pretty much phased out though.

As I said - the reason has largely been concern about autism. Mercury contamination has been especially targetted in children's vaccines here.

In Australia, I'd not be too surprised to find mercury compounds in the vaccines... the World Health Organisation has said that thiomersal (the mercury compound used as a preservative) is sufficiently low dosage, sufficiently easily eliminated (ethylmercury is excreted much more quickly than methylmercury), and sufficiently irregular in exposure, to be effectively harmless.

What's wrong with chlorinating water to clean it?

That's the compound - thiomersal I was thinking of.

And Chlorination? Chlorine breaks down into some rather nasty compounds in water when the Chlorination has done it's job. I know it's necessary but then it's just we have a lot of crap the in water supply - like breaking down plastic, heavy metals like copper (from pipes) and rare metals leaching from stainless steel pipes.

Mercury is bad, Mercury is poison, eat enough of it and you will become stupid and sick, eat more and you will die.

That said:

Will eating light Tuna give an expecting mother so much mercury that she will endanger her pre-born child?

The answer isn't as clear cut as some would have us think:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902609.html?nav=emailpage

The Mercury factor in fish foods has scared so many expecting mothers that there is a real fear that pre-born children are not getting enough omega-3 and fatty acids in their diets for healthy fetal brain growth/development.

It is well known that during pregnancy the benefits of Omega-3 Fatty Acids from fish like light tuna are essential, not getting enough of it could result in conditions very similar to mercury poisoning...
Omega-3 fish oil is brain food for a developing baby. The EPA and DHA found in fish oils are essential to your baby’s healthy development. Omega-3 fatty acids make up more than half of a newborn baby’s brain mass. These essential oils are the main component of a developing fetal nervous system and retina and are necessary throughout the entire process of pregnancy for the health and well being of the fetus. Deficiencies of EPA and DHA have also been linked to premature births and abnormally low birth weights. Since the only way your baby can get these essential oils is through your diet, if you are not getting enough from an outside source, your health is also at risk. For example, an EPA and DHA deficiency can put a pregnant woman at an increased risk of preeclampsia (pregnancy-related high blood pressure) and severe post-partum depression. During the nine months of pregnancy, a pregnant woman could lose as much as 3 percent of her own brain mass from EPA and DHA depletion.
http://www.softecare.com/Ingredients/omega-3_fetal_development.cfm

The idea of 'outlawing' light tuna sales to pregnant women seems like it's simply cutting off the nose to spite the face... Probably better just to educate them instead. We could end up doing more harm than good if we reduce the amount of fish in a pregnant woman's diet too much.

Maybe we should stop dumping so much mercury and other toxic compounds in to the oceans? One would think that's a more efficient way of tackling the problem than creating an entire new layer of bureaucracy to manage the negative effects of the dumping while simultaneously cutting off supplies of a quite delicious fish.

Maybe we should stop dumping so much mercury and other toxic compounds in to the oceans? One would think that's a more efficient way of tackling the problem than creating an entire new layer of bureaucracy to manage the negative effects of the dumping while simultaneously cutting off supplies of a quite delicious fish.

Industry and government are too tangled together. They want save $$$ by allowing industry to dump these things into our water supplies but it's coming back to bite our stupidity.

Industry and government are too tangled together. They want save $$$ by allowing industry to dump these things into our water supplies but it's coming back to bite our stupidity.

I guess we'll need another resurgence of environmentalism to catalyze some real change in the way we use resources and the environmental impact of our economy. Hopefully it will be a little wiser this time around (e.g. supporting nuclear power rather than opposing it, which did nothing good and massively increased pollution thanks to the use of fossil fuels instead), but it is needed.

the problem with the murcury thing is that it's in EVERY edible life form that comes from the sea. NOT just tuna.

the flipper netting problem is also real.

i'm not of the opinion that completely banning anything is a solution.

back to the possession vs sale position i take on everything from guns to cars to neurotropic substances to porn to anything.

i'm all for warning lables though. and resources to enforce food quality and environmental protection standards at the source.

and a populace indipentently informed, without the medling bias of corporate or beaurocratic intrests.

