Phentermine phentermine. Phentermine. Lowest online phentermine price. Phentermine prescription online. Cheapest phentermine online. Buy no phentermine prescription. Phentermine cod.

Isn't it funny how risk-deniers so often start off with (and in Sheldon's case, also end with) an ad hominem attack? When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and call your opponent names....

Sheldon, you are seriously confused. First, the FDA initially issued fish consumption advice, not the EPA. FDA and EPA jointly issued the current advice. And it doesn't just warn about four very high-mercury fish; the current advice also says to limit consumption of albacore tuna, and to choose a variety of low-mercury fish. FDA also publishes mercury data so people can tell what's a low-mercury fish and what's not. Halibut and sea bass, as well as albacore, are definitely not.

Second, if you don't trust the government, how about the National Academy of Sciences? In 2000, an NAS committee said that the EPA had used the best available science and sound assumptions in setting the Reference Dose for methylmercury. In 2006, another NAS committee assessed risk-benefit issues associated with fish consumption and recommended that women and children eat low mercury fish.

Those "psychosomatic" effects apparently show up in infants (age 6 months) and 3-year-olds, the subjects of research by Oken et al. (the study Martosko loves to cite inaccurately). Their research showed adverse effects on cognitive development in kids whose mothers ate fish just twice a week or more. Measured by objective testing, by the way. Not subjective symptoms at all. Not severe, devastating effects like in Minamata. Subtle effects on learning ability. But effects nonetheless, which if they occurred in a large population would represent a significant publicv-health impact.

Most published case histories of methylmercury poisoning don't involve pregnant women or kids--they involve adults, mostly men, who eat a lot of fish. You mentioned sea bass, as it happens, one of the Wisconsin cases was a lawyer who ate Chilean sea bass two or three times a week. Certainly, those individuals are out at the end of the curve in terms of how much fish they eat. But if they represent the one person in a thousand who eats more fish than the other 999 people, there are some 300,000 such "extreme" individuals in the US population of 300 million.

The so-called "10-fold safety factor" is a myth. When it set the Reference Dose, the EPA started with a "benchmark dose," one that had clear-cut adverse effects on brain development, and then applied an "uncertainty factor" of 10 to define a level it deemed "safe enough." That's called an uncertainty factor because there is a lot of uncertainty. The measurement of the benchmark dose was not very precise. There is a lot of known variation in sensitivity among individuals. A 10-fold margin is presumed to protect most people--but it's still uncertain. The argument that there is no risk until you exceed the Reference Dose by a factor of 10 is nonsense. Risk increases with dose, and it's not zero, even at the Reference dose (especially with the recent findings from Oken et al. factored in, which were not available when EPA set the RfD.) At 10 times the RfD, the risk is 10 times higher. When to start worrying is a personal choice, but many people would prefer to take reasonable steps to minimize their risk, wherever they are on the continuum.

There is no evidence that women or any other groups are eating less fish because of mercury warnings. The National Marine Fisheries Service publishes per-capita fish consumption data, and as of 2006 (latest data available) Americans were consuming just 0.1 pound per year less than the all-time high (achieved in 2004). 2006 consumption of fresh and frozen fish, fish fillets and steaks, and shrimp each hit new all-time highs in 2006. Consumption of one fish product--canned tuna--has been declining for years. But in general Americans have gotten the message to "eat more fish" and are increasing, not decreasing their consumption. As that 2006 NAS report said, Americans' fish consumption is changing. We are eating more, higher-quality and higher-priced fish products. Not eating less fish. Sorry, that's another myth.

The idea that risks don't matter because there are also benefits is just plain illogical. We can have benefits and avoid risks simply by choosing low-mercury fish!  What's so hard about that?

Why are these commenters trying to twist the choice into "Eat fish or die young?" And why do they keep repeating false stories about looming disasters caused by an honest discussion of risk and how easily it can be managed?

What, exactly, are you afraid of?

Yep ... I'd also like to know the identity of this "science lover" who doesn't seem to know much about his own passion. How about it? You know who I am. Do you have the courage to put your name behind your ill-advised opinions?

Oken's study showed, among other things, that children of the women with the highest-measured mercury levels performed BETTER than those of the women who ate no fish. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

And my "theme" has never changed. None of the cases in the Knobeloch study was medically documented. Not a single one of them. There are too many confounders available to explain the symptom claims, and unless a qualified physician wants to roll up his or her sleeves to investigate, what you have is a VERY TINY epidemiological study.

