“historic” mercury would pollute tuna...

Despite 50 years of drastic mercury emission reductions, this is not evident from the amounts of mercury found in tuna. That has remained constant over all this time. According to this article in Foodlog. How is this possible? Scientists think they have found an explanation: it would be “historical mercury” that has been deposited on the sea floors over the centuries. Tunas hunt in areas where the water is warm to a greater depth, so they eat animals that, in turn, have eaten from the sea beds contaminated with old mercury. And according to them, the solution is also there: “To really get less mercury into the ocean, we need to reduce mercury emissions even more drastically.” Would it really?

Nothing new

In itself, the above is not news. We have long known that due to the hierarchy of the food chain, all toxins eventually accumulate in the highest forms of life, with humans at the top. In the case of mercury, therefore via the consumption of tuna.
And one more thing. Perhaps something even more essential, more fundamental. Mercury, like other toxic elements, occurs naturally in the Earth's crust and is therefore an intrinsic part of our ecosystem. For that reason alone, mercury has inevitably come into contact with living organisms and thus ended up in our food chain. So the real question is whether that mercury in the oceans was already naturally present there or whether it ended up there as a result of human actions. And how was that determined? According to toxicologists, mercury can be toxic even in very small amounts.
But how does that relate to the observation that mercury is naturally present in our environment and therefore our food chain?
Is mercury toxic and harmful under all circumstances, or is it sometimes not?
This, of course, has to do with the quantity. Mercury is highly toxic and only harmless in extremely small amounts. So toxicology.

And something else...

But there is something else that determines toxicity. Minerals, elements and trace elements are hardly or hardly absorbable in inorganic form. The body sees them as foreign and are therefore harmful or worse, depending on the dose. Minerals, elements and trace elements that are bioactive or transformed into organic form, on the other hand, are absorbable (they are up to 10,000 times smaller and can easily be transported through the cell wall).
The body does not see them as foreign and are therefore not dangerous.

Fulvic Acid

Fulvic acid that is produced in the soil as a residual product of soil life plays a key role here because it is able to bind the inorganic elements at the atomic level ('chelate' with an expensive word) and thus make them bioactive. Because fulvic acid is soluble in water, plants can absorb them very easily and thus the minerals can be delivered to the cells as nutrients.

Because we humans eat plants directly or indirectly through animals, we get our minerals in no time.

So the question is what is the form of the mercury found in tuna (inorganic or bioactive) and whether it can be determined at all.
Due to its nature and type of food, tuna may consume more than average bioactive mercury. Wouldn't it be strange that only tuna accidentally comes into contact with large doses of inorganic mercury and other fish that swim in the same environment wouldn't it?

‍