That fish have less chemicals in the ocean / bay, river, lake or fish?
I want to know where the fish are less risky eating. The saltwater fish, a river or running water fish, or fish the lake? those under PBC, Mercury, etc.?
For the most part, saltwater fish are cleaner because there are a lot more water to dilute the chemicals. However, non-migratory fish feed on the bottom Coast can collect a large number of pollutants if they live near storm drains or other sources of pollution. White croaker in Santa Monica Bay corresponded to the description, and there are warning signs on Dining on stilts in the region. However, other fish in the same waters were tested and are good to eat, probably because they eat fish bait freestyle rather than the worms in the mud. Another concern could be the age a fish - it was more alive, more time had to accumulate pollutants. The Japanese like to eat big old fish because they think it will help them live in old age, but I prefer to eat a tuna £ 20 pounds for a 200. By this standard, something like dorado (mahi-mahi) could be one of the best to eat because they are one of the fastest fish growth there. Lakes can become highly polluted because there has relatively little change in the water ... but if it is a great mountain lake without sources of pollution on the shore or upstream, it will not be a problem. Even with rivers and streams - it depends on what is upstream.