Regarding Morel's work, you're missing the point. There's a huge difference between marine fish and freshwater fish in terms of the genesis of methylmercury. Morel's work doens't apply to lakes and streams very well, but it neatly explains MeHg in ocean fish. Including the tuna, which has been the focus of so much needless hand-wringing.

I'm done jousting with you unless you'd like to unmask yourself and put a name behind your silly musings.

David Martosko

Director of Research

Center for Consumer Freedom

You've got to love this "science lover" phony. Would love to know which mail-order college he went to. My twin PhDs are from Princeton, by the way.

He's completely misinterpreting the available science on the subject. Even the EPA -- which has historically over-reacted to a few doom-and-gloom studies while completely ignoring science that suggests no reasonable harm -- has only identified four fish (just four) that anybody should trim back on. And then, only pregnant women, women who may be pregnant, and very very small children. Note that tuna fish isn't on the "bad" list. Neither is halibut. Neither is sea bass.

Sure, if you're pregnant and you want to feel better (because the health threat is all psychosomatic -- it's certainly not biochemical), go ahead and swear off shark, tilefish, king mackerel, and swordfish. No big deal. But if you're not pregnant, if you're a man, if you're over, say, 4 years old, NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO YOU ANYWAY.

And the EPA had to build in a 10-fold safety margin just to frame the issue as a health threat in the first place. So this is a prime example of toxicologists doing what toxicologists do -- over-protecting the public. Which makes abundant sense if you're talking about asbestos or lead paint. But it makes no sense where there are health BENEFITS in the equation.

And there is plenty of evidence that women are eating less fish in general as a result of the government's scary warnings. You don't need the CDC to tell you about it. Ask any grocery store manager for his sales figures on fresh and canned fish. The whole segment has been in free-fall since 2001.

I would really, really like to know who this "science lover" guy is. Really. Someone should revoke his GED.

Response to Martosko's latest:

Martosko plays fast and loose with the facts, apparently counting on readers' not having read the papers.

Oken et al.'s data do, in fact, show that women who ate more fish had kids with higher test scores than women who ate no fish. Within the fish-eaters, though, those who ate fish that contained more mercury had kids who scored LOWER on the tests than kids whose mothers ate fish with less mercury in it. In other words (as stated in response to Sheldon, below), pregnant women should choose low-mercury fish. This was one of Oken et al's prominent conclusions.

The study by Knobeloch et al. that I cited earlier reports case-histories of people who have been mercury-poisoned by eating too much fish that was high in mercury. The Wisconsin Public Health Department put out an announcement asking people who ate a lot of fish to send in hair samples for mercury analysis. They got hair from about 2,000 people. They then followed up on individuals with particularly high levels, measured their blood mercury level, got detailed diet histories (what fish they ate), measured the mercury content of those fish. They found several cases in which the individual (a) ate a lot of a fish variety that contained a high mercury level, (b) had a high blood mercury level, and (c) had been diagnosed by a physician as having methylmercury poisoning. In most of the cases (not all could be followed up) the individuals stopped eating the contaminated fish, their blood mercury level dropped substantially, and any symptoms they had (if there were any) resolved.

Yes, some of the symptoms (balance problems, trouble concentrating, confusion) could be caused by something other than mercury poisoning. However, in the presence of a high blood mercury level, that is a sensible diagnosis, and when the symptoms resolve gradually as mercury exposure decreases, it seems even more solid.

Yes, it's a fairly small number of people, but the evidence pretty clearly suggests that they really did have mercury poisoning from eating fish. And this paper is just one of several similar reports of cases of mercury poisoning from fish consumption. It's real, it occurs. Not terribly often--only about half a percent of the 2,000 people who responded to the Wisconsin survey, for instance. But just because it's rare, that doesn't make it trivial.

Note that Martosko's theme song has evolved from "There has never been a single case of mercury poisoning from eating fish in the United States" to "Well, it's only 15 people!" in the cited study.

As for Morel's work, which Martosko claims shows mercury comes entirely from natural sources, it shows no such thing. Geochemists have known for decades that mercury has both natural and pollution sources. Estimates of natural mercury inputs into the oceans range from about 60 percent to two-thirds of the total, but the pollution component is also substantial. But really, who cares if it's natural or not? Mercury is mercury, and methymercury (which is produced from elemental mercury by bacteria, in a natural process) is still toxic, no matter where the mercury comes from.

