But since your source is a gov site, I’ll take you up on that. Regardless, until i can measure the difference between tuna out of a can and the cooking methods I won’t make further decisions.

However, the cooking methods DO reduce sodium levels so I’d suggest people keep at it.

\"Mercury cannot be removed from fish before they are eaten because methylmercury accumulates in the muscle, not the fat.\"

http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/merchealth/mercury.pdf

\"Unfortunately, preparation and cooking techniques do not reduce the mercury content of fish because mercury binds tightly to protein in the muscle tissue.\"

http://map1.epa.gov/html/newsjuly02.htm

\"Because mercury is associated primarily with muscle tissue in the body of a fish, rather than with fatty deposits, trimming and skinning of mercury-contaminated fish does not reduce the mercury content of the fillet portion. Furthermore, cooking does not reduce the mercury content.\"

http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/IdentifyingPopnatRiskExposuretoMercuryFinalAugust08.pdf

I’d have to disagree. The tuna fish absorbs high amounts of methylmercury… which concentrates itself in the fatty tissues of fish and humans.

As for PCB’s… yes there have been fish exposed to that stuff as well, and if it’s also stored in the fat… then we’ve just hit 2 birds with one stone.

But I’ll have to check the validity on that one.

You have probably confused mercury with chlorinated organics, such as PCBs, which ARE stored in the fat and can be reduced by draining or other methods of preparation.