All Fish in U.S. Streams Found Contaminated with Mercury

[ensho]

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/41073


In a new study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), every single fish tested from 291 freshwater streams across the United States was found to be contaminated with mercury.

"This study shows just how widespread mercury pollution has become in our air, watersheds and many of our fish in freshwater streams," said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that builds up in the food chain at ever higher concentrations in predators such as large fish and humans. It is especially damaging to the developing nervous systems of fetuses and children, but can have severe effects on adults, as well. The pollutant enters the environment almost wholly as atmospheric emissions from industrial processes, primarily the burning of coal for electricity
. It then spreads across the plant and settles back to the surface, eventually concentrating in rivers, lakes and oceans, where it enters the aquatic food chain.

The number one cause of human mercury poisoning in the United States is the consumption of fish and shellfish.

Researchers tested the water, sediment and fish of the 291 streams between 1998 and 2005. Fish tested were mostly larger species near the top of the food chain, such as largemouth bass.
------------------------------


if young women plan on having children they better stop eating anything that comes out of fresh or salt water. and first have themselves check for mercury. it is an expensive test that should be paid for by medicare/medicaid or individual insurance.

I stopped decades ago when this news first came out.

[anonymous171]

1. Damn. How can we stop this? nt

[Subdivisions]

2. Two ways...

either the fish go extinct or we do.

[ensho]

3. close coal plants is a start

nt

[gristy]

4. oh no!

Seriously, though. The ability to detect ppm, ppb, and ppt gets better every year. That they detected some mercury in every fish in and of itself if of no consequence whatsoever. There is at least one mercury atom in everything on the planet. I learned in probability class that there is a 99.2% chance that the breath you take right now will contain a molecule that Caesar exhaled in his dying breath.

What is of interest is how many of the studied fish showed a level of mercury that is harmful to human health, or even indicative of a compromised habitat. The headline gives no clue.

[ensho]

6. then read more of the article then the headline

or if you are a gambler - keep on eating food that comes out of water.

[MineralMan]

33. I'll go you one better than that. I'm reading the original USGS

report, all 85 pages of it. I suggest you do the same. You may want to note the quotation I posted from its abstract. The article you cited is deceptive, as I suspected. You'll find a link to the USGS report in my reply that has USGS in its title.

[Vincardog]

7. Are you trying to pretend that there is an acceptable amount of mercury we should be exposed to?

The is not.

[gristy]

17. Yes, there is.

A molecule of mercuric cyanide isn't going to hurt anyone.

[MineralMan]

31. Isn't there a homeopathetic remedy like that?

I'm sure there is.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

24. You sell fish.... n/t

[gristy]

27. Guess again!

:rofl:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. You sell clams.... n/t

[gristy]

36. nope

:)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

37. Mussels... n/t

[gristy]

39. Nope. Getting close, though.

Not! :hi:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

40. I'm being run through the gristmill.... shrimp?? n/t

[Truth2Tell]

5. previous thread on this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7836448

[PDJane]

8. Dangerous stuff.......along with the usual heavy metal results,

note that mercury is the only mutagen that jumps the placental barrier and concentrates in the foetal tissue; that was discovered in Minimata. The way the researchers knew that a woman was pregnant was that her mercury levels were lower. There, the contamination was coming from a chemical plant releasing methyl mercury into the water; the stuff becomes bio-available when ingested by marine organisms. It worked it's way into the human population, and it has proven to be remarkably persistent.

Ontario's mercury pollution is a result of the same chemical, used in pulp and paper manufacturing at one time.

[glowing]

10. Which is why the vaccine threat is rather small compared with the bio-magnification

that may have already occurred within the mother... Also, breast milk can contain high amts of mercury depending on living area and lifestyle of the mother...

[glowing]

9. issues like this is why deserve to have univesal health care.. Other policies abound

that influence our toxic level everyday... between this and platics and other wastes and Monsanto foods with pesticide resistence to round up (ever read the outside of the bottle.. if consumed call haz mat.. yet spray on foods supply and everything is a-ok?) and fast foods and other cheap high caloric foods... America is toxic.. its only a when you will get sick not if.

[ensho]

12. that's it "when you will get sick not if" (the same in Iraq)

I said years ago - 'go to Iraq, come home dead, maimed or sick'.

the Iraq people cannot escape the toxins we plastered their country with.

and now us americans cannot escape the toxins we have plastered on our country.

[glowing]

15. Yes, and particles in the air make it around the world.. So the developing world

with no regulations (China creating a new coal factory about every month) will create more issues down the road. The US was bad enough.. but add China and India and the world is becoming a toxic soup pile. We'll most likely kill ourselves off before changing the status quo.. all for what, a buck or two. Profit margins? Bonus from wallstreet?

