Tuna and Mercury

[Roy Schest]

I have done some reading on the subject in Wikipedia, being a
source which I consider relatively reliable. The information
was rather limited though. It is frequently said in the media
that there are dangers associated with tuna consumption,
especially among pregnant women and the foetus. However, what
implications would a daily consumption of tuna have on an
average man? What will be the short- and long-term effects of
it, if any?

One of the big dilemmas for non-vegetarians is that meat
contains cholesterol, but then again, high-selling fish such
as tuna contain mercury. What gives?

Roy

[Nick]

I looked up fish mercury levels at the department of
agriculture. Canned tuna had the most. It said that it has
about 40 times the amount of mercury than salmon does.

So I keep eating salmon and have cut back on the canned
tuna!!!

[Mr-Natural]

MMu wrote:

> well.. 40 times what amount? you can find traces of mercury
> pretty much everywhere.. it all boils down to the
> quantities.

Silly me! Here I thought that the chemical form of mercury
in fish is what determines how much if any will be absorbed
by the body.

Go figure!

[John Sanke]

You can find links to mercury content and consumption
guidelines at http://sankey.ws/dietref.html I pretty well
stick to frozen Alaska pink salmon for my meat. Ecologically
sustainable as well as being as low in pollutants as just
about any fish on the planet.

[Nick]

I don't remember the exact amount; only the 40 fold difference
between Salman and the canned tuna.

Google it. I believe its at the department of
agriculture's website.

[Mmu]

"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1124862102.757752.173910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I looked up fish mercury levels at the department of
>agriculture. Canned tuna had the most. It said that it has
>about 40 times the amount of mercury than salmon does.
>
> So I keep eating salmon and have cut back on the
> canned tuna!!!
>

well.. 40 times what amount? you can find traces of mercury
pretty much everywhere.. it all boils down to the quantities.

[Roy Schest]

___/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:01, [Mr-Natural-Health]
wrote : \___

> MMu wrote:
>
>> well.. 40 times what amount? you can find traces of mercury
>> pretty much everywhere.. it all boils down to the
>> quantities.
>
> Silly me! Here I thought that the chemical form of mercury
> in fish is what determines how much if any will be absorbed
> by the body.
>
> Go figure!

Is anything known about its affect on the body, e.g. the
brain, the liver and so forth? The salmon recommendation was a
useful one, but what I worry about more are the direct or
indirect, short- and long-term effects of mercury
absorption...

Many thanks,

Roy

[Mmu]

"Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com>
schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1124892103.379102.248100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> MMu wrote:
>
>> well.. 40 times what amount? you can find traces of mercury
>> pretty much everywhere.. it all boils down to the
>> quantities.
>
> Silly me! Here I thought that the chemical form of mercury
> in fish is what determines how much if any will be absorbed
> by the body.

fish bind mercury as methylmercury cysteine or something
chemically very similar to that- there is a dose/effect
relationship proportional to the ammount of mercury
found in fish.

do you honestly disagree that the quantity of mercury plays a
bigger role than the "times amount" comparison?

[Rbr]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:30:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

>
>Is anything known about its affect on the body, e.g. the
>brain, the liver and so forth? The salmon recommendation was
>a useful one, but what I worry about more are the direct or
>indirect, short- and long-term effects of mercury
>absorption...
>

Yes Roy, we do know about the long-term effects mercury has on
the brain. Just look at our resident village idiot John Gohde,
aka Mr-Natural-Health. That ought to make you cringe. I know
it makes me cringe.

RBR

[Roy Schest]

_____/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:02, [John Sankey]
wrote : \_____

>
> You can find links to mercury content and consumption
> guidelines at http://sankey.ws/dietref.html I pretty well
> stick to frozen Alaska pink salmon for my meat. Ecologically
> sustainable as well as being as low in pollutants as just
> about any fish on the planet.

Thanks John. I have bookmarked the page. You page provides
some answers to the questions that preyed on my mind. I am
worried that my diet, which incorporates a lot of tuna, might
have some damaging long-term effects. I am trying to learn a
little more about how to reduce the risk.

Roy

[Ann]

What about the canned Red sockeye Alaskan salmon? Seems the
reports on that are still good.

> I pretty well stick to frozen Alaska pink salmon for my
> meat. Ecologically sustainable as well as being as low in
> pollutants as just about any fish on the planet.

[Just Cocky]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:36:57 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks John. I have bookmarked the page. You page provides
>some answers to the questions that preyed on my mind. I am
>worried that my diet, which incorporates a lot of tuna, might
>have some damaging long-term effects. I am trying to learn a
>little more about how to reduce the risk.
>

Why don't you get tested for heavy metal tocixity?

