THE WEAKEST LINK
The loyal devotees of my column - both of them - will no doubt remember a couple of years ago when we had a brief discussion of the butterfly effect as it relates to what is known as chaos theory. In this theoretical concept, a butterfly in Equatorial Africa flaps its wings, thus causing a microscopic disturbance in the air around it. That disturbance joins with other disturbances and, over time, builds into a hurricane. I realize it's a little bit of a stretch to suggest that a natural meteorological event with potentially disastrous consequences is caused by a cute little butterfly, but I'm all about placing blame, so it works for me. The larger picture, though, that I want to talk about to you today concerns itself with the idea of the butterfly's place in the chain of events that leads up to that hurricane. And yes, we're dealing in the level of theory here, but bear with me. I always make a point, and sometimes I even make a good one, so keep reading.

Chaos theory contends that every event in human existence is linked to every other event in ways we can never comprehend. And, incidentally, that whole "we can never comprehend it" thing is brilliant. If we can't comprehend it, how can we disprove it? It's kind of like the thing about no two snowflakes being exactly alike. Who amongst us is going to start comparing snowflakes to prove that one wrong? But seriously, I digress.

As Andrew's friend the gull will tell you: we are what we eat. PHOTO BY JILL SANDOLE

If we accept the fact that everything we do somehow affects future events, then we can start to see how we are, in fact, linked to the world around us. And, in a way, it's kind of the same way it is with the food chain. We eat whatever it is we eat, and in so doing, we're also eating everything that thing ate, and everything those things ate, and so on. Remember that shampoo commercial? You told two friends and they told two friends and they told two friends and all of a sudden everybody on the planet was using the same shampoo.

Take this week's photo as an example. You've got a seagull and a starfish who both, up until a couple of minutes prior to that photo, were pretty much minding their own business, totally unaware of the other's existence. As the photo shows, though, they pretty quickly became intimately close, and it looks like the starfish is going to have some explaining to do when he gets home to the little wife. The seagull, by eating that starfish, is also eating everything the starfish ate. And you know what that reminds me of?

Fishing, of course.

I hate to say it, but that segue is better than Meredith Vieira's segue the other day on The Today Show after Jane Fonda said … what?

Friends and neighbors, I'm not a typical NPR listener, but luckily for all of us, Jill is, and she alerted me to the fact that WCAI/NAN was airing a report on mercury levels in bluefin tuna. In case you missed it, Uncle Andrew is here to help you out. After all, we're focusing on sustainable fishing this year here in Tight Lines, and this is just the first step in waking some of you up to the realities of the fishing industry out there.

But before we start looking at the specific fish issues, let's take a step back and look at what mercury does to you. Mercury is a heavy metal that can build up in humans as they consume it, building to toxic levels relatively easily. Mercury poisoning damages the central nervous system, endocrine systems, kidneys and other organs in humans - it's not something you want to play around with, kids. While infants and unborn children are most susceptible to mercury poisoning, we're all vulnerable. And just in case you're curious, the number one cause of mercury poisoning in the United States is the consumption of contaminated fish.

Now, there are some myths about mercury levels in fish that need to be debunked pronto. First of all, some genius out there has perpetuated the myth that the bigger the fish, the less the mercury. This is actually the exact opposite of true. The bigger the fish, the more small fish that big fish eats. And because those smaller fish have mercury in them, the build-up is actually higher in bigger fish. Mercury moves up the food chain, and the higher it gets on that chain, the higher the amount of mercury. Myth number two: no, sorry, you can't cook fish to a certain temperature to remove the mercury. And, despite what you might be hoping, no way of cutting fish gets rid of mercury. It's in the meat and, when you eat it, it's in you.

Speaking of mercury levels, the Environmental Protection Agency has done the research on specific species of fish in regards to their mercury content, and it's not a real rosy picture for those of us who love our fish. Predictable enough, because bigger fish tend to have higher concentrations of mercury, things like swordfish and mako shark are pretty much on the "do not eat" list. As you go down the list, things like tuna start to show up, followed by our friends the bluefish and the striped bass. If you're really in the mood to see how bad some of this stuff can be for you, I suggest you go to www.gotmercury.org, which uses the EPA and FDA statistics to calculate how much of a specific type of fish you can eat before you're in danger.

Now, before any of the fish purveyors out there start writing me strongly-worded letters, let me say that I'm not advocating not eating fish. I'm just suggesting we go about it with a little knowledge about what we're doing. If you think before you eat, you'll be fine in terms of mercury levels. Just remember moderation.

After that little bit of feel-good reading, doesn't that butterfly story start to sound a lot more

appealing? I

Tight lines.