=^^=
.../\...

That's the compound - thiomersal I was thinking of.

And Chlorination? Chlorine breaks down into some rather nasty compounds in water when the Chlorination has done it's job. I know it's necessary but then it's just we have a lot of crap the in water supply - like breaking down plastic, heavy metals like copper (from pipes) and rare metals leaching from stainless steel pipes.

Chlorine doesn't break down into anything. It is elemental. Unless you think there is nuclear fission going on in your local water plant?

What you are thinking of is DBP contamination - Disinfection By-Products. Tri-Halomethanes and Halo-Acetic Acids being the big worries (as well as Chlorites). But - to be honest, DBPs aren't that big a problem, for a couple of reasons:

1) Even residual chlorites in your pipes are better than the alternative. Without a chlorine residual in your water supply (or a chloramine residual, which works the same way, but also produces DBPs) there is nothing killing waterborne pathogens beyond the influent point. So - for all the good work your waterplant does killing diseases and removing contamination, no residual disinfection leaves your supply open to all kinds of nasty bugs. Even sucking up DBPs is better than sucking up Giardia or Cryptosporidium... or typhus... or botulism... etc.

2) The easiest way to avoid DBPs is to avoid the precursors. If there is no reactive material left in your water BEFORE chlorination takes place - no DBPs. (The DBPs formed in most water supplies are pretty negligible, and - if you have intrusion great enough to make DBPs a worry, you have bigger things to worry about than DBPs). More and more, the industry has been working in that direction - removing precursors (which are mainly simple organics) through technologies like reverse osmosis or ultrafiltration, or by more effective use of coagulants and polymers. By the time chlorine is added, it's mopping up and providing the safeguard of a background residual, not fighting organics.


The problem is - people take water for granted. We have so few water-related deaths in the first world, that we have got used to it. We think nothing of the risks that there will be fecal coliforms in our water (yep, that's right - bugs that got in there from falling out the back of some mammal - even people) unlike the vast majority of the world's population. We think nothing of the risks of Giardia or Cryptosporidium outbreaks, because they are so rare. How many waterborne diseases have killed people in your local town in the last ten years, do you think?

So - we balk at the expense of filtration technologies. We balk at the cost of pre-treatment technologies. We balk at the expense of watersupply maintainence.

At the same time, we are happy to spend a dollar a time on bottles of water (and Coke and Pepsi have both been forced to admit that their 'bottled water brands' are made directly from public water supplies - Dasani and Aquafina are both tapwater). And then people complain about why they think tap-water is bad?

Maybe we should stop dumping so much mercury and other toxic compounds in to the oceans? One would think that's a more efficient way of tackling the problem than creating an entire new layer of bureaucracy to manage the negative effects of the dumping while simultaneously cutting off supplies of a quite delicious fish.

Actually... yes and no. There is no good reason why industry should not be much more heavily policed on their releases of methylmercury into the atmosphere, except that politicians don't like to get on the wrong side of industry.

Industry seems entirely content to NOT regulate itself.

But - even if we could manage to get industry to zero-out their mercury emissions (by carrot or stick), we have other problems - although the biggy would be reduced. Mainly - methylmercury will continue entering our water supply for years, even if it is no longer produced as waste starting tomorrow. Secondarily, mercury can be found in other places too... like batteries. And, you have to wonder how many mercury contaminants are sitting buried in landfills already, slowly polluting water supplies.

Mercury contamination isn't usually direct. It's not like you can put mercury filters on a couple of coastal factories, and stop the problem. It's largely airborne initially, contaminating our seas by surface interaction, or by running into the oceans along our rivers.

There are no easy ways to cut our risk except not eating fish or shellfish. There are no easy ways to cut the contamination, except heavily regulating industrial pollution.

Mercury is bad, Mercury is poison, eat enough of it and you will become stupid and sick, eat more and you will die.

That said:

Will eating light Tuna give an expecting mother so much mercury that she will endanger her pre-born child?

