Mercury Common in U.S. Adults

Bisphenol A widespread too, but lead is down














Share on Tumblr

walleye in hands

HEAVY WITH METAL? Almost half of U.S. freshwater fish now carry unsafe levels of mercury. A walleye pike is shown. Image: ISTOCK/LAWRENCE SAWYER

Mercury exposure in the United States increases with age, then starts tapering off when people turn 50, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a study released today.

The CDC study is the first to measure mercury exposure in a wider U.S. population, following research that focused on young children and women in their childbearing years. People are often exposed to mercury through contaminated seafood, and a recent U.S. EPA survey found that almost half of U.S. freshwater fish carry mercury in excess of federal safe levels for human consumption.

The CDC data are part of a project assessing chemicals in people's bodies. The agency has added 75 contaminants to its database, bringing the total to 212 chemicals.

The survey analyzed blood, serum and urine samples from 2,500 people as a part of the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which is released every two years.

The goal of the research is to determine which chemicals end up in people's bodies and at what concentrations. It is meant to help prioritize scientific work and for policymaking. Scientists chose which chemicals to look for based on expected widespread exposure and known toxicity.

Among the report's findings:

  • Perchlorate was detected for the first time in all participants. Perchlorate is a naturally occurring salt that is also a component of rocket fuel and fireworks. High levels of perchlorate are known to affect thyroid function, while the health effects of low-level exposure are being debated.
  • Bisphenol A, or BPA, was found in more than 90 percent of the participants' urine. BPA is an industrial chemical that mimics estrogen and has been shown to cause developmental problems and precancerous growth in animals.
  • Lead exposure has been decreasing since the 1970s, validating public health efforts to reduce childhood exposure, the report says. Between 1999 and 2004, 1.4 percent of young children had elevated blood lead levels, the smallest percentage of any of the prior survey periods. But the health of high-risk children -- those living around lead-based paint or lead dust -- remains a concern.
  • Acrylamide -- formed when foods containing carbohydrates are cooked at high temperatures -- was detected for the first time and is common in the U.S. population.

Biomonitoring detects a chemical's presence only and cannot evaluate whether its detection signals adverse effects or disease, the report cautions. Many environmental public health advocates say the findings play a critical first step in prioritizing the thousands of chemicals currently in the market today, many of which have little safety data publicly available.

"Biomonitoring studies such as the ones conducted by the CDC provide direct evidence that people are being exposed to harmful chemicals without their knowledge, much less their consent," said Davis Baltz, a senior associate with Commonweal, a nonprofit. "This is critical information for decision-makers, who can then craft policy instruments that will reduce or prevent exposures and also have a way to track whether those instruments are working."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), said in a statement that CDC's findings highlight the need to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law governing all industrial chemicals on the marketplace.

"Far too little is known about the hundreds of chemicals that end up in our bodies, and EPA has far too little authority to deal with the chemicals that science has already proven dangerous," Lautenberg said.

Lautenberg said he plans to introduce legislation to reform TSCA early next year that would require that EPA determine whether chemicals meet new safety standards based on scientific risk assessment and that chemical companies provide enough data to make that determination. Lautenberg also wants EPA to prioritize taking action on chemicals that present the greatest health risk.

Click here to read the study (pdf).
 


8 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. jbairddo 09:05 PM 12/11/09

    Everyone should be really scarred. Mercury is only the second most toxic metal/element on earth (plutonium = #1). The CDC doesn't even mention the mercury put in your mouth to fill a cavity as a potential source and these guys are experts? Lautenberg (D-N.J.) must be dreaming if he thinks a govt agency run by folks fresh out of the industries that they are supposed to monitor want more work to do, at least now they can claim they are't allowed to look into this stuff. Now that the EPA, CDC and FDA all on board assuring everyone that somehow the mercury in mouth is toxic only before it goes in and when it comes out and is magically safe after it is put in your mouth, the ADA can merrily go along its way contributing to depression, suicide, MS and a host of auto immune diseases from mercury exposure (not that we won't get a bunch from our flu shots).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. lithiumdeuteride 12:11 AM 12/12/09

    It's methylmercury which is extremely toxic, and which bio-accumulates.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury

    Metallic mercury is toxic as well, but to a far lesser degree. It is not something you need to worry about.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. lowndes 06:49 AM 12/12/09

    The picture above may be a "Walleye", but there is no such animal as a "walleye pike". Walleye and Pike are two different families of fish. Sheesh.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. JamesDavis 07:41 AM 12/12/09

    Since we have alternative sources of medicine, that have no dangerous side effects, and alternative sources of living conditions, any chemical that poses a danger to life and environment should not be used. Since we do not have to be wayned away from these toxic chemicals, we can stop using them right now; just like we did with household insulation and chemicals detergents.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. candide in reply to lowndes 11:36 AM 12/12/09

    Walleye Pike is at least a common, alternate name for the Walleye.

    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Walleye+pike
    http://www.shgresources.com/vt/symbols/fishwarmwater/
    http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/wi/n/win56014.htm
    http://www.all-fish-seafood-recipes.com/index.cfm/recipe/Pan_Fried_Walleye_Pike_Fillets

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. pshefler 07:02 AM 12/13/09

    Here's a good article on mercury toxicity in children via vaccines and the difference between methyl- and ethyl- mercury:

    http://www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-mercury.htm

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. jerryd 08:51 PM 12/14/09

    remember most mercury comes from burning coal, a main reason to stop using it among many other poisons, land, water, air destruction it causes. 30k deaths/yr and a million cases of asthma, other ills from it.

    Because of coal's mercury in fish it costs me about $75/month in extra food costs because I can't eat fish but 1/wk.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. rockjohny in reply to lowndes 04:14 AM 12/16/09

    I guess Walleye mate with Salmon cuz i caught Pinkeye once...but it wasn't much fun.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Mercury Common in U.S. Adults

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X