[ensho]

true

nt

[Selatius]

11. And fish meat is full of Omega-3 Fatty Acids, which are good for the heart.

But what good is that if you get Mercury inside you at the same time?

[MineralMan]

13. Yes, fish have mercury in their flesh at various levels.

However, it is untruthful and misleading to imply that this study demonstrates that all freshwater fish in all waters in this country are contaminated at levels that should prevent people from eating them. Only 291 streams were studied. I can show you 291 streams in a map of just a small portion of Minnesota.

I have no doubt that these streams were selected because there was a suspicion that fish in those streams were contaminated. That does not mean that every fish in every stream in America is contaminated, nor does it indicate the levels of contamination of those fish.

I'm an angler. I generally release all the fish I catch, but when one is injured and is unlikely to survive, I eat it. Here in Minnesota, the DNR tests the fish in various waters for mercury contamination, and offers a detailed report on those tests, plus consumption recommendations. It's a public document and the recommendations appear in local newspapers every year just before fishing season begins.

There are many freshwater locations in Minnesota where levels in fish are low enough to be ignored by most people. Canned tuna has more mercury, and people eat that all the time. Mature apex predator species usually have the highest mercury levels. Fish like carp and suckers and other species usually have the lowest. It's a judgment call for anglers to eat or not eat. The information is available.

Coal isn't burned nearly as much now as it once was, at least here. I eat fish from the local waters, and know the levels of mercury in the fish in waters where I fish.

The article referenced in this OP does not give details. It has a position to take. There's a link to another article. It also doesn't give details. It says that 66% of the fish tested had levels high enough to be of concern. There are guidelines as to how much of these fish should be eaten and how often. That was not in the article. Both articles have a story to tell and a position to push.

291 streams is not representative of the nation. It's a tiny sample, and the way those streams were chosen for testing is not revealed in the article. More reading is needed to get at the actual study referred to in the articles. I'll see if I can find that study.

[ensho]

14. if it makes you feel better - think what you will

nt

[gristy]

22. Nice point by point rebuttal!

[MineralMan]

23. Thank you for giving me permission to think for myself.

I can't tell you how relieved I am that I'll be allowed to do so by you.

Along the same lines, you may wish to read the full USGS report which was mentioned in the article you cited. It's very interesting. I have printed it out, and will be reading the whole thing this evening. So far, I have only read the abstract. I posted a reply to this thread about that abstract. You will find the link to the report in that reply.

[gristy]

21. Very good. Nice to see a sane reply and even an offer for further research.

[MineralMan]

26. I dug out the actual USGS report. It wasn't easy, since the

article cited in the OP was quite old and only referenced a Reuter's story that is no longer available. But, persistence resulted in success. I posted a link to the report in another reply. I'm printing it out now, and I'll read it in full this evening. Suffice it to say that the article cited in the OP is not an accurate representation of the report. It generalizes a very specific report. This is typical of biased reporting by some publication.

[Cetacea]

16. "It's normal this time of year"

[tabasco]

18. Gotta die of something!

I'm gonna die of trout!

[dysfunctional press]

19. 'twas a chilly day for willie, when the mercury went down...

Little Willie, from the mirror
Licked the mercury all off;
Thinking, in his childish error
It would cure the whooping cough.
At the funeral Willie's mother
Said to Mrs. Brown,
"'Twas a chilly day for Willie
When the mercury went down."

[MineralMan]

20. OK, I found the actual USGS report. You can see it, too:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5109/pdf/sir20095109.pdf

I will say no more about the details, since you can read it for yourself, but here is something from the abstract at the beginning of the report, which was released in 2009, and represents a study from 1998-2005. The quote from the abstract:

"Fish-Hg concentrations at 27 percent of sampled sites exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency human-health criterion of 0.3 micrograms per gram wet weight. Exceedances were geographically widespread, although the study design targeted specific sites and fish species and sizes, so results do not represent a true nationwide percentage of exceedances." Note: emphasis added by me.

As you see, the biased reporting used in the OP's reference is just that: biased. I'll be reading the actual report from the USGS, rather than relying on biased reporting. I generally find that to be more useful.

There is mercury in freshwater fish from many locations in the US. This study tested only apex predators, particularly largemouth bass, which are rarely eaten in the first place. It was a limited study. It's always good to get the facts from the original source, rather than to rely on biased reporting.

[gristy]

25. The headline itself told me this was not an article to be relied on

Good job tracking down the study. :thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

29. Yes, the title was a bit We're all doomed-ish, wasn't it?

The report was a little hard to find, since articles like this one tend not to link to the actual source documents. It's inconvenient if people actually read such documents for themselves. Sorta spoils the effect, so to speak.

