[Parris Island]

This has been discussed before, however a new report by the EPA indicates high concentrations of these chemicals are now in Lake Erie fish.
I eat a lot of Lake Erie walleye,(and locally harvested wild game).
If possible, I would like to have a non political discussion on this topic.
One article on this subject can be read here: Locally caught fish are full of dangerous chemicals called PFAS, study finds | CNN
Do you have any experience with or firsthand knowledge of these chemicals?
Have you ever discussed this subject with your health care provider?
Have you ever had a blood test to determine your levels of these chemicals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ducknut141]

That study is to long winded and full of mumbo jumbo to justify their jobs. Put out the bottom line for us simple minded folks can we eat it or NOT!!!!!!!!

 

[MagicMarker]

CNN is a non starter for me

 

[ranger487]

Probably the same people trying to ban gas stoves.

 

[LEfriend]

CNN is a non starter for me

Whatever. I appreciated the CNN article which gave me a link to the published scientific study, which then gave me links to dozens of peer reviewed research studies in many countries around the world. I take the Environmental Working Group with a grain of salt, but all the other studies point to the same thing. We don’t yet know the full extent but these things are more and more a potentially serious problem. Maybe more so than thought. Definitely more work is needed. Some were phased out several years ago but are pervasive still. That is why they are called forever chemicals

These things affect immune systems. As one who was 2 years ago diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease that has left me barely able to walk, I wonder. Could exposure have been the cause or what tipped me over the edges? I will never know. But as I sit here one step over a wheelchair, and no longer able to fish, I am glad there are people studying this and not burying our heads in the sand. And I am glad CNN is there to factually report their work.

 

[bowhunter1487]

The most I know about PFAS is this is why rain gear was much better 5-10+ years ago than it is now if anyone was wondering. The old DWR with PFAS coatings lasted much longer and was far much more effective than the mostly silicone-based alternatives being used currently.

As far as accumulation in the food chain, my lay understanding is it primarily manifests as reproductive and endocrine issues and accumulates over time so it's not like a virus where you eat a fish and get sick tomorrow or next week. We're talking decades as the timescale.

This isn't really something new from a health standpoint either, 20 years ago the panic was everyone dying from cooking with teflon pans which is a PFAS. It's just that now we are figuring out how much of the chemicals accumulates in the environment.

I definitely don't think it's something to balk at, or immediately panic about. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between. Much like CWD I have two layers of concern and resulting caution, myself being minimal because heaven knows I've intentionally poisoned myself enough already, but I have an elevated level of caution when it comes to my young kiddos. I'm sure we'll know a lot more in 50 years but what good does that do us now? It seems moderation would be prudent in the meantime unless you're overly cautious in which case there's always catch and release or golf I guess.

 

[Parris Island]

Whatever. I appreciated the CNN article which gave me a link to the published scientific study, which then gave me links to dozens of peer reviewed research studies in many countries around the world. I take the Environmental Working Group with a grain of salt, but all the other studies point to the same thing. We don’t yet know the full extent but these things are more and more a potentially serious problem. Maybe more so than thought. Definitely more work is needed. Some were phased out several years ago but are pervasive still. That is why they are called forever chemicals

These things affect immune systems. As one who was 2 years ago diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease that has left me barely able to walk, I wonder. Could exposure have been the cause or what tipped me over the edges? I will never know. But as I sit here one step over a wheelchair, and no longer able to fish, I am glad there are people studying this and not burying our heads in the sand. And I am glad CNN is there to factually report their work.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply and also for sharing some of your experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bucket Mouth]

Michigan DNR advised a "do not eat" on all fish found on the Huron River and impoundments a few years ago due to this same stuff. It stinks to see this might be an issue in the big lake.

 

[Parris Island]

That study is to long winded and full of mumbo jumbo to justify their jobs. Put out the bottom line for us simple minded folks can we eat it or NOT!!!!!!!!

