Talk:Mercury in fish

What's a "false natural tendency"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copperheart0718 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC) The NRDC does not publish peer reviewed material and neither does Dr. Jane Hightower. All material that that uses them as a reference needs to be removed from this posting Dsteiny (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense
"Coal contains mercury as a natural contaminant. When it is fired for electricity generation, the mercury is released as smoke into the atmosphere. Most of this mercury pollution can be eliminated if pollution-control devices are installed.[12]" < This isn't true, because they still will have mercury to get rid of, which will still end up in the ocean in how they "throw it away." If mercury is produced, and not used, then it still becomes waste that ends up being "tossed" somewhere. Much of our "garbage" ends up in the ocean, so it will therefore still go to the oceans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.236 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Mercury in fish
Cyberbot II has detected links on Mercury in fish which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-01913-european-food-safety-authority-updates-opinion-on-mercury-and-methylmercury-a4-en-13.pdf
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Dealt with --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Medical cases and exposure to mercury
In "Medical cases and exposure to mercury" there is a section related to: "Researchers in the United Kingdom followed a group of children whose mothers ate about 340"

pointing to [36]: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-002-0571-3#page-1

I cannot find relevant information in [36], but I do see an article linked in [35] "Fish consumption, methylmercury and child neurodevelopment" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581505/ that is most likely the source: "Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17307104

I see 2 problems with current information: "After adjustment, maternal seafood intake during pregnancy of less than 340 g per week was associated with increased risk of their children being in the lowest quartile for verbal intelligence quotient"
 * intake was 340 g per week, not per day
 * most importantly, it is exactly the opposite, intake >340[g] is associated with higher IQ:

- PMC2581505

it is mentioned also in the meta-analysis [35]: "Compared with mothers who ate more than 340 g (12 ounces) of seafood per week, those who ate less seafood had a higher risk of having children with suboptimal scores on measures of verbal IQ, prosocial behavior, fine motor skills and social development. For other outcomes, fish intake above 340 g/week was not predictive of better performance, but also was not associated with worse performance"

- Lancet. 2007 Feb 17;369(9561):578-85

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkuduk (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Work and exposure
I removed one sentence and cleaned up another that were probably left over from some previously removed study reference. The removed sentence mentioned a duration of exposure of "15.3" (without units), and cited a document that did not mention that figure or anything like it. I found a paper at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46-a.pdf that mentions a "15.3" year duration of exposure, but that number is only relevant for that study. I also cleaned up another sentence that appears to describe the sources of exposure from that same study, but again, not a general statement, so I reworked it a bit to make it more useful. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Disorganization of section Health effects and outcomes
The section Andyharbor (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Add in Barramundi to table?
I noticed the mercury table not showing all the fish species and get that it's not possible to show every species. However I think farm raised Barramundi would be a very worthy addition to the table as it's a popular food fish in Australia and Asia Pacific. And it's ranked as "Best Choice by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch® program" (First-ever ocean-farmed finfish to earn this rating)

Plus it consistently tested below detectable limits for mercury (average of 0.02 ppm). According to the source - https://www.thebetterfish.com/faqs/

I think many readers would be interested in knowing the mercury levels in ocean farmed Barramundi. Which appears to be among the lowest because they are fed a mostly vegan diet and low "fish-in to fish-out ratio". https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-is-barramundi-5094155. Casualfoodie (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree Barramundi should be added if a reliable source reporting the testing could be found, rather than promotional sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is methyl mercury secreted or not?
In the section Biomagnification: "Fish efficiently absorb methyl mercury, but excrete it very slowly. Methyl mercury is not soluble and therefore not excreted." These sentences cannot be true at the same time. Do fish excrete methyl mercury very slowly, or not at all? It seems more likely that the former is the correct phrasing as, firstly, it is sourced while the latter is not, and second, methyl mercury is soluble. It simply has a significantly small solubility constant meaning it requires a very large volume of a solvent in order to actually dissolve and does so more readily in lipids than in water. DrOfProfessor (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)