I take it the majority of people here avoid seafood all together. I do too, but i must say I do miss my salmon. Do you think it's still a bad idea to include wild alaskan salmon in my diet considering the following:

"Alaskan salmon are among the purest of all ocean species. In addition to residing in the most remote and pristine waters left on earth, Alaskan salmon are relatively small, short-lived fish that feed at the lower end of the food chain. Consequently they grow free of hazardous levels of contaminants found in larger, longer-lived carnivorous species."

http://www.deliciousorganics.com/controversies/mercuryinfish.htm

I sure eat it!

The canned wild Alaskan salmon was one of the few that actually tested to have no detectable mercury...so I think its safe.

Salmon is very low in mercury.

http://www.gotmercury.org/article.php?list=type&type=75

JK! I haven't seen you in a long time! Good to see you!

It is not a good idea to consume any fish at all if you are mercury toxic and wish to detox. Even small intakes of mercury may hinder excretion, especially in somebody who tends to retain, rather than excrete mercury.

One doctor I listened to on audio tape (from US),says she has to continually get through to her patients about not eating any fish, no matter what levels. She said it impedes excretion.

Mercury free fish oil maybe the safer option in my opinion, but make sure it's certified.

I have tried eating low mercury fish and I feel there is a problem even then.

I think it depends also on how serious the poisoning is, and how serious a person is with getting it all out. I wouldn't take any risks with fish at all and why do so if there is any risk involved?

The risk is very minimal. Look at the numbers for mercury content of sardines or salmon. The amounts are very low, around 1/20th of the levels in tuna. I say don't eat any tuna, swordfish, shark, marlin, bass, halibut, or other high mercury fish, but moderate amounts of low mercury fish such as sardines or salmon(8 ounces or less up to twice a week)won't have any significant effect. Keep in mind the 20 to 1 or so ratio of mercury content for high mercury fish vs low mercury fish.

http://www.gotmercury.org/article.php?list=type&type=75

Hi JK98,

True, it might be ok. I'm just saying that we are always told the risks are low, but I often wonder what their idea of low is, and what our body's idea is....because we became poisoned in the first place indicates that low level toxicity from mercury is indeed an issue for those with reduced capacity to excrete what they take in. For healthy people, this is insignificant.

I guess it depends how sick a person is. I'm pretty sure Cutler doesn't think there is much of a problem with it either. I personally choose to stay away. I cannot handle anything making me worse.

Coming from someone who can't even enter a dental office without becoming more poisoned, that should indicate that I really cannot handle it at all. I'd love to eat my sardines again, since they are one of the healthiest foods to consume, but I'm just too scared frankly. I can't trust myself at all. I'm always teetering on the edge of a complete breakdown in health. If I was a bit stronger, like I once was? (even with my mercury toxicity), I'd probably be ok.

Ya gotta remember that anything that comes in a can will usually have high levels of BPA(bisphenol-A) which is a hormone disruptor. Last time I ate fish I got frozen wild salmon rather than canned.

That is why I gave a link to the mercury calculator. Just to say avoid all fish is not the answer. One needs to avoid significant exposure to mercury. very low exposure, such as what is in 8 or 16 ounces of salmon or sardines a week won't make a significant difference as far as the mercury in your body, and imo the health benefits far outway the risks.

The calculator is only an approximate. Basically they are averaging what is "normal". It doesn't really say what your specific fish may have. It could be lower or higher. The fish in Pennsylvania is so toxic, that you aren't allowed to eat for more than 1 meal a month in most rivers. Obviously this calculator doesn't account for that.

So I wouldn't depend on that calculator at all. I personally only use Carlson's fish oil/cod liver oil. If you buy it make sure you get it from a store that replenishes their stock constantly or you'll get rancid oil.

Here's a link to the vital choice brand of red salmon which is recommended by Mercola. It seems like the best choice and has been lab tested. Costs around $7 a can here... quite hefty, but better than take out. I can afford about 2 x cans a week.

http://www.mercola.com/forms/salmon.htm

$7 a can? How large? Imo eating ordinary sardines at about $1 a can might be a more sensible idea. Most salmon is safe enough though, especially if one is eating under a pound a week total. Sometimes there is inexpensive salmon available. I don't mind paying a bit more for extra quality, however I avoid $7 small cans of fish.

One could diversify the type and brands of fish they eat if they are worried that a specific batch might be higher in mercury. While some batches do test higher than others, with low mercury fish such as salmon or sardines, even if a batch has double the average level of mercury, the total amount of mercury in a small can is still quite small. One needs to be reasonable about this, and not be too fearful. Salmon or sardines has around 1/20 th the level of mercury that tuna has. Mercury tends to concentrate in larger and older saltwater fish that eat plenty of other fish, such as tuna, swordfish, bass, etc. Sardines tend to have a very short life span. Salmon are freshwater, and also have a very limited lifespan.