The answer isn't as clear cut as some would have us think:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902609.html?nav=emailpage

The Mercury factor in fish foods has scared so many expecting mothers that there is a real fear that pre-born children are not getting enough omega-3 and fatty acids in their diets for healthy fetal brain growth/development.

It is well known that during pregnancy the benefits of Omega-3 Fatty Acids from fish like light tuna are essential, not getting enough of it could result in conditions very similar to mercury poisoning...
Omega-3 fish oil is brain food for a developing baby. The EPA and DHA found in fish oils are essential to your baby’s healthy development. Omega-3 fatty acids make up more than half of a newborn baby’s brain mass. These essential oils are the main component of a developing fetal nervous system and retina and are necessary throughout the entire process of pregnancy for the health and well being of the fetus. Deficiencies of EPA and DHA have also been linked to premature births and abnormally low birth weights. Since the only way your baby can get these essential oils is through your diet, if you are not getting enough from an outside source, your health is also at risk. For example, an EPA and DHA deficiency can put a pregnant woman at an increased risk of preeclampsia (pregnancy-related high blood pressure) and severe post-partum depression. During the nine months of pregnancy, a pregnant woman could lose as much as 3 percent of her own brain mass from EPA and DHA depletion.
http://www.softecare.com/Ingredients/omega-3_fetal_development.cfm

The idea of 'outlawing' light tuna sales to pregnant women seems like it's simply cutting off the nose to spite the face... Probably better just to educate them instead. We could end up doing more harm than good if we reduce the amount of fish in a pregnant woman's diet too much.

Or we could just feed the nutrients some other ways?

Wouldn't the 'better' thing be to satisfy the dietary requirements without ingesting brain-damagaing heavy metals?

The need for Omega-3 fatty acids is known and considered. That's why the EPA recommends merely monitoring your dosage of potential contamination, not complete avoision of light tuna.

American food regulators are more strict to tuna than their Canadian counterparts. I have relatives in America that beg us to bring along Unico Tuna every time we visit them.

Or we could just feed the nutrients some other ways?

Wouldn't the 'better' thing be to satisfy the dietary requirements without ingesting brain-damagaing heavy metals?

The need for Omega-3 fatty acids is known and considered. That's why the EPA recommends merely monitoring your dosage of potential contamination, not complete avoision of light tuna.

And I agree with the EPA's advice, like I pointed out before. But it looks like some have been suggesting that even light tuna should be banned entirely because of the fish/mercury warnings. But the Fish warning over the last dozen years or so have been all over the board, everything from one meal per month, to no more than 12oz per week, to only certain types of fish etc.

But I'll put it plainly, for those that didn't want to click on the link, or read the second page of the article... Bolded stuff for emphasis:

Because of this decline (of fish consumption in the average diets), some scientists and physicians worry that fears about methyl mercury contamination in some fish have been misinterpreted by the public to mean eat less fish of any sort.

"What we don't want people to do is to stop eating fish," says the FDA's Bolger, who helped to draft the advisories. "That is a big concern. Or that pregnant women would reduce their level of fish consumption during pregnancy. That is what we have always been concerned would happen with this advisory."

A more recent study of nearly 12,000 parents and children in the United Kingdom has underscored the benefits of eating 12 ounces a week of fish during pregnancy -- or even more. Earlier this year, the study's team of British and American scientists published their findings in the Lancet: Children of women who ate less than 12 ounces of fish a week during pregnancy had lower IQs and lower academic test scores at age 8, and more behavioral and social problems throughout early development, than youngsters whose mothers ate 12 or more ounces per week. That study was funded by the University of Bristol and the nonprofit Wellcome Trust.

Also, a 20-year longitudinal study in Seychelles, funded by the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and conducted jointly with Seychelles scientists and researchers at the University of Rochester, has not linked increased fish consumption with adverse affects. The Seychelles experience is especially relevant, since the seafood there contains nearly identical methyl mercury levels to that found in the United States. One difference: Residents of the Seychelles consume about 10 times as much fish as Americans.

