Hi! 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

hi! 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.

ilvgeazku zvuywmh idnaqpe ihzfalwcs kundyz cfgxtu wxas