Do you worry about Methyl Mercury and limit your intake of fish caught?

I've always read in the regs and signs at lakes etc. about the dangers of eating too much fish caught in the ocean or lakes. I've tried my best to lay within the limts of what's recommended to eat weekly, monthly, etc. But I must say I'm sure I mess up all the time and sometimes eat much more than I'm "supposed to." Just wondering what the rest of you think about this subject.

Z

Trying to shift my meat fishing to ultraclean, drinking water reservoirs and ocean-run salmon and steelhead without restrictions on eating.

Z - I land 100 - 200+ stripers a season but only keep a few, maybe  5 or 6, and only smaller ones - schoolies 4 to 6lbs. They taste better and don't have the toxic build-up of older fish. Besides, the bigger fish are the female spawners that can produce millions of eggs for a no longer managed fishery. My 2cts.  Tom

I limit my eating in terms of which species and where they're from.  For example, I have yet to eat a fish from San Francisco Bay.  Overall, however it doesn't stop my from eating fish in general.

bsteves - Since you are a fisheries biologist, can you shed some light on the question of parasites, ( worms ), in our game fish? When I prepare a striper for frying I always slice it thin, 1/4" or so, so I can hold it up to the light and look for anything that should'nt be there in the meat. (worms). Years ago, when I kept big stripers, 20lbs or more, I'd open them up and some of them were crawling with worms in the body cavity and into the meat around the cavity. I've also smoked my own salmon and found the worms dangling out of a hunk after a bite! Not tendons or connective tissue, but worms. I've heard that these marine worms can be harmful to mammals if they are injested live. Any thoughts? I haven't noticed any worms in the smaller fish I keep now.                                                     One other thing that comes to mind that I've found in several fish over the years is a firm, dark colored (brownish), irregular mass imbedded in the muscle wall, maybe the size of a big raison or a grape. WTF is that?  Any light is always welcome. Tom

The recommended limits are WELL below anything that will have any effect on you.

I don't worry about it a bit.  Life is too short anyway.

MolBasser

I became interested in this topic a few months ago and did a little research.  Among the interesting facts I discovered:

Most of the mercury found in our environment is released through natural processes (volcanic activity, etc.).
The level of mercury in fish today is no greater than it was 2000 years ago.
The United States has adopted the most restrictive reference dose in the world, set at 1 tenth the amount of mercury that might harm humans.
Not a single US citizen has been diagnosed with mercury poisoning as a result of fish consumption.
The mercury-in-fish guidelines issued by the FDA apply only to infants, pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant.  The guidelines do not apply to other women, children, teens or men.

I don't worry about it at all.

I see the mercury issue as part of attention to meat fishing from the cleanest waters.  Many other polutants and contaminants are in play (explore the state and federal sites referenced below).  As a freshwater angler primarily, my focus has been there - but you saltwater anglers are well aware of DFG consumption advisories, pollution plumes, andbeach closures, etc. due to natural and manmade pollution and contaminants. 

My first thought has been to stick to drinking water sources.  I have been trying to find clean water info myself - for all over Northern California.  The State of California has a "Drinking Water Program" that I do not yet know how to mine for the relevant information - but maybe you can figure it out:
 
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/technical/dwp/dwpindex.htm
 
Apparently there are things called "Consumer Confidence Reports" that various places create to comply with EPA standards.:
 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/index.html
 
 Some are posted on the EPA site:
 
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ogwdw/ccr.nsf/California?OpenView
 
But many are apparenlty not posted, or maybe do not exist for various waters.  Direct inquiries to the agencies running each body of water may help.  If you get the info, please post both the info and how you succeeded in getting it.

I'm enjoying eating ocean-run salmon from the Sacramento river system now, and will not run scared from the occsional fish dinner.  However, my personal harvest for myself, family, and guests, will focus on the cleanest, best preserved, and prepared fish I can reasonably obtain.  Why not?
 
Thanks.

Most of the mercury found in our environment is released through natural processes (volcanic activity, etc.).
The level of mercury in fish today is no greater than it was 2000 years ago.

How do you explain then that the mercury levels in industrialized areas are way higher than in rural areas?

Not a single US citizen has been diagnosed with mercury poisoning as a result of fish consumption.
The mercury-in-fish guidelines issued by the FDA apply only to infants, pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant.  The guidelines do not apply to other women, children, teens or men.

I don't worry about it at all.

I don't know where or how you have got that information but Docstressor in the Fishsniffers forum says he was diagnosed for mercury poisoning. You should go there and talk to him and find out for yourself. The problem with most people affected with mercury poisoning is that their brain goes first and will not know they are in trouble. Good luck to you.

