I'm in absolute agreement with you here, with the added concern that I'd like to know *what kind* of ambient poisons the first study was measuring. they don't tell us whether they're talking about elemental mercury or organic mercury compounds, and that's *really* important, as some of the latter will kill you really darn quick.
But they *do* invoke thimerosal concerns and fish concerns in the same paper, which implies that the researchers were either not aware of the difference between the two sorts of mercury that we actually care about, or (and this is more troubling) systematically and deliberately obfuscated the distinction.
So, ignorance or malice? Either one is really troubling. But I think that either way, it is perhaps not radically out of line to suggest that the authors of the first study, and CERTAINLY the second harbor some intention of sensationalism and alarmism. With that in mind, I'll have some salt with my mercury.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 06:33 pm (UTC)But they *do* invoke thimerosal concerns and fish concerns in the same paper, which implies that the researchers were either not aware of the difference between the two sorts of mercury that we actually care about, or (and this is more troubling) systematically and deliberately obfuscated the distinction.
So, ignorance or malice? Either one is really troubling. But I think that either way, it is perhaps not radically out of line to suggest that the authors of the first study, and CERTAINLY the second harbor some intention of sensationalism and alarmism. With that in mind, I'll have some salt with my mercury.