Re: Mercury toxicity was ( eating for exercise. ive become frustrated. Please help.)

[Guest guest]

Bianca-

>As opposed to deep sea fish, which have the

>ability to bind and remove mercury from their bodies and aren't in

>contaminated waters.

Isn't it true, though, that those fish can only bind and remove

naturally-occurring mercury compounds, and not the mercury pollution coming

from industry?

-

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:27:25 -0500 Idol <Idol@...>

writes:

Isn't it true, though, that those fish can only bind and remove

naturally-occurring mercury compounds, and not the mercury pollution

coming

from industry?

Hi ,

Sorry for such a late response. My sister just had a baby so that has

distracted me from this list and now I am trying to catch up.

I don't know the answer to your question but I do know that the levels of

mercury in deep sea fish *has not* changed in the past 100 years or so.

So the argument that we have more pollution now causing greater levels of

mercury toxicity is fallacious in regards to saltwater fish. It is an

assumption that has never been borne out by the facts.

Second, pollution of any kind is handled in a remarkably different way by

the ocean as opposed to freshwater bodies. The ocean is remarkable in

terms of regenerating itself in the wake of man made pollution disasters

despite what many environmental groups proclaim.

I sat in a conference several years ago listening to a group of

scientists etc., remark at how flabbergasted they were because of the

actual aftermath of the Exxon oil spill (the ocean had " cleaned " itself

up) as opposed to what they expected. Several speakers remarked on how

environmentalists are long on rhetoric and short on good science.

Bianca