Here's a sample: http://www.doctorsdata.com/docs/pdf/ut.pdf

There are ways to detoxify from this crap, if necessary.

[Juhana Har]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

: I am worried that my diet, which incorporates a lot of tuna,
: might have some damaging long-term effects. I am trying to
: learn a little more about how to reduce the risk.

There is very little fat left in canned tuna. Salmon, small
mackerel and sardines are better choices as they are higher in
EPA and DHA and lower in mercury.

--
Juhana

[Roy Schest]

_____/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 17:11, [Just Cocky]
wrote : \_____

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:36:57 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks John. I have bookmarked the page. You page provides
>>some answers to the questions that preyed on my mind. I am
>>worried that my diet, which incorporates a lot of tuna,
>>might have some damaging long-term effects. I am trying to
>>learn a little more about how to reduce the risk.
>>
>
> Why don't you get tested for heavy metal tocixity?
>
> Here's a sample: http://www.doctorsdata.com/docs/pdf/ut.pdf
>
> There are ways to detoxify from this crap, if necessary.

Thank you for the answer. It was very useful as well as
re-assuring.

Roy

[Juhana Har]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
: _____/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 17:11, [Just Cocky] wrote
: : \_____
:
:: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:36:57 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
:: <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
:::
::: Thanks John. I have bookmarked the page. You page provides
::: some answers to the questions that preyed on my mind. I am
::: worried that my diet, which incorporates a lot of tuna,
::: might have some damaging long-term effects. I am trying to
::: learn a little more about how to reduce the risk.
:::
::
:: Why don't you get tested for heavy metal tocixity?
::
:: Here's a sample: http://www.doctorsdata.com/docs/pdf/ut.pdf
::
:: There are ways to detoxify from this crap, if necessary.
:
: Thank you for the answer. It was very useful as well as
: re-assuring.

Why do you eat tuna after all?

--
Juhana

[John Sanke]

"What about the canned Red sockeye Alaskan salmon? Seems the
reports on that are still good."

Canned fish is first baked on a grill that allows most of the
lipids, including omega-3's, to drain away. Once canned, it is
then pressure cooked at high temperature to sterilize it,
which has a very good chance of oxidizing the unsaturated
lipids that remain. Mercury and pollutants are low in any
Alaskan fish, but nutrients are significantly reduced by the
canning process. Freezing changes texture, but nutritionally
is much less damaging than canning.

> I pretty well stick to frozen Alaska pink salmon for my
> meat. Ecologically sustainable as well as being as low in
> pollutants as just about any fish on the planet.

[Mr-Natural]

RBR wrote:

> Yes Roy, we do know about the long-term effects mercury has
> on the brain. Just look at our resident village idiot John
> Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health. That ought to make you cringe.
> I know it makes me cringe.

Ah! I see that RBR 'the one Knee Wonder' read my post on that
other thread and is able to hobble along well enough to punch
his scribble on a keyboard. :)

You have my condolences.

[Mr-Natural]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> > Silly me! Here I thought that the chemical form of mercury
> > in fish is what determines how much if any will be
> > absorbed by the body.
> >
> > Go figure!
>
> Is anything known about its affect on the body, e.g. the
> brain, the liver and so forth? The salmon recommendation was
> a useful one, but what I worry about more are the direct or
> indirect, short- and long-term effects of mercury
> absorption...

Well, perhaps if you were to concentrate?

The chemical form of mercury in fish is what determines how
much if any will be absorbed by the body. It is all a matter
of biochemistry. And, if you were to care to research the
issue you would in fact find reports stating that the chemical
form of mercury found in fish means that the actual effect on
your brain is not as bad as most people are reporting. Of
course, it helps to have been following the health reports for
a couple of years.

Some people just need to be whining about something.

You have my condolences.

[Mr-Natural]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> I have done some reading on the subject in Wikipedia, being
> a source which I consider relatively reliable. The
> information was rather limited though.

Wikipedia?

The articles in Wikipedia do NOT make any health claims.

Just thought that you might want to know.

[Mr-Natural]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> there are dangers associated with tuna consumption,
> especially among pregnant women and the foetus. However,
> what implications would a daily consumption of tuna have on
> an average man? What will be the short- and long-term
> effects of it, if any?

The whole issue of tuna is really quite mute!

You will be hard pressed to find any brand of canned
tunafish that contains more than one ounce of fat per
serving. The low-fat craze and the female mind has pretty
much motivated all tuna canning companies to drain all the
fat from tuna fish.