You only need to understand one thing: The levels of PFAS found in your blood, (or in the blood of your children). If it’s greater than 20 nanograms per milliliter you are at very high risk of developing adverse health effects. This is a very simple blood test that can be ordered by your primary care physician. My wife and I plan to have our blood tested in the near future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sala0288]

You only need to understand one thing: The levels of PFAS found in your blood, (or in the blood of your children). If it’s greater than 20 nanograms per milliliter you are at very high risk of developing adverse health effects. This is a very simple blood test that can be ordered by your primary care physician. My wife and I plan to have our blood tested in the near future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blood testing is great and all, my question would be what do you plan to do with the results? More frequent testing for different cancers? Will the insurance pay for it? Its not like cholesterol where there are treatment options for high cholesterol, or poor kidney function or low blood counts. Maybe more frequent blood or plasma donation can lower these levels. Still so much unknown - do all people at that level have adverse affects? only some people? are the levels consistent throughout all species of fish? are young fish safer to eat than the older ones? So many questions. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as I think someone stated on this thread previously or the other one.

Also, as a family physician, I've never had to order this test or heard of it. If you are able to get it done please let me know what lab you went through. Cheers

 

[rickerd]

Alright here is my beef with this study.
1. If I go to the fillet sample study raw data for lake erie, more than half the samples contained no contaminants, while a very few have very high levels. So when you average them it seems they are lumping all samples together and saying big danger don't eat the fish. This is unprofessional INHO.
2. If I look at the data, they have tested numerous types of fish most of which I don't eat. They never give the results by species or even by area. Misleading or misguiding I guess.

My conclusion is in typical CNN fashion, they are taking the very bad, lumping in with the good and trying to make the whole batch inedible. This stinks to me as manipulation by PETA or George Soros type of group.

Rickerd

 

[Parris Island]

Blood testing is great and all, my question would be what do you plan to do with the results? More frequent testing for different cancers? Will the insurance pay for it? Its not like cholesterol where there are treatment options for high cholesterol, or poor kidney function or low blood counts. Maybe more frequent blood or plasma donation can lower these levels. Still so much unknown - do all people at that level have adverse affects? only some people? are the levels consistent throughout all species of fish? are young fish safer to eat than the older ones? So many questions. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as I think someone stated on this thread previously or the other one.

Also, as a family physician, I've never had to order this test or heard of it. If you are able to get it done please let me know what lab you went through. Cheers

What we plan to do with the results:
If our PFAS levels are elevated we plan to take action to reduce those levels. Some very hard decisions will have to be made. Beyond that we will continue to monitor our health much as we do now. Yearly visits to our Primary Care doctors and blood tests to check for abnormalities.

I agree there is much that is not known. However, I’m confident that elevated levels of PFAS in my blood cannot be a good thing.

People who fish and consume fish from Lake Erie are a unique subset of the general population. One of the reasons I started this discussion was the hope that people like yourself would weigh in. We can learn from each other.
I will definitely post the results of our blood tests. We receive most of our care from The Ohio State University. I assume that they do their own lab work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Parris Island]

Alright here is my beef with this study.
1. If I go to the fillet sample study raw data for lake erie, more than half the samples contained no contaminants, while a very few have very high levels. So when you average them it seems they are lumping all samples together and saying big danger don't eat the fish. This is unprofessional INHO.
2. If I look at the data, they have tested numerous types of fish most of which I don't eat. They never give the results by species or even by area. Misleading or misguiding I guess.

My conclusion is in typical CNN fashion, they are taking the very bad, lumping in with the good and trying to make the whole batch inedible. This stinks to me as manipulation by PETA or George Soros type of group.

Rickerd

I agree there appears to be flaws with the way the samples were analyzed. However I don’t think we should “throw the baby out with the bath water “. We as sportsmen who fish and hunt in and around Lake Erie are in a unique position to prove or disprove the findings of this report. I am in no way suggesting that we accept this report as the final word on the safety of the wild game we consume.
Yes, I also agree that every news outlet in this country has an agenda. However at the time of this writing over 177 organizations have posted a story about this very topic. The list includes major universities in Ohio and Michigan. My post is not about agendas. It’s about fellow sportsmen having a discussion about something that MAY affect the lives of the ones who are most important to us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sala0288]

What we plan to do with the results:
If our PFAS levels are elevated we plan to take action to reduce those levels. Some very hard decisions will have to be made. Beyond that we will continue to monitor our health much as we do now. Yearly visits to our Primary Care doctors and blood tests to check for abnormalities.