Those worried about mercury's effects in pregnant women often point to a long-term study in the Faeroe Islands that found children born to mothers with the highest levels of mercury had a very slight but measurable decrease in some neurobehavioral measures. For example, children who are now in their teens have slight but persistent attention deficits and score lower on tests that measure motor skills and verbal ability. But the major source of mercury in the Faeroe Islanders' diet was not fish but pilot whales, which have very high concentrations of methyl mercury.

Unlike a lot of other seafood, pilot whales also happen to have low levels of the mineral selenium. One theory under investigation by Nicholas Ralston at the EPA's Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota is that selenium may help protect against mercury contamination. Selenium is present in deep-water seafood at five to 20 times the concentration of mercury.When the two chemicals bind, methyl mercury appears to be neutralized.

Until scientists sort out all the details, many think that the message to the public ought to be eat fish, just make it the fish lowest in methyl mercury, especially when pregnant. That means choosing salmon, sardines, tilapia, anchovies, shrimp and light tuna, not albacore.
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902609_2.html?nav=emailpage&sid=ST2007102200863)

Wouldn't the 'better' thing be to satisfy the dietary requirements without ingesting brain-damagaing heavy metals?
Regulating which type of fish we eat, and choosing it from where it is harvested (wild, not farmed), Arctic harvested for salmon and cod, rather than equator harvested etc., light tuna rather than albacore, these choices will have a greater overall benefit than just eliminating fish from our diets entirely because we are afraid of mercury contamination.

The messages about seafood have become needlessly confusing, says Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Consumers can understand shades of gray," she says. "People can understand that fish is good for you but that there are some fish that are high in mercury levels and those should be avoided or eaten in moderation."

Slightly off topic...

One of the biggest steady household sources of mercury are compact fluorescent bulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp). Yes, those little thingys Al Gore wants everyone to use instead of their normal incandescent bulbs both of which have their benefits even energy saving wise.

As for topic, predatory fishes are *excellent* at enriching heavy metals and other toxins humans spill into rivers, lakes and oceans (incl. landfill leakage).

And I agree with the EPA's advice, like I pointed out before. But it looks like some have been suggesting that even light tuna should be banned entirely because of the fish/mercury warnings. But the Fish warning over the last dozen years or so have been all over the board, everything from one meal per month, to no more than 12oz per week, to only certain types of fish etc.

But I'll put it plainly, for those that didn't want to click on the link, or read the second page of the article... Bolded stuff for emphasis:

Because of this decline (of fish consumption in the average diets), some scientists and physicians worry that fears about methyl mercury contamination in some fish have been misinterpreted by the public to mean eat less fish of any sort.

"What we don't want people to do is to stop eating fish," says the FDA's Bolger, who helped to draft the advisories. "That is a big concern. Or that pregnant women would reduce their level of fish consumption during pregnancy. That is what we have always been concerned would happen with this advisory."

A more recent study of nearly 12,000 parents and children in the United Kingdom has underscored the benefits of eating 12 ounces a week of fish during pregnancy -- or even more. Earlier this year, the study's team of British and American scientists published their findings in the Lancet: Children of women who ate less than 12 ounces of fish a week during pregnancy had lower IQs and lower academic test scores at age 8, and more behavioral and social problems throughout early development, than youngsters whose mothers ate 12 or more ounces per week. That study was funded by the University of Bristol and the nonprofit Wellcome Trust.

Also, a 20-year longitudinal study in Seychelles, funded by the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and conducted jointly with Seychelles scientists and researchers at the University of Rochester, has not linked increased fish consumption with adverse affects. The Seychelles experience is especially relevant, since the seafood there contains nearly identical methyl mercury levels to that found in the United States. One difference: Residents of the Seychelles consume about 10 times as much fish as Americans.

Those worried about mercury's effects in pregnant women often point to a long-term study in the Faeroe Islands that found children born to mothers with the highest levels of mercury had a very slight but measurable decrease in some neurobehavioral measures. For example, children who are now in their teens have slight but persistent attention deficits and score lower on tests that measure motor skills and verbal ability. But the major source of mercury in the Faeroe Islanders' diet was not fish but pilot whales, which have very high concentrations of methyl mercury.

