We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
there's microplastics there's floral alkylated substances which are kind of like the equivalent of bisphenols different substances they're called Forever chemicals they're endocrine disruptors and the heavy metals and all of these tend to concentrate in the fish
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it's just higher in heavy metals and higher in peripheral alkylated substances and higher in microplastics ETC
making the majority of your protein sources fish is a bad idea when it comes to contaminants
A lot of fish today has high levels of heavy metals, microplastics, forever chemicals.
I increasingly feel that fish is not a good source of of nutrition and nourishment for humans because of the overall heavy metal load, the microplastics, the PFAS, which are the forever chemicals. Fish literally swim in everything that we're putting out into the ocean.