Greenpeace is sponsoring a national mercury testing project to raise awareness about the hazards of dirty energy and stuff. They're offering Mercury Testing Kits for $25, a fraction of the normal price, at their website and soon, 1,000 Aveda Salons will be partnering with GP to offer the tests for free (it's a hair test, I should add!). The interim results of the project show that 21% of women nationwide have mercury levels that exceed the EPA limit, and that the single biggest determinant of mercury level is one's frequency of fish consumption.
EDIT: Of course, other studies have returned much more modest results. This recent CDC study found that only 6% of women had mercury levels above that which is assumed to be harmless. There are other studies that contradict one another even more dramatically, described here.
For those who haven't heard, mercury is a neurotoxin that causes serious birth defects. Unborn children are vulnerable to high mercury levels in the bodies of their moms, and nursing mothers can pass mercury and other heavy metals on to their babies in breast milk. It takes several years to rid your body of mercury.
I ordered a kit today. I'm sure when my results come back it will be readily apparent how much I love sushi. But it's better to know than not to know, and maybe a scary result will be motivation enough to cut back on the maki.
Whatever the dangers of mercury, in my view it's better to be safe than sorry. I don't particularly like the idea of consuming it if I don't have to, even if that proves irrational. Good stewardship is, partly, premised on the idea that we don't really know what effects environmental pollutants will have on humans in the future. If there are viable, less unpredictable alternatives (clean v. dirty energy? flax v. fish for omega-3s?), I'm for them.
Posted by jess at January 24, 2005 12:28 PMHi! I just found your blog recently and have been really enjoying your variety of topics (although I came for the knitting :-) ).
Just wanted to share a balancing article to the one you linked on mercury. The EPA limit of 1 ppm (actually 1.2 ppm) actually has a 10x safety factor built into it, and even the 12ppm they very conservatively determined would have a lifetime effect for the most sensitive is 4x below the lowest level associated with neurological effects (50 ppm!). So it's a bit alarmist for Greenpeace to be saying that women with more than 1ppm are risking their babies' health.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/041604D.html
Posted by: Bea at January 24, 2005 9:16 PMhi! thanks for posting. eh, as they say at baker's square, come for the knitting, stay for the pie. if you're not from the midwest that might not make sense to you, but you get the idea.
You're absolutely right about Greenpeace being alarmist - i'm going to add a less alarming CDC study to the post. I would note, though, that, from the way their article reads, when Greenpeace says the women's levels exceed the EPA limit, they're saying that the women's hair itself exceeded the 1 ppm composition that's the limit on the food we eat. For every million parts hair, there was one part mercury. What that says about the levels in the body associated with neurological effects, I don't know. The CDC study, on the other hand, measured levels in the blood and found that 6% of women had levels "above that assumed to be without appreciable harm."
However, I am really curious to see how my test results turn out, since I do eat a *lot* of fish, probably some every other day or every three days. We shall see. I'll post the results.
Posted by: jess at January 24, 2005 9:22 PMilvgeazku zvuywmh idnaqpe ihzfalwcs kundyz cfgxtu wxas
Posted by: djmwx zysohdc at October 10, 2006 5:05 PM