Women in Coastal Areas are found to have higher mercury levels

[Guest guest]

If the researchers did not obtain a diet breakdown, how can they

conclusively say that the higher mercury levels are caused by fish

consumption? Anecdotally, that kind of conclusion may be ok for

discussion purposes, but in a scientific paper???

Why didn't they consider other variables?

I have a question: is the coastline perhaps more closely monitored

by radar devices because of possible attack by air or sea? Are

residents of the east coast more likely to be bombarded by radar

waves because they are closer to the seat of government than the

residents of the west coast?

Do radar waves cause toxins to be taken in more readily by our bodies?

Food for thought,

--Hillary

From: Binstock <binstock@...>

Subject: Women in Coastal Areas Are Found to Have Higher Mercury Levels

*Women in Coastal Areas Are Found to Have Higher Mercury Levels*

By t Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, September 23, 2005; A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/

AR2005092201899.html

Women in coastal communities have twice as much mercury in their blood

as those living inland, according to an analysis by an Environmental

Protection Agency scientist.

..........

Mahaffey said agency scientists did not obtain a detailed diet breakdown

from the women, but they assumed that those living in coastal areas ate

more fish. A study published this year found that French women living on

the coast consume three times as much fish as those living inland.

American women living on the Atlantic Coast had much higher mercury

levels than those living on the Pacific or Gulf coasts. Atlantic Coast

residents had average levels of 7.7 parts per billion, while women on

the Pacific had levels of 4.7 and women on the Gulf Coast had 3.2 parts

per billion.

Mahaffey said she could not account for the discrepancy, adding, " Fish

are just not all the same. "

[Guest guest]

>>Also, salmon IS high in Hg, as I learned from a link someone posted

>>here. It's worse than tuna.

my 7 yr old was a tuna freak, I switched him to wild caught, dye free salmon

and hoped it was safer. I just cringed when I read this post.

I wasn't 100% positive on salmon being too good, but I thought it was way

better then tuna...I do limit it to very very small amounts, very few and

far between...

I was wondering if anyone has any ideas for fish that may be the safest,

etc.

We are vegetarians as far as meat goes, but my 7 yr old eats salmon

my 3 yr old eats shrimp once in a blue moon, that's the extent of it.

Sometimes they eat preservative free fish sticks which are made from fillets

of a white fish?

TIA,

Carol

[ ] Re: Women in Coastal Areas are found to have

higher mercury levels

>

>> If the researchers did not obtain a diet breakdown, how can they

>> conclusively say that the higher mercury levels are caused by fish

>> consumption? Anecdotally, that kind of conclusion may be ok for

>> discussion purposes, but in a scientific paper???

>

> I thought it was lame too. Women on the east coast had much higher Hg

> than those in the west -- most likely from air pollution sweeping

> east, right?

>

> Also, salmon IS high in Hg, as I learned from a link someone posted

> here. It's worse than tuna.

>

> Nell

>

>

>

>

>

> =======================================================

>