Unlike a lot of other seafood, pilot whales also happen to have low levels of the mineral selenium. One theory under investigation by Nicholas Ralston at the EPA's Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota is that selenium may help protect against mercury contamination. Selenium is present in deep-water seafood at five to 20 times the concentration of mercury.When the two chemicals bind, methyl mercury appears to be neutralized.

Until scientists sort out all the details, many think that the message to the public ought to be eat fish, just make it the fish lowest in methyl mercury, especially when pregnant. That means choosing salmon, sardines, tilapia, anchovies, shrimp and light tuna, not albacore.
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902609_2.html?nav=emailpage&sid=ST2007102200863)

Wouldn't the 'better' thing be to satisfy the dietary requirements without ingesting brain-damagaing heavy metals?
Regulating which type of fish we eat, and choosing it from where it is harvested (wild, not farmed), Arctic harvested for salmon and cod, rather than equator harvested etc., light tuna rather than albacore, these choices will have a greater overall benefit than just eliminating fish from our diets entirely because we are afraid of mercury contamination.

The messages about seafood have become needlessly confusing, says Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Consumers can understand shades of gray," she says. "People can understand that fish is good for you but that there are some fish that are high in mercury levels and those should be avoided or eaten in moderation."

First - there is a conflict of interests hiding in here. The EPA is all about the ramifications of the contamination, while the FDA is more concerned with servicing the market.

It's a matter of perspective - the EPA is going to talk about eliminating risks, the FDA is going to talk about mitigation. The EPA is going to talk about how harmful contamination is, the FDA is going to talk about whether contamination is sufficient justification to impact the market.

It is worth bearing that in mind.


It is a balance. That's not being denied. Fish has positive potential, otherwise there'd basically have been no debate. It's just a matter of whether that positive potential is 'worth' the risk... and if so, how much 'risk' is reasonable.

The problem I'm seeing here, is that you seem to be portraying it as zero-sum. That the choices are either 'eat fish', or 'fail to get omega-3 fatty acids'.

At least - that's what I get from "...light tuna rather than albacore, these choices will have a greater overall benefit than just eliminating fish from our diets entirely because we are afraid of mercury contamination..." But - it's simply not true IF you can obtain the positive effects of eating fish, without eating fish... right?

One of the biggest steady household sources of mercury are compact fluorescent bulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp).


Kind of depends what you mean by "biggest steady household sources of mercury". I'm not sure how how CFL's count as 'sources' in the context you are using it... do you mean as in sources of contamination WITHIN the house?

Or do you simply mean that they are domestic contributors, rather than industrial?

I agree that CFL's should not just be getting thrown into landfills, but it's not like (most?) people are eating them, so they're not really a 'household source of mercury' in the direct sense. I've already suggested that poor disposal of mercury products is a contributing problem - CFLs are one of the products on that list.

Kind of depends what you mean by "biggest steady household sources of mercury". I'm not sure how how CFL's count as 'sources' in the context you are using it... do you mean as in sources of contamination WITHIN the house?

Or do you simply mean that they are domestic contributors, rather than industrial?

I meant discarded household goods as sources of mercury to ecosystem: As domestic contributors to mercury pollution.

I agree that CFL's should not just be getting thrown into landfills

People don't care enough to consider the secondary effects of throwing something away or changing their consumption pattern.

but it's not like (most?) people are eating them

Well, to be exact the amount of mercury in one lamp isn't strictly speaking even dangerous to a human being. You'd have to eat dozens of lamps to get anything resembling a mercury poisoning :D

I've already suggested that poor disposal of mercury products is a contributing problem - CFLs are one of the products on that list.

I don't see why anyone should take any extra effort at disposing of replaced household items like lamps.... :p

Note: I only posted my message because I'm whemently against any suggestion of "CFLs are simply better for the environment". :D

I meant discarded household goods as sources of mercury to ecosystem: As domestic contributors to mercury pollution.


Ah. Agreed, then.


People don't care enough to consider the secondary effects of throwing something away or changing their consumption pattern.


They should. And if they won't... well, that's what government is for.