In order to get any amount of Omega-3 EFAs from canned tuna,
you need at least 3 ounces of fat per serving. Since all the
Omega-3 EFAs have been drained from most brands of tunafish,
any knowledgeable person interested in their health and who
has spent a minimal amount of time researching the issue would
NOT be consuming tuna in the first place, regardless of the
mercury issue.

Just my opinion, but I am right as always. :)

[Mr-Natural]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> I have a hard time trusting you not just because of RBR, but
> also because of your banishment from Wikipedia. No offence
> intended.
>
> Roy

Yeah, ...right, sure. I happen to have posted to my user page
just a few days ago. I think that I will now try to write your
name on my talk page, right now.

Just thought that you might want to know.

[Mr-Natural]

RBR wrote:

> Methinks my one bad knee would still kick your ass in a 10K
> race. :o)
>
> Apart from sitting around eating crap and letting all your
> teeth rot, did you actually do something athletic in your
> youth, inquiring minds wanna know.

Me thinks that my two good strong legs could kick in that one
lame knee of yours to make a matching pair.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! RBR let one of his knees rot. What kind of a
role model are you? Oh, I know now. You are a failure.

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)

[Roy Schest]

___/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:11, [Mr-Natural-Health]
wrote : \___

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> there are dangers associated with tuna consumption,
>> especially among pregnant women and the foetus. However,
>> what implications would a daily consumption of tuna have on
>> an average man? What will be the short- and long-term
>> effects of it, if any?
>
> The whole issue of tuna is really quite mute!
>
> You will be hard pressed to find any brand of canned
> tunafish that contains more than one ounce of fat per
> serving. The low-fat craze and the female mind has pretty
> much motivated all tuna canning companies to drain all the
> fat from tuna fish.

I'd prefer it without the fat actually. I get enough fat and
carbohydrates from the rest of my diet. Tuna tends to
compensate for a low protein intake.

> In order to get any amount of Omega-3 EFAs from canned tuna,
> you need at least 3 ounces of fat per serving. Since all the
> Omega-3 EFAs have been drained from most brands of tunafish,
> any knowledgeable person interested in their health and who
> has spent a minimal amount of time researching the issue
> would NOT be consuming tuna in the first place, regardless
> of the mercury issue.
>
> Just my opinion, but I am right as always. :)

I do not have an appeal for tuna due to Omega-3. For the time
being, I just worry about undesirable contents such as
mercury, which the media makes a hype of, perhaps justifiably,
perhaps not.

___/ Also wrote: \___

>> I have done some reading on the subject in Wikipedia, being
>> a source which I consider relatively reliable. The
>> information was rather limited though.
>
> Wikipedia?
>
> The articles in Wikipedia do NOT make any health claims.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know.

I have a hard time trusting you not just because of RBR,
but also because of your banishment from Wikipedia. No
offence intended.

Roy

[Roy Schest]

___/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 06:46, [Juhana Harju]
wrote : \___

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> : ___/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 17:11, [Just Cocky] wrote
> : : \___
> :
> :: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:36:57 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> :: <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> :::
> ::: Thanks John. I have bookmarked the page. You page
> ::: provides some answers to the questions that preyed on my
> ::: mind. I am worried that my diet, which incorporates a
> ::: lot of tuna, might have some damaging long-term effects.
> ::: I am trying to learn a little more about how to reduce
> ::: the risk.
> :::
> ::
> :: Why don't you get tested for heavy metal tocixity?
> ::
> :: Here's a sample:
> :: http://www.doctorsdata.com/docs/pdf/ut.pdf
> ::
> :: There are ways to detoxify from this crap, if necessary.
> :
> : Thank you for the answer. It was very useful as well as
> : re-assuring.
>
> Why do you eat tuna after all?

Low fat; high protein; quick to serve from a tin. Mercury is
probably the only worrisome factor.

Roy

[Roy Schest]

___/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 05:47, [RBR] wrote : \___

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:30:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Is anything known about its affect on the body, e.g. the
>>brain, the liver and so forth? The salmon recommendation was
>>a useful one, but what I worry about more are the direct or
>>indirect, short- and long-term effects of mercury
>>absorption...
>>
>
> Yes Roy, we do know about the long-term effects mercury has
> on the brain. Just look at our resident village idiot John
> Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health. That ought to make you cringe.
> I know it makes me cringe.

I have looked up and found some mentionings of the name so I
now know what you mean. Wikipedia anarchist... "Achieving good
Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!" is apparently his famous
idiotic statement.

I come here as a scientist, not as a village idiot. Somebody
suggested that there are way to measure and dispose of heavy
metals in our bodies. I wonder if that's an urban legend. The
poster sounded as if he knew what he was referring to. I still
am not sure to what extent mercury is the body is damaging and
in what sense.

