We have a problem with nitrogen deposition in high mountain lakes in Colorado. What happens is that dust from fertilizer on the plains get carried up the mountains by wind.
Don't eat the fish!
- Thread starter kmudgn
- Start date
We have a problem with nitrogen deposition in high mountain lakes in Colorado. What happens is that dust from fertilizer on the plains get carried up the mountains by wind.
Just my .02 is the article is all about promoting C&R, hidden in a "don't eat the fresh water fish" article.
All the local lakes around here have high levels of heavy metals.
Fish and game booklet says to only eat one bass a month.
I say like the Bass Masters, "kiss em and let em go"
All the local lakes around here have high levels of heavy metals.
Fish and game booklet says to only eat one bass a month.
I say like the Bass Masters, "kiss em and let em go"
This is a figure from the paper (which is available for free if you really want to get into it). Not very many samples from the northwest, and most of them were low readings - but they didn’t sample urban waters like the ones that got the very high numbers around the Great Lakes.
As for the greenlake guy, I heard that someone told him about the consumption advisory for greenlake, and he didn’t eat the fish. Which is a wise choice, as the most contaminated fish ever sampled in Washington was a carp out of greenlake. Apparently it was the favorite place to dump your old PCB filled refrigerator back in the day…
As for the greenlake guy, I heard that someone told him about the consumption advisory for greenlake, and he didn’t eat the fish. Which is a wise choice, as the most contaminated fish ever sampled in Washington was a carp out of greenlake. Apparently it was the favorite place to dump your old PCB filled refrigerator back in the day…
Only if consumed within the state of California.I recently discovered that basically all dark chocolate is high in lead, cadmium and some other shit.
So I guess I'll be dying from lead poisoning.
33 years ago I took a Fisheries class at the University of Washington and I remember the professor giving a lecture about pollution in the snow up at the Arctic Circle. I just Googled this subject to make sure I remembered correctly. Here is one article that came up. Let’s face it, pollution is everywhere.
wetline dave
Steelhead
I wonder who payed for the study? Often that will in itself tell the tale.
The researcher needs to confirm the payees beliefs as that is the game a foot.
Been there and know that!
Dave
The researcher needs to confirm the payees beliefs as that is the game a foot.
Been there and know that!
Dave
FinLuver
Native Oregonian…1846
I’ve been called all sorts of…
For say’n the same.
If you're really that interested, it is very easy to find.
Folks who actually read the paper would note that any "advocacy" is not for CnR, it is for more monitoring and "labelling" if you will, something we expect for all foods we buy from the supermarket.
As for whether you should be concerned, that's up to you. I'm at the age and mind where I could care less, I use a lot of butter and other dairy, I eat meat with fat, etc, but I get regular exercise and I'm relatively fit; however, I recognize "We all die, just a question of when".
From the paper, for those who are interested:
5. Conclusions
Widespread PFAS contamination of freshwater fish in surface waters in the U.S. is likely a significant source of exposure to PFOS and potentially other perfluorinated compounds for all persons who consume freshwater fish, but especially for high frequency freshwater fish consumers. This is an example of a social and environmental injustice facing communities that depend on catching fish for cultural practices or economic necessity. At the general population level there are uncertainties regarding current PFOS levels in fish, consumption rates for freshwater anglers, and the overall impact on blood serum levels. Current levels of PFOS in serum exceed health guidance values indicating that identifiable sources of exposure should be reduced. National testing done by the U.S. EPA shows that nearly all fish in U.S. rivers and streams and the Great Lakes have detectable PFAS, primarily PFOS, in the μg/kg or parts per billion range, while U.S. FDA testing shows that seafood purchased at grocery stores have significantly lower levels of PFAS. Self-caught fish are an important source of subsistence for many individuals, indicating that advisories for PFAS will disproportionately affect these individuals who cannot afford to replace self-caught fish with purchased fish. At the same time, knowing that high levels of PFOS present in freshwater fish could impact serum levels is concerning and should warrant the creation of national consumption advisories and an awareness program.Credit author statement
Nadia Barbo: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Tasha Stoiber: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Validation. Olga Naidenko: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision. David Andrews: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, VisualizationFunding
This research study conducted by the Environmental Working Group was supported by a grant from Yellow Chair Foundation. The funding source provided general support and was not involved in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.Acknowledgements
The authors thank their colleagues Sydney Evans, Alexis Temkin, and Uloma Uche for providing helpful feedback on the draft manuscript. We also thank our colleague Tiffany Follin for assistance with the figures.
Last edited:
I was debating whether or not to comment on this, but maybe what I say will be of interest to some. I serve on the board of health for Grant County, and I know we are monitoring both water quality and food safety closely. I'm sure those involved in monitoring the safety of fish for human consumption are aware of this study, but I'll be sending it to the appropriate people and ask what they think. My initial thoughts (which are definitely neutral at this point) are that we'd definitely want much more study focusing on our local resources before pushing the panic button on anything. There appears to be a potential for some skewed results due to the high number of samples taken from the Great Lakes - meaning that any issues going on there would potentially be amplified in the results. I haven't thoroughly read the study yet though as my time is stretched a little thin. I'll forward on anything I hear back.