Contributors to this thread:
PFAS, PFOs in Fish
So I generally don't eat the fish taken by archery unless in the few areas where allowed for winter pike,etc. That said I think it needs to be followed closely, look at the backers of EWG, the analysis and field survey techniques used; and their agenda. There was a lot of politics and some bad science around the lead in venison studies, hopefully, this is not the same kind of thing.
Regardless, it certainly represents the unending contamination of our water system. It is painful, sad,and pathetic to see what has happened. It will (ironically) be a boon for catch and release fishing. Sportsman who care about the environment remaining useful and healthy, should take this opportunity to have a say about all issues that contaminate the outdoors.
I saw this article and am glad I don't like eating fish all that much.....
PFAS, is the new CWD.
It’s already in everything
It’s a conspiracy to end a sporting activities
It’s a shame that we’ve contaminated our own water. With that said, I like fish. I’m not going to stop eating it now.
I’m in the environmental field and test for it in soil and groundwater frequently. It’s everywhere and used in everything. It’s in septic systems from your waste. When we test for it, you cannot have sunscreen on, use sharpie markers, each lunch wrapped in plastic wrap, and the list goes on. We had a big release of firefighting foam at the airport into a river and the state as usual has over reacted with parts per trillion standards without making the first step to eliminate it in products in everyday use. It’s kind of like the fossil fuel/electric car debate, it has to be transitioned smartly before you start regulating it heavily in my opinion.
I agree WV. I like eating fish and will continue....if only I could catch a few more.
The new PFAS advisory levels are off the charts low. 0.004 part per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS is exponentially lower than the prior limit of 70 ppt. PFAS is in everything and the new advisory is not at all a practical number. This is THE emerging pollutant(s) of concern and EPA can issue an advisory limit but they can’t snap their fingers and make treatment processes practical and cost effective. We don’t even have testing procedures that can accurately measure PFAS to those levels. I have no doubt that PFAS is problematic but it is as ingrained in our society as air and just setting some stringent somewhat arbitrary limit is not going to make it go away.
The testing for PFAS is so sensitive they recommend you dont handle pizza boxes or fast food wrappers, touch recycled paper, paper towels or newspaper. Its found in some amount in just about everything already. I would let it influence my consumption of fish.
I don’t think I’ll lose any sleep over it.
The last five years or so of my career as a research scientist at a state environmental laboratory involved testing for perfluorinated surfactants and their degradation products in drinking and surface waters as well as food. They are very stable and persist in the environment. That said, I have seen no credible studies linking these chemicals to adverse health effects. I have performed testing on behalf of the EWG as part of our fee for service work. The EWG has an agenda and are looking for any information that will help support their “chemicals are bad” agenda. Testing equipment and testing methodologies have become so sensitive that you can find pretty much find any chemical that you want to look for. Finding chemicals at these very low levels does not necessarily mean that they are of any immediate threat to our selves.
I worked with a fellow that refused to eat freshwater fish. He claimed there were too many chemicals in freshwater fish species. This same fellow smokes close to 2 packs of cigarettes a day.
I'm sure it's not just fish, probably every wild animal that is consuming contaminated water.
This started a big fiasco here in WI with the wives. The news put it out as all fish all lakes. Well, not the case. A few lakes have high levels and the WI DNR lists the lakes, what fish not to eat out of those lakes, and which ones you can and how often. Kind of funny that this study is also linked to the fish farming organization.
How is this study linked to fish farming?
Tobywan is correct. PFAS is everywhere. Anything treated to repel water like carpet, furniture, or new clothing. Also found in high levels in make-up like mascara and lipstick. Microwave popcorn bag is loaded. So far beer is OK... Thankfully!
How is it linked to fish farming? Because the report states that if you want to eat freshwater fish, you should get it from the farmed fish.
I don’t see otters and ospreys dying off. In the ocean out west sea lions, seal, elephant seals sea gull populations are exploding from eating contaminated fish. For as far back as I can remember Bluefin tuna was supposed to be harmful to eat because of high mercury content levels in the meat. Don’t see the Asians dying off from eating lots of seafoods. “Experts” have stated that animals shot with lead bullets and Shot were contaminated with lead. All of this may be somewhat accurate but the health benefits of wild fish and game consumed may still be a better choice.
"I don’t think I’ll lose any sleep over it."
drycreek, you're already showing signs of being contaminated....your rod is going sideways instead of straight out :)
If fried crappie is going to kill me the I will die real soon.
Live2hunt. So because the data indicates that farmed fish are lower in PFAS related chemical (they are), the research is linked to, payed for, or in someway in cahoots with with the fish farming industry? Lol. That’s funny.
Just what someone found and told me. What is your point? You must be a fish farmer!!! LOL, did I step on your foot.
Kentuckbowhunter it still probably not the crappie, maybe the fried. :))
Live2Hunt. Nope, not even close. Wrong, yet again.