I agree there is much that is not known. However, I’m confident that elevated levels of PFAS in my blood cannot be a good thing.

People who fish and consume fish from Lake Erie are a unique subset of the general population. One of the reasons I started this discussion was the hope that people like yourself would weigh in. We can learn from each other.
I will definitely post the results of our blood tests. We receive most of our care from The Ohio State University. I assume that they do their own lab work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree totally! And a big academic center like OSU will have those resources. Please keep us updated. Cheers

 

[boss302]

I find it interesting that people attack the messenger (in this case CNN) when the information is sound scientific study and then attack the study as "flawed" when it was designed to answer what is a very small question as a part of understanding the larger concern. It isn't flawed, misleading, unprofessional, etc. because it doesn't answer "your questions", or because it raises other questions - that is simply the process.

I take this study as a single book in a library - a little step towards understanding more about an important emerging issue. Hopefully the questions raised will lead to more studies to help color the picture and then refine the quality of the picture.

It certainly should have us all paying attention and (hopefully) laying down political clubs and shields to learn more and work together to protect/improve our natural resources impacted by our industrial legacy.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[sala0288]

I find it interesting that people attack the messenger (in this case CNN) when the information is sound scientific study and then attack the study as "flawed" when it was designed to answer what is a very small question as a part of understanding the larger concern. It isn't flawed, misleading, unprofessional, etc. because it doesn't answer "your questions", or because it raises other questions - that is simply the process.

I take this study as a book in a library - a little step towards understanding more about an important emerging issue. And a study that, hopefully, will be part of spawning more studies to help color the picture and then refine the quality of the picture.

It certainly should have us all paying attention and (hopefully) laying down political bias and shields to learn more and work together to protect/improve our natural resources impacted by our human industrial legacy.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Well said

 

[ErieIslander]

I personally don’t eat the belly meat on larger sized walleye I catch. When I read studies on this topic, they all lead me to one conclusion, Oceans, Great Lakes, inland lakes, rivers, and streams all have issues with pollution to some degree. I’m still going to eat fresh fish in moderation. I can’t resist eating fresh caught walleye, yellow perch, blue gill, etc. and will continue to do so in moderation.

 

[captainshotgun]

I find it incomprehensible that the government(s) still allows helium filled mylar balloons. When I chartered regularly, I spotted at least one of these every week in or over the lake

 

[rickerd]

You guys that want to praise CNN or even the conclusions of the scientists might want to read the data of the report. They are obviously drawing these conclusions for another purpose. What happened to scientists being objective?

Did any of you bother to check the list of ingredients in those vacc ines they've been giving out? Yet you read an article and lay down your fish to the "voice of the season."

Wake up sheep, the slimeballs almost took over the world a few years ago. CNN is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Rickerd

 

[boss302]

You guys that want to praise CNN or even the conclusions of the scientists might want to read the data of the report. They are obviously drawing these conclusions for another purpose. What happened to scientists being objective?

Did any of you bother to check the list of ingredients in those vacc ines they've been giving out? Yet you read an article and lay down your fish to the "voice of the season."

Wake up sheep, the slimeballs almost took over the world a few years ago. CNN is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Rickerd

Thank God things like the clean water & clean air acts, and removing lead from gas and paint were done before the current waves of denialism and of politicizing everything and anything.

Like it or not, PFAS is an issue - lots of unintended consequences land in our lakes. Hopefully, once more studies are performed we'll get reassured that our gamefish are as safe as we want them to be. Until then, studies like the one being discussed are doing their part to nibble away at understanding the issue and ALL the media outlets covering it (even FOX) are doing what they do to bring the conversation to the average person.


Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk