Was just discussing this report with my wife. She, of course, has now removed freshwater fish from her diet. My take is at 71 already with heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and recently diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, I'll take my chances with eating the next walleye I catch. I probably won't live long enough to be impacted by PFAS. On the other hand, my mother passed in October a week before her 95th birthday.
Edit: My comment above was prior to reading the article, which I just finished. As is my habit, I wanted to "do the math" and look at this as critically as possible without reading the actual study. First, I think there is some sensationalism here due to gaps in the information. Before coming to the conclusion that no one should be eating freshwater fish, there needs to be a lot more detail as to geography, actual fish consumption across the population, and blood testing on people eating said fish. If my math is correct, the study found PFAS levels in freshwater fish outside (where exactly?) the Great Lakes at 9,500 ng/Kg and somewhere around 14,000 ng/Kg in the Great Lakes. This would equate to 9,500 parts per trillion (ppt) or 9.5 parts per billion (ppb) (Please check my math). Then they state this is equivalent to drinking water contaminated with 48 ppt everyday for a month. However, there is no discussion on what that means in terms of health threats. I suppose I should read the study, though it is unlikely I will have the patience for that. Until I can fill in the blanks here I am not inclined to panic.
thehill.com