Well, to be exact the amount of mercury in one lamp isn't strictly speaking even dangerous to a human being. You'd have to eat dozens of lamps to get anything resembling a mercury poisoning :D


Dozens, you say? Phew... though I was gonna have to give up my 'mayo, CFL and crisp' sandwiches.


I don't see why anyone should take any extra effort at disposing of replaced household items like lamps.... :p


Fines, maybe? Jail time?


Note: I only posted my message because I'm whemently against any suggestion of "CFLs are simply better for the environment". :D

On balance, it looks like they are. Especially if people take the tiniest effort to recycle.

They should. And if they won't... well, that's what government is for.
I'd rather target industry emissions, which do include producing CFLs ;)

And instead of punishing people, I'd reward people for doing what they're s'posed to do - Penalties for what are seen as minor or even non-offences do have a deterring effect but not necessarily a great one (eg. speeding, pot smoking, etc..)
Dozens, you say? Phew... though I was gonna have to give up my 'mayo, CFL and crisp' sandwiches.
I've heard that LED lamp sandwiches are almost as good though.

Fines, maybe? Jail time?
How about pollution "free" lamps? Like LED lamps seem to be.

On balance, it looks like they are. Especially if people take the tiniest effort to recycle.
Not in every application: CFLs need to be on to save energy. If they're constantly switched on and off (eg. when you enter and leave a room) their lifetime is greatly *reduced* down to or even below a level of a normal bulb. (a source (http://annporter.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/most-life-out-of-cfl/))

Therefore, as they cost more energy to be produced and contain harmful materials, there are applications where normal light bulb is superior even energy savings wise. If lights are constantly on for longer periods of time (hours instead of minutes) then CFLs do save energy. However it should also be noted that when light is needed the most - in the winter - some of the extra energy a normal bulb uses infact goes in to heating the house.

Haven't we already established that there aren't labels?

And there should be.

Regardless of which - the government controls all kinds of toxic chemicals. It does so, because they can be directly harmful, but also carelessly harmful. You might choose to eat mercury if you wish, but your child coming across the unmarked tuna-salad you made yesterday is a victim of your choice.

Like coming across a glass of brandy?

Why is that absurd? Isn't the law that prohibits murder just such a law?

Not wearing your seatbelt isn't comparable to murders. It's more like homeownership, sex, or drinking.

Errr... okay. I'm not sure how 'yes' is an answer to 'why'... but, whatever.


In other words, should parents not be allowed to smoke? Perhaps you think so, but I don't. Do you believe marijuana should be legal?

Your mother 'won't wear one'? And her reason is being 'uncomfortable'? Are you seriously reporting here that your mother is an ongoing criminal, simply because she thinks the law is less important than if she gets her 'comfies'?

That's correct. She continually gets tickets. And for some reason you think that's terrible. It's not even a misdemeanor, you can't call it "criminal". People who smoke pot also defy the law for their "comfies".

You trust both your parents blah blah... I don't personally think they should be allowed on the road. The simple fact that seatbelts save lives - and NOT just those of the occupants of the car - should be a good enough reason for everyone to do it.

Unless you're talking about preventing the occurrence of a dangerously-dead driver (:eek:), I don't see how seatbelts have to do with anybody else's safety but the wearer. Like I said my dad wears a seatbelt, so it's funny that you think he shouldn't be allowed to drive. Because he only wears it due to fines? If fines didn't encourage/deter people, what would be their purpose (besides collection government funds that is)?

You say my argument holds no water because you trust them... I say I don't trust them. By your logic, my argument is watertight again.

Ah. But I gave a viable situation as an example. You're saying they aren't good drivers because: they don't wear a seatbelts (actually my dad does). I'm saying they are good drivers because: I've seen them perform excellently.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence anyway...

Unless of course you doubt whether my example is true. Another accident my mother was in: there was a huge twelve-car smash-up. She was the only person involved in the accident who didn't hit anybody (though she was rear-ended.) She didn't get hurt and she was in the very center of it all.

Not a parallel. The parallel would be someone making poison, then putting it in unmarked cans and leaving them on supermarket shelves.

Which must be marked.