However, there's only one such USGS report, and Google turned it right up for me. The USGS is great, because it makes .pdf files of such things easily available. I liked the quote I posted about the study not representing general information. The author of the article cited in the OP appears to have missed that paragraph in the abstract. Odd, huh?

[pinto]

42. Thanks for the link. A very detailed study - here's my take away from a scan of

the data charts and the summary (page 60 of the pdf).

27% of samples exceeded .3 mcg/g Hg.

Hg concentrations were highest in bass.

Hg water concentrations were highest in east and southeast water ways / and western waterways. Many of the eastern waterways were in historically industrial areas, while many of the western waterways were in areas with a history of Hg mining operations.

Authors cautioned about making broad assumptions either to overall Hg concentrations in any particular waterway or any specific species of fish, citing environmental co-factors affecting Hg concentrations.

All samples were made during low-flow summer season. Although it wasn't stated, the disclosure was interesting in that I would assume low-flow season would result in higher suspended concentrations from stream bed accumulation of Hg. ??

Authors made an educated estimate of a nationwide average .11 mcg/g Hg in US waterways - 1/3 of the federal health advisory threshold.

(aside) Much of the scientific data references / notations went over my head, yet as a layman I think I "got" this much.

On the issue of fish consumption and health, the Environmental Defense Fund has a number of pages at their website on the issue(s) -

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694

- it's worth running through some of the topics to get an overview in more general terms. One of my favorites, shark, gets a big zip, but two staples for me, tilapia and mahi mahi, are winners.

Thanks again for the link. It was an interesting read.

[MineralMan]

49. My pleasure. I haven't finished the reading yet, but you seem

to have captured the gist of it as far as I can tell. The key, really, is that apex predators, especially long-lived ones, concentrate the contaminant. Fish that eat plants, like the tilapia, and fish that live a short life, don't have so much mercury in their flesh.

That's been known for a long time. Salmon is a concentrator, as is tuna. Bass live for many years, as do some other apex predators found in US freshwater. I tend to eat only plant-eating fish or young members of other species, like catfish, and only from waters the local DNR has included in their tests.

There're lots of wholesome fish out there.

[daleo]

51. Not a random sample of streams but fairly representative of important environments

Specific site-selection criteria within each of the major hydrologic basins were based on targeted environmental settings thought to be important with regard to the source, concentration, or biogeochemical behavior of Hg in aquatic ecosystems in that basin (table 7, at back of report). Settings of particular interest included agricultural areas (enhanced runoff of dissolved and colloidal Hg associated with organic matter; particulate Hg from eroded soils); urban areas (elevated local depositional sources; enhanced Hg runoff due to impervious surfaces); undeveloped areas (atmospheric Hg deposition source only); and mined areas (cinnabar mining; historical gold mining, in which elemental Hg was used as an amalgamating agent). Site categories of agricultural, urban, undeveloped, and mixed LULC are consistent with the definitions provided by Gilliom and others (2006):
....
Compared with all streams in the conterminous United States, this targeted sampling for Hg may have overrepresented urban basins and underrepresented undeveloped basins (fig. 2). Slightly more than two-thirds of the sampled Hg sites were in the eastern half of the United States compared with the Western half (west of the Mississippi River).
------------------------------------------------
From page 3

[endless october]

30. how much was found in each fish from each area in ppm or ppb?

details like that are pretty important. you can find a molecule of mercury pretty much anywhere, but it's the level of mercury found that's important.

[MineralMan]

32. It's all in the original USGS report, which runs about 80 pages,

complete with charts, tables, etc. I've just started reading it. I've linked to it in a reply containing USGS in its title. The cited article in the OP doesn't even link to the study, which can be downloaded on line. For me, that's a sure sign of deception. The article is, indeed, deceptive.

[quaker bill]

35. read above

"Fish-Hg concentrations at 27 percent of sampled sites exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency human-health criterion of 0.3 micrograms per gram wet weight".

The answer is a lot of fish with more than 300 parts per billion. The problem is that people do not excrete Hg very well at all, once consumed, it sticks with you for a long time. Locally, many of the poor subsistence fish for a source of protein in their diets, they consume these fish more frequently than the "no more than once a month" health recommendation.

One cannot twist this result into good news, it may not be catastrophic, but it is not good news.

[Mythbuster]

34. I wonder if there have been comparative studies done

on fish from before the industrial renaissance? Surely they have found fish frozen in glaciers etc., that they can test for levels of mercury. May find out that quantities of mercury have been in the atmosphere for eons, from natural occurrences. I not discrediting the above info, but I'd be interested to know.

