noobs
there are limits to how much your body can handle[~3 upto 6mcg / day for average to fit person--Same amount that approx leaches out of amalgam fillings (WHO)] and when it comes to lead, arsenic, mercury and thallium etc it can really only do little and that is assuming adequate intake of vital ingredients and better yet chelators to help remove it.
There is a reason why FAO, WHO, fda, tga, AMA, FSANZ, foodauthority and most medical literature recommend to stick with 2-3 cans of tuna a week(Based on ~150g serve) and if fish is your goal aim for smaller species of fish. Mercury builds up and it takes your body several months to halve its current mercury levels.
You can find canned tuna that is specifically LIGHT tuna which is the smaller species and contains less mercury than others.
However its very hard to really know how much mercury your getting in your canned tuna. Assuming its the LIGHT variety for ~150g youd hope its around 20-25mcg of mercury and if its the typical albacore or bigger species you could be looking upto around 75-170mcg. Other bigger fish can contain a lot more eg same serving of swordfish/shark can contain upto 700mcg!
Dolphin and whale meat are notorious for it.
Now 150g we both know is crap all and we are more likely to consume the 425g cans
![Smile :) :)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
Even if its light tuna thats ~66mcg in a can(optimistic figure leaving out oils etc).
1 can a day X 7 = ~462mcg of mercury a week in just canned tuna form.
Anyone who advocates not worrying about it and things will be alright with the mercury levels we are talking about is simply put, being silly or is dangerously misinformed.
The issue isnt whether its "canned" or not, its the species. Essentially the higher up a food chain(typically larger) the more mercury it would contain.
Im all for fish but the healthier species that are better for us.