> the amounts reported are well below the 1 ppm safe limit.
Yes, but given the prior very detailed explanation stating flatly that no one was using any mercury at all in connection with HFCS since the 1980s, where did that mercury come from?
> The government sends out bid requests and any lab that wants to bid is welcome. Then the job goes to the low bidder...
In the case of the paper cited, the analysis was done by the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, the institution of several of the paper's co-authors. Their "HFCS sample collection and analytical method" section seems very detailed - is there any critique of the methodology?
I'm confused at this point, as first it was stated that zero mercury has been associated with any HFCS production since the 1980s, and when data from 2005-2008 is presented showing mercury still in HFCS, the analysis is disparaged with an incorrect claim of "low bidder lab", when the methodology used was specific, detailed, citing NIST standards, the brands/models of equipment used, and even the sources of the reagents.
Then, the overall result is pooh-poohed with an (very apt!) observation that the levels of mercury found were less than the 1 ppm level considered "safe".
It is not possible to hand-wave this away as "lab error", unless one can point to a specific gap in methodology that would allow so many, but not all samples to have mercury contamination ranging from 1/10th to 1/3rd the so-called "safe limit".
So, even if we accept, for arguments sake, every word of the offered critique as true, and taking everything said AS strictly true, then where did the mercury come from?
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|