[MineralMan]

47. Fish are not generally frozen in glaciers, since glaciers are

formed from decades or centuries of fallen snow. It would be hard to imagine how fish would find their way into a glacier. I'm not sure if there is a source of fish flesh to be tested from pre-industrial times. I imagine there is some material still in old collections at natural history museums, but I'm not certain.

There are no fish in glaciers, though. Of that I'm certain.

[tabatha]

38. Here are some ways to combat Hg for those worried:

Cilantro and Seaweed are two secret weapons to remedying mercury contamination. Both cilantro and seaweed prevent your body from absorbing mercury and letting it infiltrate your blood stream.

Cilantro mobilizes mercury, aluminum, lead and tin stored in the brain and in the spinal cord and moves it into the connective tissues. Your body can then extract the mobilized mercury when going to the bathroom.

Seaweed contains chlorella, which is also found in many algae and other aquatic plants. It is this characteristic of seaweed that gives it the capacity to absorb rather large amounts of toxic metals, thus recovering most available fractions of the metals in your system.

http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/mercury/what_you_can_do

[MineralMan]

41. There's a problem with what you posted, I'm afraid.

Chlorella is a single-celled algae. Seaweed does not contain Chlorella, as your source says. Given that rather egregious error in the source material, I have a question the entire article, which appears to be written by someone who knows little about the subject.

Perhaps the writer mistook Chlorophyll for Chlorella. Even if that is the case, it demonstrates a poor grasp of biology by that writer.

Details count when assessing the validity of a piece of writing that purports to be scientific, more or less. This sounds like the kind of writing that specialists in alternative medicine woo frequently try to foist off on the unsuspecting public.

You may refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorella

[tabatha]

43. "Chlorella is a dark green single-cell algae seaweed. "

Depends on one's term for seaweed.

"A seaweed may belong to one of several groups of multicellular algae: the red algae, green algae, and brown algae. As these three groups are not thought to have a common multicellular ancestor, the seaweeds are a paraphyletic group. In addition, some tuft-forming bluegreen algae (Cyanobacteria) are sometimes considered as seaweeds — "seaweed" is a colloquial term and lacks a formal definition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed

Last edit:

Spirulia and chlorella are algae, a huge family of organisms that range in size from microscopic to 180 feet long (seaweed). More than 200 species have been used as food since prehistoric times in virtually every country that has a coastline. They have also been used widely as fertilizer. Algae are abundant, high in minerals, and can be good sources of protein, carbohydrates, fiber, essential fatty acids and vitamins.

[MineralMan]

45. Chlorella is not a seaweed. It is a fresh-water algae.

It is not found "in seaweed." It is specific algae. The article was incorrect. What else in that article is incorrect? Do you not take my point? When writers make boneheaded errors like that one, the entire article is suspect.

Chlorella is not found "in seaweed." Therefore, seaweed does not contain Chlorella.

Note that in your quotation that "seaweed" is defined as one of several groups of multicellular algae. A single-celled algae like Chlorella cannot be a seaweed, by the very definition you provided.

Writers who do not know such basic information write crap. Now, Chlorella is sold as a food supplement, and has been touted as the "food of the future." That's as may be, but it is not seaweed, nor is it found in seaweed. Therefore, the proposition that eating seaweed can reduce mercury and other metals in your body is not supported by the facts.

Bad writer. Bad article. Bad advice.

[tabatha]

46. It is not found in seaweed ---- it is a type of seaweed.

Please re-read.

[tabatha]

48. Sorry, it is not fresh water.

From your own link:

"To cope with the upcoming post-war population boom in the United States and elsewhere, researchers decided to tap into the unexploited sea resources"

See also:

http://www.seaweed.ie/algae/algae.html

[MineralMan]

50. Oh, for pete's sake.

Chlorella are freshwater algae. Your quote does not refute that. Seaweed are multicellular algae. Chlorella are unicellular algae.

Here:

"Description

Chlorella is a single-celled freshwater alga. These algae contain large amount of chlorophyll, the chemical that gives plants their green color. Chlorophyll is an essential compound for photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert light into chemical energy. Chlorophyll is also available in green leafy vegetables."

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Chlorella.asp

"Seaweed is a loose colloquial term encompassing macroscopic, multicellular, benthic marine algae.<1>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed


I'm done with this subject. You, and the writer of the article you mentioned are incorrect. No doubt the writer meant "chlorophyll," which is contained in seaweeds. It happens when nobody checks the facts in online writing, as is typical. Bad facts. Bad advice.

I do not post incorrect information. If I do not know, I do not post.

[progressoid]

44. Tunamelt for lunch today!

Mmmmm.

[RadiationTherapy]

52. Thanks, Boomers!

Eat eat eat!! Make make make!! Buy buy buy!!

Bye-bye!