Tuna Sushi: Not your Best Option for a Power Lunch or Family Dinner
But what about other fish?
For years the EPA has been warning us about high levels of mercury in certain types of fish, tuna being just one of them. Beginning in 1996, the New York State Department of Health warned New Yorkers to limit their consumption of certain fish from 15 waters because of the amount of mercury in them. In 2006, the Department strongly urged women of child bearing age and children against eating most fish that was caught in the Adirondacks and Catskills. And the general population- not just women and children- is now advised to limit consumption of fish from 87 bodies of water across the Empire State.
How much mercury is in this school of tuna?
So yesterday’s news, that at least 20 Manhattan restaurants were found to have tuna with higher than acceptable levels of mercury should not come as that much of a surprise. Yes, Tuna is a salt-water fish and the above mentioned are fresh-water. But the process is similar. Mercury that has been released into the air, eventually reaches the oceans and rivers through precipitation, where bacteria convert it to a more toxic form of the metal-methyl mercury. In fresh water situations, coal burning power plants release mercury and it also comes into water ways through precipitation. It just has less of a travel time if you will.
So, what does this tell us?
We are doomed and should eat no fish? Well, perhaps. But I would recommend minimal tuna or other fish consumption. (Some would say eating tuna out of a can is just not right, but I like it. I really do.) And perhaps we should take a look at the NUMBER 1 CAUSE OF MERCURY EMISSIONS and reassess whether coal should have a prominent place in our energy plan. The main arguments for it- It’s cheap and China is doing it- do not match up against the stolen opportunities of the 630,000 babies that are born with high levels of mercury in the U.S.A. every year.
