[Carry_Okie]

I agree but I still think its important to know what other harmful compounds those fish are storing (besides the PCBs and mercury).

So do I, but not at the expense of an agenda-driven study.

Most FCAs ignore the heavy metals and hormone mimics.

Levels are low enough now that they are too easily confounded with other environmental factors to be really that useful.

While the lawyer feeding freenzy is certainly a risk, i still think its important that the public is aware of the comtamination.

Compared to what? Given that they eat 5,000 to 10,000 times more naturally occurring carcinogens than they do industrial products, why aren't we telling them about that?

[AGreatPer]

From the Trib: "Dan Volz, a Pitt Graduate School of Public Health professor and lead investigator of the project, which will be paid for by DSF Charitable Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Highmark Foundation."

Of course this guy will find all kinds of harmful stuff. That's how he makes a living.

[GreenFreeper]

So do I, but not at the expense of an agenda-driven study.

What would be an example of a non-agenda driven study? What makes you so sure this is an agenda driven study? I'm all for unbiased research and all but any study that reveals pertinent information is bound to have winners and losers (and thus will be supporting someones agenda). Better not do research on Bananas becuase that may hurt or help the banana growers. Compared to what? Given that they eat 5,000 to 10,000 times more naturally occurring carcinogens than they do industrial products, why aren't we telling them about that?

Well to some degree those natural occuring are unavoidable. Heck, everything these days is considered a carcinogen? That big firery mass in the sky is a carcinogen.