We can't get the mercury out of the oceans (or the fish), so we have to learn to choose fish wisely to manage mercury risks. "Eat low-mercury fish" is pretty simple advice. Why is Martosko so bound and determined to obfuscate that message?

Response to Sheldon:

Women should eat plenty of fish, but they should choose low-mercury fish. There are at least 20 fish and seafood choices, listed in the FDA's online database, that contain less than 0.05 ppm of mercury. Those low-mercury fish include salmon, tilapia, pollock, catfish, shrimp, clams, flounder and sole--all among the most popular seafood choices. They also include anchovies, sardines, herring, and oysters, which (along with salmon) are excellent sources of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. A 60-kg woman could eat up to four servings (24 ounces, 680 grams) of any of these fish or shellfish in a week without exceeding a safe dose of methylmercury, as defined by the EPA. It is possible to get all the beneficial nutrients from fish consumption and to avoid excessive exposure to mercury.

But to do that women need better information and they need to avoid eating fish varieties that are higher in mercury. Any fish that contains more than 0.25 ppm of mercury will exceed a woman's safe mercury dose in a single 6-ounce serving and probably should be avoided. By that guideline, a woman could eat canned light tuna twice a week (0.12 ppm) if she had no other source of mercury in her diet, but should avoid canned albacore tuna (0.35 ppm) or fresh tuna (0.38 ppm).

Advice that blindly promotes fish consumption for its benefits without taking the risks into account (which is what Penn and company have been doing for the fishing industry) is as unsupportable as advice that scares women into eating less fish (which is how the fishing industry characterizes any advice that mentions mercury, although there is no evidence that current, balanced advice has in fact had any such effect.)

Oh ... My ... God.

Are you people nuts?

Sharon -- I have to believe that you're unaware of the public-health damage you're doing. I'm guessing you're an Obama supporter, but election-year politics are NOT a good reason to monkey with nutrition advice that could harm unborn babies.

Evidence is mounting that fish is, on balance, healthy for pregnant women and fetuses. Yes, even if mercury is part of the equation. Do you have ANY advanced science credentials? Or are you taking marching orders from a few green groups?

Really, this is no better than arguing that kids shouldn't eat apples because of the potential for pesticide residues. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Literally.

Memo to "science lover":

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Do you work for Greenpeace of Oceana? Has to be one or the other.

In the recent Harvard study (by Dr. Emily Oken et al), children of women with comparatively high mercury levels still had HIGHER test scores than children of women who ate no fish during pregnancy, Go back and actually read the study this time. Don't skip the data. Something in fish is protecting neural development against methylmercury's effects. It's not happening in a vacuum.

You should also check out the research of Dr. Francois Morel at Princeton. He's shown that nearly all the mercury in tuna (and other ocean fish) occurs naturally. Believe it or not, Mother Earth puts it into the food chain as a result of undersea volcanic activity.

Regarding the Knobelach study, this is laughable. Have you even read the abstract? It was a survey of 15 (yes, FIFTEEN) people. The researchers didn't even attempt, much less establish, any cause-and-effect between mercury levels and any symptoms. In layman's terms -- because you appear to need them -- if someone in this study reported having a headache, Knobelach's team assumed it was mercury-related. By that sort of measure, we'll all be fish-poisoned when our tax returns are due this weekend.

Regarding selenium, there are more than 300 animal studies demonstrating conclusively that selenium counteracts the impact of methylmercury. Count 'em. More than 300.

And albacore is not a "high mercury" fish. I don't care what fantasy Sharon Begley wants to spin. That doesn't make it so.

For someone who claims to love science so much, you sure don't seem to understand much of it.

I'll tell you what is fishy with Penn-that the media bought, hook, line, and sinker that Hillary knew nothing about the meeting with the Columbians on trade.  Now that we know that Bill was working for this very trade agreement how can the press be so easily persuaded.  Is anybody working this story at all?

I have to hand it to these industry PR guys. They know how to work the blogosphere.

David Martosko works for the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry-funded PR front that has been promoting fishing industry messages about mercury in fish. Gavin Gibbons works for the National Fisheries Institute, the fishing industry’s Washington trade association.

Both of them make personal attacks against Sharon Begley and they both cite a recent “Harvard” study as proof that eating fish during pregnancy has only nutritional benefits, not harmful effects. Their ad hominem arguments speak for themselves. Their scientific-sounding claims are pure spin. Here’s what that study actually found.

