PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version:
1.0
Date:
Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:14:46 -0500
Reply-To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject:
From:
Stan Marks <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
on 8/9/03 2:22 PM, Don Wiss at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Theola Walden Baker wrote:
>
>> I received results of my hair mineral analysis today.  Of the 11 essential
>> minerals and 9 toxic elements tested, all fell within their reference ranges
>> except mercury and tin which were high.
>>
>> mercury 3.79 (rr < = 1.69)
>
>> I eat canned tuna about 4 times a week which may account for the mercury.
>
> What type of tuna? In a NY Times article a couple weeks back they pointed
> out that albacore tuna (sold as white tuna) has more mercury than light
> tuna, which comes from smaller fish. In the white it was 0.5 parts per
> million. and in light it was 0.13.

That would pretty-much confirm something I read, somewhere...the larger the
fish, the longer it has been exposed to mercury in the ocean.

If that is the case, then, I guess it's a good thing that I prefer the
"chunk light" tuna to the albacore. :)

Stan Marks

ATOM RSS1 RSS2