So, while my day job makes it rather easy for me to become obsessed with the river of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico from the sunken BP oil rig, I am also worried about how its spread will affect families in Lousiana and possibly my own.

I wrote to my dad this morning asking-- if things did get bad down by him-- if he would take photos, "iReport" back, tell the stories of his neighbors, his friends etc. both because I was interested, and I thought that some OnEarth Greenlight readers might be interested too. 

As a matter of context, I should note that my dad is not a scientist, or a biologist. He just lives on the Gulf. He was raised in an Air Force family and is, by many measures, a conservative. A doctor by trade, he loves to cook, loves to go fishing, and thinks that if he takes me out on a boat every time I visit someday I will start to love fishing too (usually I just get sea sick). We don't always agree, but here's what he had to say about the spill:

Check out this is the NOAA site- pretty good info -

Re  blogging: I might blog, should we become directly involved (which means oil in or near Destin). Unfortunately, I feel this is likely.

This spill is immense and we are totally at the whim of currents and winds. Any South wind pushes oil directly to the beaches and marshes.

This spill will have a devastating effect on the coastal economy- our Florida economy is directly dependent on tourism which affects all walks of life here- hotels, restaurants, fishing charters, hospitals - and yes, even gas stations. This occurs in an era where many of the fisheries have had reduced seasons, limits or closed completely...

The long reaching effects of the contamination of the Louisiana marshes is incalculable: this area is a very important ecosystem for developing  fish, shrimp and other sea creatures which later move to the Gulf of Mexico- providing for the seafood and fishing industry.

Sugar white beaches of Destin hold a universal appeal- but not so appealing should they become blacked.  Any positive outcome?  Maybe people will think a little harder about how high we live on the energy curve and what these "safe" offshore drilling risks really are.

Dad

I think that about summs it up.

Now, not even Piven's doctors (and he has a couple) know why his mercury count was "the highest [they'd] ever seen" but other journalists at other outlets have noted that Piven was an avid sushi eater, meaning often he had two meals of sushi a day.

Which reminds me of my last job.

Shortly after I was hired my former employeer learned that he too had "extremely elevated mercury levels"... of mysterious origin...

There are plenty of ways to expose yourself to mercury, thermometers, CFL lightbulbs, and batteries are just a few. But the doctor of my former employer believed that most likely my boss' mercury issue was linked to the copious amounts of sushi-grade tuna he was eating each week. Which dovetails well with revelations from the New York Times just one year ago that they found illegally high mercury levels in 5 out of 20 samples of sushi tuna they purchased in NYC.

During the months following my employer's mercury discovery I spent a lot of time researching data on mercury in seafood and even had two samples of canned salmon from off the coast of British Columbia privately tested by a chemical lab for its mercury content at the behest of my employer. I don't remember the exact numbers, and I know that mercury levels in individual fish may vary, but the samples I had tested had a mercury content 3x higher than EPA estimates for the same species. The levels were not poisonous, but they were concerning.

To protect public health, FDA is legally allowed to remove fish from the market that contains more than 1ppm (part per million) of mercury. You would expect that the FDA would protect us by enforcing that... but notably several fish samples purchased by the New York Times surpassed that limit, and many fish species on EPA's website approach that limit. (You can find EPA's estimates regarding the mercury content in fish derived from data from 1990-2004 here).

Which may explain the befuddlement of Gina Solomon earlier this week when she learned of a bizarre draft document produced by Bush administration FDA "that ignores the science showing the harmful effects of prenatal exposures to mercury, and concludes that eating fish with relatively high levels of mercury can be beneficial"

Again, I'm no scientist. Or doctor. But this information about mercury just doesn't sit well with me, or the personal experience of people I've worked with. And since I'm not a scientist my best bet is to listen to Gina, who is both a scientist and a medical doctor. And to read things. And then to decide what is best for me.

Today, it is not a giant slice of tuna...

If you want to learn more about mercury in seafood, how much you may be eating each meal and what fish contain the lowest levels of mercury, check out NRDC's "mercury in seafood" website and wallet guides at http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/index.asp

More information can also be found on the Chicago Tribune website. They did a "local fish" test similar to the one done by the New York Times with similar results.