Roy

[Roy Schest]

_____/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 16:57, [Mr-Natural-Health]
wrote : \_____

>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> > Silly me! Here I thought that the chemical form of
>> > mercury in fish is what determines how much if any will
>> > be absorbed by the body.
>> >
>> > Go figure!
>>
>> Is anything known about its affect on the body, e.g. the
>> brain, the liver and so forth? The salmon recommendation
>> was a useful one, but what I worry about more are the
>> direct or indirect, short- and long-term effects of mercury
>> absorption...
>
> Well, perhaps if you were to concentrate?

I was, but my knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry is mere.

> The chemical form of mercury in fish is what determines how
> much if any will be absorbed by the body. It is all a matter
> of biochemistry. And, if you were to care to research the
> issue you would in fact find reports stating that the
> chemical form of mercury found in fish means that the actual
> effect on your brain is not as bad as most people are
> reporting. Of course, it helps to have been following the
> health reports for a couple of years.
>
> Some people just need to be whining about something.
>
> You have my condolences.

Thanks for the information.

Roy

[Juhana Har]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
: ___/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 06:46, [Juhana Harju]
: wrote : \___
:: Roy Schestowitz wrote:
::: ___/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 17:11, [Just Cocky] wrote
::: : \___
:::: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:36:57 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
:::: <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
:::::
::::: Thanks John. I have bookmarked the page. You page
::::: provides some answers to the questions that preyed on my
::::: mind. I am worried that my diet, which incorporates a
::::: lot of tuna, might have some damaging long-term effects.
::::: I am trying to learn a little more about how to reduce
::::: the risk.
::::
:::: Why don't you get tested for heavy metal tocixity?
:::
::: Thank you for the answer. It was very useful as well as
::: re-assuring.
::
:: Why do you eat tuna after all?
:
: Low fat; high protein; quick to serve from a tin. Mercury is
: probably the only worrisome factor.

Why should it be low in fat? Fat in fish is healthy; it
contains EPA, DHA and DPA.

--
Juhana

[Just Cocky]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:30:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>___/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 05:47, [RBR] wrote : \___
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:30:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Is anything known about its affect on the body, e.g. the
>>>brain, the liver and so forth? The salmon recommendation
>>>was a useful one, but what I worry about more are the
>>>direct or indirect, short- and long-term effects of mercury
>>>absorption...
>>>
>>
>> Yes Roy, we do know about the long-term effects mercury has
>> on the brain. Just look at our resident village idiot John
>> Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health. That ought to make you
>> cringe. I know it makes me cringe.
>
>I come here as a scientist, not as a village idiot. Somebody
>suggested that there are way to measure and dispose of heavy
>metals in our bodies. I wonder if that's an urban legend. The
>poster sounded as if he knew what he was referring to. still
>am not sure to what extent mercury is the body is damaging
>and in what sense.
>

PubMedCentral.com is your friend. Here's a starter: http://ww-
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d-
opt=Abstract&list_uids=12711426&query_hl=16

[Rbr]

On 25 Aug 2005 08:50:08 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:

>
>RBR wrote:
>
>> Yes Roy, we do know about the long-term effects mercury has
>> on the brain. Just look at our resident village idiot John
>> Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health. That ought to make you
>> cringe. I know it makes me cringe.
>
>Ah! I see that RBR 'the one Knee Wonder' read my post on that
>other thread and is able to hobble along well enough to punch
>his scribble on a keyboard. :)
>
>You have my condolences.

Methinks my one bad knee would still kick your ass in a
10K race. :o)

Apart from sitting around eating crap and letting all your
teeth rot, did you actually do something athletic in your
youth, inquiring minds wanna know.

Your parents have *my* condolences.

RBR

[Rbr]

On 25 Aug 2005 19:31:35 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:

>RBR wrote:
>
>> Methinks my one bad knee would still kick your ass in a 10K
>> race. :o)
>>
>> Apart from sitting around eating crap and letting all your
>> teeth rot, did you actually do something athletic in your
>> youth, inquiring minds wanna know.
>
>Me thinks that my two good strong legs could kick in that one
>lame knee of yours to make a matching pair.
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha! RBR let one of his knees rot. What kind of a
>role model are you? Oh, I know now. You are a failure.

So you basically did nothing, as I thought. Talk about a
failure. LOL.

>
>Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)

Ah, the spokesperson for the American Dental Association
speaks!

Loser!

RBR

[John Sanke]

Wikipedia is a grand effort, but its articles are precisely as
reliable as the author - most of which prefer to remain
anonymous :-(