Yes, children born to women who ate fish twice or more per week scored higher (at the age of three years), on two tests of cognitive development, than children of women who ate less fish. But the study also measured the women’s exposure to methylmercury, and kids born to women with higher mercury exposure during pregnancy scored significantly LOWER on the same cognitive tests. The negative effects of mercury were as great as the positive effects of eating more fish. The authors stated that “Recommendations for fish consumption during pregnancy should take into account the nutritional benefits of fish as well as the potential harms from mercury exposure,” and advised women to choose low-mercury fish.

Martosko makes several other arguments, all of them at least as distorted. He tries to make the mercury in fish seem “natural” and therefore, perhaps, harmless. The truth is, methylmercury—the type found in fish—has both natural and pollution origins, and it IS different from metallic mercury; it’s much more easily taken up by aquatic organisms and far more toxic to the developing nervous system. The idea that selenium in fish offsets the toxic effects of methylmercury is a hypothesis born of wishful thinking, supported by very little concrete evidence. (People who eat too much mercury-containing fish, and their babies if they are pregnant women, can still experience toxic effects of mercury, regardless of the fact that fish also contain selenium.)

Yes, there HAVE been US cases of mercury poisoning from eating fish published in the medical literature (see Knobeloch et al., Methylmercury Exposure in Wisconsin: A Case-Study Series, Environmental Research, vol. 101, pages 113-122, for examples). Denial by the industry PR machine cannot make this evidence disappear.

Which brings us around to tuna. Martosko takes issue with Begley’s characterization of albacore tuna as “high mercury” fish. She’s right; it is. Hate to get technical here, but a few numbers should clarify the issue. Albacore tuna contains 0.353 parts per million of mercury. A few other fish types, like swordfish and shark, contain much higher levels. But people don’t eat swordfish and shark that often, while some people eat tuna every day. In fact, Americans eat so much tuna that it’s the largest source of mercury in the US diet, as Begley correctly said.

Canned “light” tuna, as opposed to albacore, contains only about one-third as much mercury, 0.118 parts per million. While it’s lower in mercury than albacore, it’s still not very low. The US FDA web site provides a list of 32 fish and shellfish that are “lower in mercury.” (See http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html). Although the FDA list includes canned light tuna, it has the highest mercury level of the 32 items on the list. 31 other fish and seafood choices have less mercury than even the lowest-mercury type of tuna. Many of them have less than 0.0.010 to 0.020 parts per million, or 6- to 12-fold less mercury than canned light tuna (and 18-fold or more less than albacore tuna). Some of the best choices, to get nutritional benefits and minimize mercury exposure, are salmon, tilapia, shrimp, clams, oysters, sardines, whiting and pollock. For someone who wants to avoid mercury, avoiding tuna is a smart choice.

And for all of us, ignoring the false claims posted by industry PR spinners would be an equally smart choice.

Delakile -- The mercury in fish isn't the same silver stuff from chem lab. It's an organic form that's naturally present in all fish, and always has been. The good news is that other nutrients in fish (most notably selenium and omega-3 fatty acids) more than compensate for whatever negative impact mercury might have on its own. This is likely why the medical literature contains ZERO cases of fish-related mercury poisoning in the United States. On balance, what's good about tuna far outweighs what might hypothetically be harmful (in a vacuum).

In response to the controversy to the "mercury in tuna debate", it is difficult for the average person to make a prudent decision on whether to consume canned tuna or not based on the conflicting material available.  Unless you are one who is involved in the medical study, how can we as the concerned public, make an accurate decision.  There is enough information to give credence to both sides of the argument.  So, I suppose one needs to pick a side and hope you made the right decision.  Certainly, one thing can be said about mercury that I learned as a child in chemistry class and that is, mercury is a very dangerous substance which needs to be handled carefully.  

In response to the issue of Mr. Penn being reassigned to a different position in the Clinton campaign is total nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of the American public.  How can one think that because Mr. Penn has been asked to resign as chief political strategist of Hillary Clinton's campaign but can continue to help as a pollster and not have any political input in her day to day activities is beyond naive.  This is ridiculous and the public is not stupid to think otherwise.

Hillary Clinton is sinking and sinking fast.  Whatever dream she is still currently in is soon to end when the 3:00 am phone call wakes her up and she will finally realize that the dream is over.  Funny how many people are resigning their positions in her campaign.  It would appear that she doesn't have the leadership qualities to "man" the ship and direct it to a safe harbor.  At this point, I can see the titanic will be having a shipmate in the Hillary Clinton Smear boat.  It couldn't have happen to a nicer individual.