Should someone have the 'right' to do that?


No, once again the tuna must be marked, as the poison would have to be. But neither must be outlawed.

No. I find the concept of 'liberty' to be a nonsense.


Then you're evidently a conservative.

What is? Deliberately harming a foetus she intends to carry to term? A bizarre argument...
Yup.

Not at all. If your mother had had an abortion, you'd have no opinion on the matter.

Sorry. I did not make myself clear. I meant if she was pregnant with me.

All you need to worry about is the high amount of pesticides on your veggies.

I don't really eat vegetables other then potato products. I eat grilled-cheese sandwiches with soy-bean meat replacement in them. Yummy. :p

...
The problem I'm seeing here, is that you seem to be portraying it as zero-sum. That the choices are either 'eat fish', or 'fail to get omega-3 fatty acids'.

At least - that's what I get from "...light tuna rather than albacore, these choices will have a greater overall benefit than just eliminating fish from our diets entirely because we are afraid of mercury contamination..." But - it's simply not true IF you can obtain the positive effects of eating fish, without eating fish... right?

You can get positive effects from prenatal vitamins and vitamin supplements as well, with theoretically many times the Recommended Daily Allowance of all a person's vitamin needs being met through the pills and supplements. However, most good dieticians and pregnancy specialists are NOT going to tell a woman that she doesn't need to eat well balanced meals anymore because she gets her nutritional needs met by the supplements. In the same way, Omega-3 supplements should be additional supplements to a pregnant woman’s diet, not replacement substitutes in lieu of a well balanced diet that includes meeting the body's needs for Omega3 and fatty acids.

What does this mean for women who are pregnant but also trying to get some of their much needed nutrients from the critters of the sea? It is all about moderation. Recent information released in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine says that no one should cut fish out of their diet altogether. Fish contains too many healthy nutrients that are essential for growth and development, especially in a pregnant mom and baby. There are 4 types of fish that should be on the list to avoid due to mercury levels. These include: shark, king mackerel, swordfish and tilefish.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/fishmercury.htm

And as to the rest of us (non-prgnant people), eating fish can be better than not eating fish as well...

The American Heart Association recommends eating fish at least twice a week. However, some types of fish may contain high levels of mercury, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins and other environmental contaminants. Levels of these substances are generally highest in older, larger, predatory fish and marine mammals. Levels of mercury and omega-3 fatty acids for various fish and shellfish are shown below.

The benefits and risks of eating fish vary depending on a person’s stage of life.

~Children, pregnant and nursing women usually have low CVD risk but may be at higher risk of exposure to excessive mercury from fish. Avoiding potentially contaminated fish is a higher priority for these groups.

~For middle-aged and older men, and women after menopause, the benefits of eating fish far outweigh the risks within the established guidelines of the FDA and Environmental Protection Agency.

~Eating a variety of fish will help minimize any potentially adverse effects due to environmental pollutants.

Link dated November 6, 2007 (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3013797)

Heh I for one find it extreamly funny that we all run around listening to each and every thing said about food and whether it is safe to eat or not.

As somebody(not me) said, all life is just something in the process of dying. I would advocate eating what you like, drinking what you like, indeed putting whatever substance you like into your body.

Ya gonna die, have fun until you do.:D

Were you talking in the car while driving? Because once anyone within reach of me in a car brought up any conservapundit's name as a defense, they would be kicked out the fucking door. I don't care if it was Jesus.

That seems like an exceedingly bad idea if you're a passenger...

We've been dumping it. Fairly haphazardly. Mainly in the form of methylmercury released into the air by industrial polluters (ironically, the current regime has been relaxing air pollution restrictions).

Albacore tuna is higher in mercury than 'light' tuna. Shark, Swordfish, shellfish (also, Tilefish and Kung Mackerel)... all are dangerously high in mercury, and the EPA recommends completely avoiding them if you are pregnant, nursing, likely to get pregnant, or are a small child. Even other types of fish have a recommended consumption limit for those 'at risk' groups... don't eat more than 12 ounces a week. Don't have fish in more than two meals a week. If it's fished inland or nearshore, eat half that.

