| Most Recent |
|---|
|
|
This court is persuaded on balance that virtually all of the methylmercury in tuna originates from natural sources, while a small amount may be attributable to human activity. Chicago Tribune: The Tribune tested 18 cans of albacore and 18 cans of light tuna for mercury. After learning that yellowfin is often used in canned light, the newspaper analyzed 18 cans of gourmet tuna in a second round of testing. The gourmet cans showed low levels of mercury: 0.06 parts per million--even lower than regular canned light and far lower than the average reported by the tuna industry. Stiker said he was surprised by the findings. He speculated that Chicago had received shipments of gourmet cans made with small, juvenile yellowfin that would be low in mercury. Yellowfin range from 10 to 200 pounds, he said, "so you can certainly get some yellowfin that are low in mercury." When the newspaper tested tuna steak made with yellowfin, it averaged 0.35. Canned light tuna averaged 0.11 parts per million and albacore 0.30. Mercury content varied widely within most species tested. One can of light tuna had 0.31 parts per million of the toxic metal--in the range of albacore and other high-mercury fish. One can of StarKist had 10 times more mercury than another can of exactly the same kind of tuna. (December 13, 2005) Response: Just the Facts
Again, consider even a few contextual facts reported in a wide body of scientific literature which appears studiously ignored by CT: • A minimum of a 10-fold safety level in EPA’s RfD(and likely larger). Meaningless Tests  Thus, the monotonous listing of local test results is meaningless, unless one is uninformed or credulous enough to be persuaded that one molecule of MeHg is like an Ebola virus. The stubborn fact remains that none of the fish mercury levels reported by the Chicago Tribune are unusual, unnatural, extreme or dangerous to public health, as Sec. 20 further elucidates. Nonetheless, CT reporting seems increasingly focused on creating alarm concerning the trace levels of mercury in tuna. (see Fig. 16-A). We have already considered implications for findings of unchanging mercury levels in a variety of ocean fish (see Sec. 5, 15 and 20). Again, why did these mercury levels remain so consistent over time, during decades of enhanced industrial emissions, particularly from India and China? We repeat, the most plausible scientific hypothesis is that the methyl mercury bioaccumulated in these fish are not of anthropogenic origin, but are instead necessarily attributed to geological sources such as deep-ocean floor sediments surrounding hydrothermal vents. That is to say, “the best scientific evidence supports the conclusion that virtually all of the MeHg in tuna [and other commercially sold ocean fish] originates from deep ocean sources. This conclusion is based on (1) published data that shows an increase of monomethylmercury and dimethylmercury at depth; (2) samples of seawater from deep sea vents collected and analyzed…showing an amount of MeHg sufficient to account for all MeHg in tuna; and (3) evidence that a chemical process can create MeHg in hydrothermic vents.” 190 So, reporting naturally present micro-traces of mercury in fish, and comparing types of fish at such levels, only alarms without informing. |
||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
