4 ms·

> chelation therapy because her blood had so many heavy metals from eating sushi 2-3 a week for a year. Was this because of a blood test showing levels indicat

by amluto 3y ago

> chelation therapy because her blood had so many heavy metals from eating sushi 2-3 a week for a year. Was this because of a blood test showing levels indicating chelation therapy or was this for some other reason? What heavy metals? What is the evidence that it came from sushi? What kind of fish? Mercury in fish is partially, but not fully, humanity’s fault, and the evidence that it’s problematic (at least if you’re not eating whales) is mixed. For a surprising and fascinating rabbit hole, there are papers like this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-12361-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-12361-7 As far as I can tell, the jury is very much out as to the significance of dietary mercury.

adrian_b 3y ago
That paper only says that the danger of mercury must always be estimated by also taking into account the content of selenium. Some fish contain enough selenium that it will combine with a part or even with all mercury, making that part of the mercury non-dangerous, so reducing the effective content of mercury. A few fish may contain so much selenium that it may make the mercury non-dangerous, but the selenium will be toxic itself, making the fish unfit for consumption. The main problem with polluted food like fish is that normal people cannot afford to have a chemical analysis laboratory, to check whether the food they want to eat is healthy or harmful. So they can only hope that there are adequate laws about the content of pollutants in food and that they are really enforced. Enforcing such regulations for fish is particularly difficult due to the great differences in effective mercury content that may happen between individuals of the same kind of fish, so even when a few fish from a vendor are sampled for chemical analysis, that does not reduce much the risk of eating fish with too much mercury. The same happens with seeds and nuts that may contain too much lead and cadmium, and so on. So even when you are aware of the dangers of eating toxic food, it is difficult to make choices that would significantly reduce the risks, because any choice that decreases some risks increases others.

by amluto 3y ago

adrian_b 3y ago

That paper only says that the danger of mercury must always be estimated by also taking into account the content of selenium. Some fish contain enough selenium that it will combine with a part or even with all mercury, making that part of the mercury non-dangerous, so reducing the effective content of mercury. A few fish may contain so much selenium that it may make the mercury non-dangerous, but the selenium will be toxic itself, making the fish unfit for consumption. The main problem with polluted food like fish is that normal people cannot afford to have a chemical analysis laboratory, to check whether the food they want to eat is healthy or harmful. So they can only hope that there are adequate laws about the content of pollutants in food and that they are really enforced. Enforcing such regulations for fish is particularly difficult due to the great differences in effective mercury content that may happen between individuals of the same kind of fish, so even when a few fish from a vendor are sampled for chemical analysis, that does not reduce much the risk of eating fish with too much mercury. The same happens with seeds and nuts that may contain too much lead and cadmium, and so on. So even when you are aware of the dangers of eating toxic food, it is difficult to make choices that would significantly reduce the risks, because any choice that decreases some risks increases others.