Canned 'light' tuna and shrimp are actually some of the safest options - you are advised to skip most of the higher order feeders or sediment feeders completely if you are in an 'at risk' group.
Don't forget the antibiotics in fish. That's why I don't eat most sea fish.

Don't forget the antibiotics in fish. That's why I don't eat most sea fish.

A lot of my work-related activity has to do with environmental contamination - especially of domestic water supply. I could tell you horror stories about water in the US that would make you think very differently about our 'natural supply'.

Example - did you know that if you are swimming in a river downstream of an urban centre (doesn't have to be one of the big cities, doesn't have to be close) you are probably exposing yourself to a cocktail of at least a dozen non-legal drugs, including cocaine and methamphetamine?

Antibiotics in fish aren't even the worst consideration... hormone treatments (such as those in contraceptives) are probably a bigger deal for a lot of people, especially since they are all but untouched by conventional treatment.

So - when you are eating your fish, salt or fresh, you should bear in mind that there is probably a risk of mercury contamination, illegal drug contamination, legal drug contamination, etc...

You can get positive effects from prenatal vitamins and vitamin supplements as well...

That's it. The rest is whatever agenda you think you're defending. Argument over.

A lot of my work-related activity has to do with environmental contamination - especially of domestic water supply. I could tell you horror stories about water in the US that would make you think very differently about our 'natural supply'.

Example - did you know that if you are swimming in a river downstream of an urban centre (doesn't have to be one of the big cities, doesn't have to be close) you are probably exposing yourself to a cocktail of at least a dozen non-legal drugs, including cocaine and methamphetamine?

Antibiotics in fish aren't even the worst consideration... hormone treatments (such as those in contraceptives) are probably a bigger deal for a lot of people, especially since they are all but untouched by conventional treatment.

So - when you are eating your fish, salt or fresh, you should bear in mind that there is probably a risk of mercury contamination, illegal drug contamination, legal drug contamination, etc...
I'm well aware of all that unfortunately.:( If I worry about it all I'd go nuts, so I selectively choose to worry about antibiotics. Not just in drinking water and fish but the whole problem.

Heh I for one find it extreamly funny that we all run around listening to each and every thing said about food and whether it is safe to eat or not.

As somebody(not me) said, all life is just something in the process of dying. I would advocate eating what you like, drinking what you like, indeed putting whatever substance you like into your body.

Ya gonna die, have fun until you do.:D

Do you object to the idea of someone ELSE killing you?

Yep. Eat what you like, drink what you like. Do whatever drugs you want. Just (a) don't screw it up for other people by doing so, and (b) know what it is you are eating, drinking, etc.

And there's a big problem - if people want to spoonfeed themselves mercury, I don't really object. Seems pretty dumb to me, but maybe it's delicious. But... if people are eating something containing mercury and they don't even KNOW? How can you claim they are eating or drinking what they want?

Your logic is impeccable, except that it can be pecced. Yes - you are gonna die. Eventually. You could live a healthy life doing all the things you like, and then be undone by mercury poisoning you didn't even know was happening.

80 years, fit and healthy - versus 36 years, of which the last two are spent in degenerative state, because someone was slipping you mercury.

Damn, I lost. :p

And now I lost! :(
I hadn't lost for days...

What nobody seems to be caring about is that many fish species - including Atlantic bluefin - are heading for a population crash that could see them extinct.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7040011.stm

That's why I don't eat fish.

How did it get there? Why is it still there? Can't we remove it? Fish is probably the healthiest meat someone can eat...it pisses me off to think that a deadly substance is in the supply.

Humans=pollution=various harm to the environment=harm to wildlife=harm to us.

What nobody seems to be caring about is that many fish species - including Atlantic bluefin - are heading for a population crash that could see them extinct.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7040011.stm

That's why I don't eat fish.

It isn't that no one cares... it's off-topic.

Our screwing the environment is hurting us... that's the focus here (well, that and how government SHOULD be allowed to react to that). The fact our screwing the environment has been hurting everything else is long established. But, a lot of people just don't care until it's personal... and now it is.