if there's no evidence of it being harmful, why has it's use mostly been stopped? Why did the UNEP consider banning it, specifically to reduce mercury exposure?

if there's no evidence of it being harmful, why has it's use mostly been stopped? Why did the UNEP consider banning it, specifically to reduce mercury exposure? Why do they label it with a skull and crossbones? I don't really care if it's the least toxic of the possible alternatives, it's still toxic and shouldn't be ingested in any way. They imply, without directly stating, that because it's cleared from the human brain (they believe but don't know for sure, they tested on monkeys but not humans of course) faster than it's sibling compound, Methylmercury, that it's simply safe to ingest. However, it also states that ethylmercury breaks down into inorganic mercury, which is both toxic, and has a half-life of AT LEAST 120 days. So you end up with inorganic mercury in your brain and it may stay there for years. The wiki page literally states in plain English that health organizations have considered banning it, but it would just cost too much damn money. That's not science, that's something else. Edit: "...because it sounds bad and someone once told you mercury is bad." Mercury is bad for you and there's literally no question about it. Here's the first result from google: https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/mercury/?pdf=5989 https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-... You keep acting like I'm some kinda of science denier but I'm literally reading the wiki page YOU linked, and it says it's extremely toxic, in multiple ways. If anyone is sticking there head in the sand, it's you. Second edit: To address your confident statement of "NO" to your own questions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/ "Acute or chronic mercury exposure can cause adverse effects during any period of development. Mercury is a highly toxic element; there is no known safe level of exposure." You're so confident that "there's no evidence" it's bad for you, and you're just plain wrong. You accuse me of simply receiving my opinions/beliefs with no evidence and it's looking more and more that it's the other way around. Looking forward to more condescending yet horribly wrong and uninformed responses from you.