Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
Attention all mothers-to-be: some new research done by the U.S. National Institutes of Health has shown that eating more fish and seafood while pregnant could have a positive effect on the intelligence of children in the long run compared to the children of those women who ate less seafood, or none at all. The omega-3 fatty acids in seafood play an important role in fetal brain development, and the additional benefit that can come from eating more than 12-ounces of seafood (about two meals' worth) a week. Lower consumption, in spite of the fact that the government recommends no more than 12-ounces a week, did nothing to help fetal development.
The study looked at the children of 8,000 British women, tracking them from before birth to the age of 8. On average, they "were more advanced in developmental tests measuring fine motor, communication and social skills as toddlers, behaved better at age 7, and earned higher verbal IQ scores at age 8."
One of the controversial things about this study is the fact that so much seafood is affected by pollution - specifically mercury, which can damage the nervous system. In this study, a negative impact on the children was not found, but researchers say that solid evidence of the benefits of seafood should motivate the legislature to "take [further] actions to keep pollutants out of seafood."
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
Best In Show Winner Declared
WATCH: Saint VaLINtine Hits Game-Winning Shot
PHOTOS: Michelle Obama Wears Jason Wu For Target!
WATCH: Amazon Withholds Money From Blooming Florist
PHOTOS: Cute Overload?
LOOK: The Last Of The Cave People
We Meant There WERE Nukes In The Fire
Honduras Prison Fire Kills At Least 300 Inmates
Scuba Diver Had Motive To Drown Wife On Honeymoon, Prosecutor Says
Reports: Iran Stops Oil Exports To 6 European Countries
Denise Richards' Casual Style
Style Icon Dies After Collapsing At Fashion Show
Huguely Lied On The Night His Ex-Girlfriend Died, Lacrosse Teammate Says
'Game Of Thrones' Season 2 Teaser: War Is Coming
Hidden In The Open: A Photographic Essay Of African-American Male Couples
2-17-2007 @4:33PM Berkana said... I have to take issue with the following statement quoted from the above: "One of the controversial things about this study is the fact that so much seafood is affected by pollution - specifically mercury, which can damage the nervous system."
A lot of fish from the ocean is contaminated with mercury, but the mercury IS NOT FROM POLLUTION. This is a misconception, based on the mistaken notion that anything dangerous in the ocean couldn't have been there in the first place. The ocean has a naturally occurring level of mercury salts; it is a mineral, like table salt, except a lot more dangerous.
I'm not saying that mankind hasn't abused and polluted the oceans, but that the mercury present in the ocean is not due to pollution. Consider how much water there is in the ocean; at the levels of mercury concentration found in the ocean world wide, we would have had to dump an unfathomable amount of mercury into the ocean. Its almost as absurd as saying that the ocean is too salty due to pollution.
Of all the things dumped into the ocean, I have yet to hear of a single industrial waste that humans dump that bears so much mercury that it could be responsible for the mercury levels found in ocean waters world wide. (If you know of one, name it. Even old batteries couldn't do that, as we don't dump them all into the oceans.) If our waste were that rich in mercury, we wouldn't need to mine cinnabar for mercury; we may as well use this waste for ore.
Reply
2-17-2007 @4:34PM Berkana said... I have to take issue with the following statement quoted from the above: "One of the controversial things about this study is the fact that so much seafood is affected by pollution - specifically mercury, which can damage the nervous system."
A lot of fish from the ocean is contaminated with mercury, but the mercury IS NOT FROM POLLUTION. This is a misconception, based on the mistaken notion that anything dangerous in the ocean couldn't have been there in the first place. The ocean has a naturally occurring level of mercury salts; it is a mineral, like table salt, except a lot more dangerous.
I'm not saying that mankind hasn't abused and polluted the oceans, but that the mercury present in the ocean is not due to pollution. Consider how much water there is in the ocean; at the levels of mercury concentration found in the ocean world wide, we would have had to dump an unfathomable amount of mercury into the ocean. Its almost as absurd as saying that the ocean is too salty due to pollution.
Of all the things dumped into the ocean, I have yet to hear of a single industrial waste that humans dump that bears so much mercury that it could be responsible for the mercury levels found in ocean waters world wide. (If you know of one, name it. Even old batteries couldn't do that, as we don't dump them all into the oceans.) If our waste were that rich in mercury, we wouldn't need to mine cinnabar for mercury; we may as well use this waste for ore.
Reply
2-17-2007 @7:28PM sarah said... This seems very confused reporting to me. Mercury in fish is a US problem (US rivers mainly, not the ocean), not a UK problem, so surely it isn't remotely surprising that British babies had no developmental problems. The low fish consumption advisory is a US phenomenon, not a UK one.
Reply
2-17-2007 @8:06PM Deidara said... Well, if people in the US don't eat enough seafood, wouldn't that make the kids in Japan much more intelligent? I mean, Japanese people eat seafood all the time and yet their water isn't as polluted. But pollution affects the entire world, and yet in some parts there is less pollution. I'm confused now... ._.
Reply