Jump to content

Are these numbers for real?


Recommended Posts

Take some preventative measures.  PFAS and PFOS are stored in the liver but not excreted so readily.  The associations are similar to BPAs and such are linked to metabolic disease, endocrine and heptatic dysfunction.  In terms of toxicity they tend to use a bile sequestrant in cholestyramine to bind bile in the intestines in order to prevent reabsorption thereby increasing elimination.  4 year half life and if you are thinking of having children it does cross the placenta and could cause issues to the fetus. 

 

In a nutshell take nac and glycine together along with a few other minerals and hepatic protective herbs to help prevent liver cell damage and reabsorption.  Bile salts are critical too in this process but I cannot comment until I've done more research on it. 

 

<---Holistic healer by trade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User
7 minutes ago, dodgeguy said:

I thought toxins were in the fatty organs and tissues and not the meat 

Depends on the toxin, and yes, organs and belly meat do normally have higher levels, but they are in the fillets as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User

The story says the chemicals have leeched into the country's drinking water. So what's the point of avoiding fish for a chemical you already have in you? Of course, there are other contaminants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User
1 minute ago, the reel ess said:

The story says the chemicals have leeched into the country's drinking water. So what's the point of avoiding fish for a chemical you already have in you? Of course, there are other contaminants.

Levels of concentration, and it is cumulative...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User

PFAS became a big thing here in my neck of the woods about 5 years ago when it was discovered that Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine footwear) was dumping it on one of their properties. They quit doing it a few decades ago but the damage was already done and had made its was into the ground water. The past four years they’ve been running water mains around 20 miles worth to get clean water to these areas. Wolverine is footing the bill, as they should. 
 

This situation set off a domino effect. Shortly after this was discovered they started testing the soil around Gerald R Ford airport for PFAS and sure enough the ground water was contaminated. If I remember correctly it was from the de-icing chemicals or foam they used for putting out fires at the airport. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User
3 minutes ago, 12poundbass said:

Wolverine is footing the bill 

I see what you did there. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User
1 minute ago, the reel ess said:

I see what you did there. 😉

Ha, actually I didn’t, but that’s funny. Must be my subconscious genius in me making an appearance. 😂

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User
1 hour ago, 12poundbass said:

If I remember correctly it was from the de-icing chemicals or foam they used for putting out fires at the airport. 

It was a chemical commonly used in flame retardant.  That has now changed too.

 

My intention in this thread was to post nothing but facts.  Nowhere did I say you should avoid eating fish of any kind, as much as you'd like within extent of the law, from any waterway.  In fact, the articles I read on this do not say you can't eat fish; they simply state that you should consider doing it in moderation.

 

I'm no business or economics expert, but a company paying out $850 million in settlement is a pretty good indicator that they've accepted blame for what they did, even if they won't publicly admit it.  If they didn't think they did anything wrong, they wouldn't just hand out that kind of money.  And to be clear, part of the settlement includes clean up and restoration of the environment they've polluted until its down to acceptable levels.  So 3M is going to be responsible for these chemicals for a LONG time.

 

The thing that ticks me off on this kind of thing is when the company knows they are doing and still continues to do it.  DuPont executives knew these chemicals caused health problems and they knew they were going to be in the environment for a long time, yet they still continued to conduct this behavior for years.  Its down right criminal action IMO, all for the sake of the profit margin.

 

This is the kind of federal law enforcement I work with on a daily basis.  So my view on the subject is very likely biased already towards the offending parties.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread and one of the reasons I really enjoy this site.  The devil is in the details, and the modern world is full of opportunities where critically teasing out the nuance is necessary but difficult.

 

scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Darnold335 said:

@newapti5 hey buddy just curious what stretch of the susky you fish? I’m anywhere from bainbridge to fort hunter generally.

 

I don't live close to the river anymore, but I used to fish from Marysville to Falmouth, so pretty much the same range as yours. TBH I am not much a walleye angler, but one of my friends is, and he's been my main walleye supplier. I still go walleye fishing with him occasionally near the three mile island, around the dam over there, but mostly I fish nearby creeks for smallies nowadays.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, newapti5 said:

 

I don't live close to the river anymore, but I used to fish from Marysville to Falmouth, so pretty much the same range as yours. TBH I am not much a walleye angler, but one of my friends is, and he's been my main walleye supplier. I still go walleye fishing with him occasionally near the three mile island, around the dam over there, but mostly I fish nearby creeks for smallies nowadays.

Gotcha I’m like 35 minutes to a hour from the river depending where I go on the susky. I don’t walleye fish either just catch them accidentally. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ gimruis I appreciate your clear-headed posts in this thread. You have a "follow the money" kind of analysis, which I trust. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super User

I've got more important things to worry about than eating fresh caught fish. If your not raising your own meat and growing your own crops, you're putting garbage in your body. I've been eating fresh caught fish, from all over the midwest, for 50 years. Americans are living longer now than at any time in the past. 

 

I pulled some Lake Erie walleye out of the freezer today(Helpful hint, freeze your fish in water. No freezer burn and the fish taste as good as if you caught them that day), for dinner tomorrow. If you don't hear from me after tomorrow, you know what killed me.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 8:30 PM, newapti5 said:

I guess any wild-caught freshwater fish will be off the menu from now on. I wonder what level of PFAS saltwater fish and supermarket fish have.

 

Not sure but I saw somewhere how fish farms overseas have realized they can set up chicken coops on docks above fish and the fish wont need feed beyond what the chickens drop and poop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, garroyo130 said:

 

Not sure but I saw somewhere how fish farms overseas have realized they can set up chicken coops on docks above fish and the fish wont need feed beyond what the chickens drop and poop. 

 

I believe I read about that being done in Vietnam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, garroyo130 said:

 

Not sure but I saw somewhere how fish farms overseas have realized they can set up chicken coops on docks above fish and the fish wont need feed beyond what the chickens drop and poop. 

 

Near the end, the paper actually mentions that commercial fish's PFAS median level is assumed to be significantly lower than wild caught fish's, so that's good news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of this is just the result of more people doing more studies.  I'm not saying to ignore this study, but articles like this can showcase our growing awareness of pollutants versus an actual rise in pollution.  And that is good.  But just because we have a study like this doesn't mean that wild caught fish from our lakes are actually worse for you than they were 20 years ago.  We've removed other chemicals from our water supply since then, and added a few more.  


I guess my point is, we should be concerned, but not overly alarmed.  We won't know the full effect of these chemicals for decades.  So it's probably more important that we pressure companies to quite allowing them to get into our water supply than it is to stop eating fish right now.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




  • fishing forum

    fishing forum

    fishing tackle

    fishing

    fishing reels

    fishing

    fishing

    bass fish

    fish for bass



×
×
  • Create New...