Most of the mercury found in our environment is released through natural processes (volcanic activity, etc.).
The level of mercury in fish today is no greater than it was 2000 years ago.

How do you explain then that the mercury levels in industrialized areas are way higher than in rural areas?

Not a single US citizen has been diagnosed with mercury poisoning as a result of fish consumption.
The mercury-in-fish guidelines issued by the FDA apply only to infants, pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant.  The guidelines do not apply to other women, children, teens or men.

I don't worry about it at all.

I don't know where or how you have got that information but Docstressor in the Fishsniffers forum says he was diagnosed for mercury poisoning. You should go there and talk to him and find out for yourself. The problem with most people affected with mercury poisoning is that their brain goes first and will not know they are in trouble. Good luck to you.

As to your first question, I would have to suppose that mercury-containing industrial wastes released into the environment would result in higher levels of mercury in the waters surrounding industrial areas than would be found elsewhere.  I'm confused about how you find that relevent to the statement you quoted.

In the second quote, I was citing a Dr. Thomas Clarkson, University of Rochester toxicologist, who has stated that two incidents of industrially contaminated fish consumed by Japanese citizens in the 1950s and '60s remain the only clinical cases anywhere in the scientific literature that document acute mercury poisoning from fish.

Randy, you and all adults have the right to make your own decisions about the dietary risks you choose to encounter.

That said, if the DFG and EPA tell children, seniors, and pregnant women not to eat certain fish - and they do - then I do not want anyone in my family to consume those fish.

Where I know of pollution and contaminants, like in the Mokelumne River from Camanche on down due to old mine waste ponds - then I do not want anyone in my family to consume those fish.

Acute "industrially contaminated" mercury poisoning "reported in scientific literature" is a narrow standard - I will let someone else be a statistic, even for mild, non-industrial, unreported mercury poisoning.  There are far more pollutants than mercury in our waters.  Other industrial and agricultural wastes are acknowledged throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, for example.

It's just a risk management call.  I respect other's decisions, and we probably need to agree to disagree on what the "right" decision might be.  I just want the best information I can get to make an informed decision.

I thought the increased mercury levels in Calero, Chesbro, Almaden, etc were due to the quicksilver mines?

To answer the survey question though, No. I do not worry about mercury intake. But that is because I don't eat LMB or crappie or catfish from any of those lakes mentioned in the regs as dangerous---like Berryessa, Del Valle, etc. Heck, I don't want to eat a bass anyways.

Then again, I've got a freezer full of albacore and yellowtail and dorado...and they're supposed to have high levels of mercury too. At least they're tasty though! 

PK

I thought the increased mercury levels in Calero, Chesbro, Almaden, etc were due to the quicksilver mines?

To answer the survey question though, No. I do not worry about mercury intake. But that is because I don't eat LMB or crappie or catfish from any of those lakes mentioned in the regs as dangerous---like Berryessa, Del Valle, etc. Heck, I don't want to eat a bass anyways.

Then again, I've got a freezer full of albacore and yellowtail and dorado...and they're supposed to have high levels of mercury too. At least they're tasty though! 

PK

I think Bass are pretty tasty. Did the ChuckE tempura coconut panko fry and it waz dee bomb!
Z

Don,

I don't think we disagree on much.  I found your personal choices as expressed earlier in this thread to be thoughtful and intelligent.

I began to research this topic some months ago because I'm addicted to canned albacore and I wondered how dangerous it might be to continue to eat tuna salad several times a week.  What I found allowed me to continue to do so without experiencing anxiety each time I reached for the can opener 

On one thing we definitely agree:  We all want to make the best personal choices we can.  I find discussions like this one to be usefull in gathering  information to aid in those decisions.


Randy

The level of mercury in fish today is no greater than it was 2000 years ago.

I'm confused about how you find that relevent to the statement you quoted.

My reasoning is this. If there is added pollutants (mercury) in industriallized areas because we did that then there is an increase in the contamination as compared to 2000 years ago. And the increase is very significant according to the data that I have seen.

In the second quote, I was citing a Dr. Thomas Clarkson, University of Rochester toxicologist, who has stated that two incidents of industrially contaminated fish consumed by Japanese citizens in the 1950s and '60s remain the only clinical cases anywhere in the scientific literature that document acute mercury poisoning from fish.

I don't know when Dr Thomas Clarkson declared that statement. But it is obviously not true if he said that today.