View Full Version : Eat only one bass a year?
03-22-2004, 10:38 AM
Anybody see the report report about now the state advises that we only eat one striped bass meal a year ? I read it in the Reminder , a small cumberland Co. newspaper. It goes from one meal a month to one meal a year?
I thought the bay was getting cleaner, not worse?
03-22-2004, 11:08 AM
Hey Captain Buck!
These same warnings and advisories have come out from year to year. They get those numbers from testing the entire fish from head to tail, everything included. Of course, any contaminants in the fish are concentrated within the blood, entrails, and lateral line. By eating the white meat of the fillets, which most of us anglers prefer to eat. You're in the safe zone. I have heard this very same fact from many reputable people in the Fisheries Science area of study.
I have been eating lots of striper for years, and don't plan on stopping any time soon!
Best to ya'!
03-22-2004, 11:20 AM
Yea, that's pretty much the way I do it, but I thought it was a rather drastic recommendation to go to once a year. And I agree,been eating bass for years and plan on eating some mo'. I don't know what the supposed effects of too much bass eating would be, besides having to buy trousers with larger waists. :rolleyes:
03-22-2004, 01:34 PM
I prepare fish samples for contaminant testing for the state of NJ DEP, and while it's true that some species of fish are sampled whole (head bones guts etc.) stripers are sampled by homogenized fillets. The same fillets you would cut for the table.
03-22-2004, 03:38 PM
I think they are just preparing everyone for the toxic army nerve gas fish soon to be coming our way!
03-22-2004, 03:55 PM
I don?t know about PCBs, but here is how to get rid of the mercury. Place the whole un-cleaned fish in the freezer, hanging by its tail (a walk-in freezer is required for this) wait for twenty minutes or so. We all know what happens to a thermometer when you put it in the freezer the mercury goes to the bottom. Bring the fish out and immediately chop off the head. Discard the head filled with the mercury and enjoy your mercury free fish. ;)
Just common sense.
[ 03-22-2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: capthersch ]
03-22-2004, 04:12 PM
capthersch,LMAO,but it makes sense to me.Sounds to me that the catch and release is gonna get real good if the majority stop eating /fishing for them.
Darrin G. DGREENEMACHINE
03-22-2004, 05:14 PM
LOL Where is hip to tell us to just release them all?
03-22-2004, 05:27 PM
i don't know about the rest of you but the way i smoke and drink a little contaminated fish won't make much difference,plus i beleive all the alchohol keeps my system clean,even the common cold can't survive in me,in my humble opinion of course
Brian E. Mullaney
03-22-2004, 05:37 PM
HIP called me last night - he is in Cambodia trying to teach the natives to catch & release.
I fear for my friend. I fear that they might decide to slay him as he can feed a village for a whole month
03-22-2004, 08:57 PM
Sounds like you are pretty versed on the subject. Do you believe the reports? If so, can you tell us why eating these fish has become so detrimental to our health? Further, why are these fish becoming more contaminated rather than less contaminated? Aren't they cleaning up the river?
03-22-2004, 11:14 PM
SurfinFish, Looks like Ronbo beat me to the punch. I would be interested in an educated comment also!
03-22-2004, 11:31 PM
I HAVE A HARD TIME EATING ONLY ONE A DAY :D :D :D
03-23-2004, 10:20 PM
surfinfish i also eat alot of striper but also other fish too , what other species of fish might we be warned about eating?
03-25-2004, 03:00 PM
in general the rivers and oceans are getting cleaner. the reports you read are all true, however you must take into account who is writing/sponsering the article. scientific results can be presented differently depending upon who is paying for the study. i personally don't worry much about eating fish because i figure it is marginally going to affect my health....alot less then second hand smoke, drinking, eating of processed foods etc. as a general guideline the more lipid(fat) content a fish has, the more concentration of contaminants it will yield as the lipids are what they bond to. and just remember, stripers are highly migratory species. just because you caught it in the rips, doesn't mean that it wasn't in the schukyll river the night before....
03-25-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by SurfinFish:
in general the rivers and oceans are getting cleaner. the reports you read are all true, however you must take into account who is writing/sponsering the article. scientific results can be presented differently depending upon who is paying for the study. i personally don't worry much about eating fish because i figure it is marginally going to affect my health....alot less then second hand smoke, drinking, eating of processed foods etc. as a general guideline the more lipid(fat) content a fish has, the more concentration of contaminants it will yield as the lipids are what they bond to. and just remember, stripers are highly migratory species. just because you caught it in the rips, doesn't mean that it wasn't in the schukyll river the night before.... I guess that means that the jury is still out! If you get any good info please pass it along. Meanwhile it's white meat for me only!
03-26-2004, 12:59 AM
surinfish if that is true about what you test for contaminats what test do they take from our commercial harvest. Seems to me that the public should be protected or at least warned about fish that may be unsafe to eat. Warning label. Doesn't mean that you should stop eating bass. Those poeple who smoke read the warning label and do as they please. It is your choice once a month once a year or never. As far as mercury goes it is not removeable because it is in the muscle of the fish and small amounts can do damage to the Brain stem of fetus and small childern below the age of 6.
03-26-2004, 05:36 AM
It is my understanding that the federal government (FDA) regulates fish at the consumer/commercial level. And I believe recreational fishing advisories are pushed at the state level through DEP and/or EPA. Also, EPA's guidance is generally regarded as more protective of consumers than that of the FDA, especially regarding acceptable levels of mercury and PCBs.
The latest public announcements were largely joint clarifications of existing advisories because there was so much confusion, the efficacy of which was nil. You still have people who are eating fish and crabs out of the Newark Bay complex and the majority of the people affected by fishing advisories (with the exception of SurfinFish) are still not really sure how each species was tested. So without knowing the specific basis for the warnings most people discredit them as nonsense.
