Chemicals in Fresh water fish???

[grizwilson]

Was on several news outlets https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/01/17/freshwater-fish-forever-chemicals-pfos-pfas/11068366002/ This is way above my skill set, hoping some more enlightened can shed light?  @Terrierman @Johnsfolly   @Ham I have eaten enough that I have already been poisoned beyond repair.   

[trythisonemv]

23 minutes ago, grizwilson said:

Was on several news outlets https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/01/17/freshwater-fish-forever-chemicals-pfos-pfas/11068366002/ This is way above my skill set, hoping some more enlightened can shed light?  @Terrierman @Johnsfolly   @Ham I have eaten enough that I have already been poisoned beyond repair.   

Saw this and immediately thought that it was animal rights climate change type people up too their usual shenanigans . i have eaten hundreds of fish my life from mo waterways and I am fine. Last I read our water was getting cleaner over all and farm run off was getting under control due to innovations in fertilizer and techniques. 

[nomolites]

There has been a watch list and consumption guidelines on the bodies of water to be concerned with for some time.  Don’t think any of the White River chain is on it, but I know the Mississippi is a no surprise example.  I’m too old to change my ways anyway.

Mike

[BilletHead]

39 minutes ago, grizwilson said:

Was on several news outlets https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/01/17/freshwater-fish-forever-chemicals-pfos-pfas/11068366002/ This is way above my skill set, hoping some more enlightened can shed light?  @Terrierman @Johnsfolly   @Ham I have eaten enough that I have already been poisoned beyond repair.   

               Same here Les,

   I would say if there were in depth studies there is nothing out there that has not been affected by something man has done to our ecosystem.  We are now living longer than ever before in history. I say fry another fillet and enjoy. Much better than processed food. Look at that label on those packages and decipher that. I just seen on the news MSG is making a comeback . 

[MOPanfisher]

Whatever is in the waters is to some degree going to be in the Aquatic life chain.  As noted some places are better or worse than others.  I still wouldn't drink unfiltered water from wild sources but I am not gonna lose a moment sleep over fish fillets.

[Quillback]

If I had a list of things to worry about (I don't have a list, just saying),  this would not even make the list.  

[Terrierman]

I've said this before:  Everything is everywhere.  Detection limits keep getting lower and lower so we just keep finding more stuff in more places.  The question then becomes at what level does a toxin - any toxin - affect someone or something that's exposed to it.  From consumption or otherwise.  That aspect is not mentioned at all in the article.

The article is talking about the chemicals cited at the parts per trillion level.  And those are declining if the information is accurate and there is enough data to be statistically significant.  And the levels of chemicals cited are also declining in water due to them not being used as much if at all now.

Personally, I'm like Jeff and probably most others on here.  I don't sweat it at all.

[grizwilson]

I try not to drink water (unless it has been sanitized with alcohol) because fish crap in it. At my age will keep on eating fish 

[top_dollar]

I read the article, but not the particular study.  That said, I do know quite a bit about PFAS. 

1.) PFAS/PFOS is an extremely vague term that covers thousands of different compounds. 

2.) Generally they are extremely stable polymers that accumulate to high levels because they do not biodegrade quickly. 

3.) They are already in you, and there is not sufficient data to determine the level of toxicity.  They are obviously not acutely toxic because people aren't falling over dead, but like anything long term toxicity has to be determined the long way.  

               ****my opinion!!****  I am not a doctor, but a chemist.  My personal opinion on them is that they pose very little risk due to their inherent stability.  Generally toxic compounds are toxic because they react with something in your body.  Fluorinated alkanes just do not react with much.  Like all microplastics, it will take several generations of these accumulated molecules for us to know the full effects, but in the meantime they are cheap, convenient and ubiquitous.    

               Other facts about PFAS : Teflon is a fluorinated polymer, which is largely the reason nothing sticks to it.  Also, "CFC's" which are also fluorinated alkanes, are what poked a hole in the ozone layer.  Due to their inherent stability they do not react with molecular oxygen (o2), but when they move higher in the atmosphere they react with ozone (O3) which caused that hole (ha!) disaster.

[tjm]

We done been exposed to PFAS  for our entire lives just by breathing and drinking water. The long time watch lists have been about mercury which we know is toxic rather than PFAS that we know might be harmful if taken in huge quantities over a long enough time. I've read these "may be harmful" warnings all my life and I've yet to a single death linked specifically to eating toxic fish. We should worry more about the estrogen in tap water.

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas