Comments on: Government Scientists Find Mercury in Every Fish Tested

By: Jorge

Jorge — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:55:10 +0000

Wow,

That sucks big time.

Who would have think that 50 years ago?

By: earthbutcher

earthbutcher — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:32:56 +0000

Bob, do you work for a power plant? As per the U.S. Dept of the Interior’s news release:

“About a quarter of these fish were found to contain mercury at levels exceeding the criterion for the protection of people who consume AVERAGE amounts of fish…” (Capitalization emphasis mine)

Feel free to consume a couple of these fish per week for a year and get back to us about how you’re doing. Assuming you can still keyboard after the year is up.

And Tommy and Dustin, you must already be eating these fish. There was nothing fuzzy about the study, as you’d know if you bothered to follow (and read) the links provided. I’ll give you a little summary from the survey about inherent mercury: fish in the continental U.S. exhibit mercury levels 3 to 4 times higher than pre-industrial levels.

For those of you aren’t so mercury-contaminated you can still read, here’s a nice little FAQ about the study:

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/MercurySurveyFAQ.html

By: Dustin

Dustin — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:48:40 +0000

One thing this study might be showcasing is just how sensitive our tests have become. Or it might be showing that there is a real danger. Hard to tell without them showing the test data.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:18:29 +0000

This is fuzzy study. ALL FISH HAVE A INHERENT AMOUNT OF MERCURY IN THEM..for most it is a small amount. No mention of base amounts. Just a shocking idea and open ended statement about mercury in fish!?!?!?!?!

By: pdunnz

pdunnz — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:54:55 +0000

This finding makes clean coal technology sound more difficult than ever. Clean coal technology researched during the seventies and eighties focused on reducing acid rain reduction by removing sulphur. Does the new clean coal emphasize lowering greenhouse gases or mercury reduction or …? Bob, do all fish accumulate mercury at the same rate. Or did the study address bioaccumulation rates are affected by the niche on the food chain that fish represents.

By: JustinTheOregonian

JustinTheOregonian — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:55:18 +0000

Bob-There are plenty of Native peoples who eat enough fish that this could pose a potential danger. And it is pretty disturbing that mercury is that widespread and common in freshwater ecosystems. Just another reason to switch from coal.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:17:00 +0000

It’s not that disturbing. You’d have to eat 100′s of ounces of fish PER WEEK to ever be in any danger.

By: Oster Itch

Oster Itch — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:36:56 +0000

Ugly, I just hope you don’t live in California where China’s soot eventually falls. I’d stick my head in the sand, but I am afraid of Radon too.

By: Ugly American

Ugly American — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:46:58 +0000

When you think Coal Power, think Mercury Pollution.

Coal Power also gives us a rain of Radioactive Uranium & Thorium soot.

Go look it up.

By: Carter

Carter — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:05:15 +0000

Tizzle – It’s likely that if every fish in the US is contaminated to some level, and that all bodies of moving water (save for the tributaries of the Great Salt Lake) feed into the ocean, it’s reasonable to say that despite the ocean being a very large reservoir capable of dilution that coastal waters would also be contaminated as well.