I'm inclined to take the same stance. The idea of some fish being better than others, or "safe" is a bit the same way as what they told us about amalgams. That it's such an "insignificant' amount, it is not a worry. Well I'm beginning to wonder the same about fish.

I like fish, but I am also a little fearful that I will ingest more mercury, even if it's not at levels that the "experts" feel is a problem (as with amalgam).

Like that doctor said in US, there are no exceptions, no fish. Any patients that argue and say "well what about this or that" she simply says "read my lips. NO FISH". She said even in the best apparently clean areas, the so-called low mercury fish are still a problem, particularly to patients already toxic and wishing to heal from their amalgam poisoning.

I believe that continuing to eat fish, might interfere with teh body's wish to detox it's storage of mercury, if it is still ingesting it from elsewhere, however "insignifcant" the amount might apparently be......I dont know if I would put my trust too readily in those that tell us this. Articles or otherwise, like SS, better to avoid, why take the risk?

There are supplements out there certified free from mercury, tested, molecullary distilled etc that would be a far safer way to get the omega 3.