Sharon Begley has done it again -- more scientifically illiterate drivel posing as science journalism.

First, tuna isn't a "high-mercury" fish. Never has been. Second, the latest science out of Harvard (just a few weeks ago now) found that women who exceeded the government's 12-ouces-per-week fish advice while pregnant -- and ONLY those women -- had babies with elevated motor skills and IQ scores.

The government advisory on fish for pregnant women is one of the most ill-advised nutrition pronouncements in history. It will eventually be abandoned. Nobody ever accused Sharon Begley of knowing anything about science. But she sure knows yellow journalism.

<a href="http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3606" target=_blank>CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.</a>

I don't understand the lack of Union leadership outrage over this situation with Mark Penn in the Clinton campaign. All she did was "shuffle the deck" so to speak. This guy is still gonna do polling and provide "advice". Mark Penn needs to be GONE! I cannot put any trust in Clinton that she has the best interests of American union members at heart as long as she refuses to part with this guy. And neither should the leadership of any union. I don't understand all the wailing about Obama's unpaid advisor's comments to some Canadian official, while the leader of Clinton's campaign is holding strategy meetings to get this onerous Columbian legislation passed? She is basically spitting in the eye of the unions by moving this guy to the back room for a while till the heat (what little of it that has been generated) dies down. Is union leadership so in love with (or in fear of) the Clintons that they accept this with nary a whimper? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? The AFL-CIO ought to be hounding Clinton night and day to make a complete break with this guy.

Can someone explain to me why that is not happening?

Ms. Begley’s latest posting serves only to confuse readers when it comes to the truth about mercury in seafood and simply ignores the very latest research on the matter.  Three independent studies published within the last month from the Child and Family Research Institute, Harvard Medical School, and Wayne State University School of Medicine all concluded that a seafood-deficient diet puts brain development in babies at risk. While Ms. Begley hysterically bemoans the dangers of “neurotoxins” in “babies’ developing brains” she fails to mention the report in the December issue of the Journal of Nutrition that concludes, “maternal fish intake is associated with improved child cognitive development.” Furthermore, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School, was recently quoted in a well researched Time magazine article as saying, “we are experimenting with people’s lives when we give recommendations or write stories or reports that make people eat less fish.”  As a “science writer” writing about the issue of mercury in seafood one would think Ms. Begley would be aware of such studies. Non-science-based media coverage that distorts the theoretical concerns about mercury in fish obscures the proven health benefits of seafood. It has an impact on public health, particularly the health of babies and young children.  Whether Newsweek wants to admit it or not, its distorted and incomplete reporting is having a measurable and negative impact on the health of its readers.

WOWSA Not to worry... with Penn in the campaign he is pushing tuna sandwiches. ALAS - the true reason for Hillarys refusing to listen to the public and stop lying - she is brain numb due to too much tuna.  :-)  God bless Hillary and her followers!!!  Penn is a non-issure. I hope he stays - that would be the best thing in the world for her.  She needs Penn - he is her only hope for a victory.  I often wonder - how much tuna does he eat???

Do not worry - Penn still operates business with Clintons.

For sure, they are more dirty , than Him and his Company.

That are Clintons, who are snakes.

So the snake charmer changed snakes. It happens. Hillary will get another snake and Penn will find another charmer. Nothing has really changed. The snake charming business will go on, Maybe a better snake will help Hillary to be more charming. Maybe a better charmer will make Penn a better snake. In the end it is still about snakes and charmers; also known as politics in America, Clinton style.

WHITE WOMEN HAVE BENEFITED THE MOST FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THIS IS A FACT. IT WAS MEANT TO BENEFIT MINORITIES THE MOST, BUT WHITE WOMEN HAVE USEd THIS LAW TO THEIR FULL ADVANTAGE. ESPECIALLY THE FEMINIST.NOW THAT WHITE WOMEN have CAUGHT UP, THEY ARE AGAINST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and claim that WHITES are being discriminated against.

OBAMA rePresents the DREAM that MARTIN LUTHER DIED FOR, THAT one daY a BLACK MAN and a white women can sit at the same table and create a familY . WHAT WAS beYond his dream was that a black man could become President of the United States.

Now these same WOMEN like CLIFT cannot take defeat, so they will hate on OBAMA and plan so called "insurgencies "to help McCain. It reminds me of an angry girlfriend sydrome. She is angry that she got dumped.