Sender: |
|
Mime-version: |
1.0 |
Date: |
Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:14:46 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|