The fishing advisories remind me of our national terror alert levels. Pretty much useless without the specific information behind the warning.
Seems to me the only thing "safe" to eat is your bait. You don't see any warnings for prey fish such as bunker, shad and anchovies, just the predators.
You wanted info, so here ya' go!
The latest version of the advisory, drafted in December, states: "Tuna is one of the most frequently consumed fish in the United States. Mercury levels in tuna vary. Tuna steaks and canned albacore generally contain higher levels of mercury than canned light tuna. You can safely include tuna as part of your weekly fish consumption."
Critics say the draft advisory fails to adequately inform the public about which types of seafood contain less mercury and are safer, such as shrimp, salmon and sardines.
The FDA recently released test results showing that canned albacore "white" tuna has three times the mercury level as canned "light" tuna.
Even so, the level of mercury in canned albacore is 50 percent below the level at which the government prohibits fish to be sold, said Burney, of the tuna foundation.
A person can eat up to 1,354 cans of tuna in a year and still barely increase his or her health risk for methyl mercury contamination, he said.
For Release: March 19, 2004
FDA and EPA Announce the Revised Consumer Advisory on Methylmercury in Fish
Actual sample data from commercial fishing ops...
***** Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish *****
Everything the FDA would like you to know...
FDA Seafood Information and Resources
How did Mercury get in my fish?
Mercury in Fish and Shellfish
Berry?s Creek-Ventron/Velsicol Site
Located in the Hackensack Meadowlands (Borough of Wood-Ridge, Bergen County), is one of the most heavily contaminated mercury sites in the world.
The site is known as the Ventron/Velsicol Site and is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). This site is an important example of the ecological consequences of mercury releases to an aquatic ecosystem. The primary source of mercury to this system was historical discharges (1930 to 1974) from a mercury processing plant. Testing conducted around 1970 indicated that the plant was discharging from two to four pounds of mercury per day into Berry?s Creek (Lipsky et. al. 1980). Mercury contamination (primarily inorganic or elemental mercury) was found to be widespread at the site and included soils on and adjacent to the site, and the surface waters, sediments and wetland soils of Berry?s Creek. ...... Estimates of the amount of mercury contamination beneath the Ventron/Velsicol site have ranged from 30 tons to 289 tons (Lipsky et al. 1980).
Also in this is the following tidbit;
"Prior to 1994 there was no systematic effort to collect data on mercury levels in NJ freshwater fish that could provide a useful statewide picture."
How are "safe" levels determined?
"If methylmercury levels are high enough, the health effects can be devastating. The most serious poisoning incidents on record occurred in Japan in the 1960s. In one incident, 111 people died or became very ill after eating fish contaminated with levels of methylmercury ranging from 9 parts per million to 24 parts per million (ppm). The symptoms experienced by the victims ranged from numbness and tingling in the lips, fingers or toes to involuntary muscle tremors, coma and death in extreme poisoning cases.
Based on studies of the Japanese incidents, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set the methylmercury limit for freshwater sport fish at 1 ppm, approximately one-tenth the level at which the onset of negative health effects was observed in the Japanese incidents. The U.S. EPA issues a national consumption advisory for any species of fish found to consistently exceed this value in scientific studies. In California, the methylmercury limit set by OEHHA is set even lower, at .3 ppm."
03-26-2004, 03:14 PM
Commercial fish are tested in much the same ways as recreationally caught fish. these guidelines are guidelines for each fish species regardless of how they were obtained (caught vs. bought)
03-26-2004, 04:14 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
03-27-2004, 05:37 AM
Surfinfish, I was under the impression that the FDA was using the EPA/State guidelines to base their advisories as they did not have sufficient guidelines/studies of their own for contaminants, just bacteria. Also, that the EPA guidelines for recreational anglers are more stringent than those for commercial (FDA) fish and that the recreational side (EPA/State) was first to place a contaminant warning on fish, not the FDA. Any insight?
My frustration is I'd like to know why the EPA made an announcement in 2001 and it took the FDA 3 years to offer the same warning for commercial fish. They are the same fish.
Links like this one piss me off;
I don't understand why the state agencies had concern in 1993 and were asking for guidelines and the FDA was sitting on their hands for over 10 years. The FDA claims fish contamination is a "local" problem when many of the fish advised against are migratory. Complete double-talk. If it wasn't for the tenacious state health agencies it appears there would likely not be any warnings at all. The sad fact is millions of people are eating contaminated fish daily that they buy in supermarkets.
There are obviously better forums for my rants. But you should all know the FDA has been screwing the public by sitting on this issue for at least 10 years. Unfortunately, nobody really cares.
03-27-2004, 06:38 AM
After hearing all this, I will not eat any more striper. Of course, I never have eaten any because I don't eat fish at all. This gives me a great reason rather than saying I don't like the taste. I guess that we all must simply starve since red meat is not good for you, Poultry has deadly bacteria, Pork is fatty and has the possibility of Trichinosis. Lamb and veal should not be eaten because of the cruelty in raising them, vegetables have pesticide residue, not to mention the problem with genetically altered plants. Grain and most fruits are high in carbohydrates which are the reason for us being so overweight, and you can't drink the water. I guess those folks that simply consume large amounts of beer have the right idea. At least it helps to eliminate the worry, right?
[ 03-27-2004, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Capt Steve ]
03-29-2004, 09:12 AM
And if special interests get their way it's going to get worse!
Why does the gov't issue a major warning about mercury while at the same time allowing an increase of mercury emissions? @#!WTF@$%$!
I love this country. Why are we crapping where we eat? Even a dog knows better.
SENATORS TAKE ISSUE WITH MERCURY
It's making headlines across the country: the significant impact increased levels of mercury have on public health and wildlife. It increases the risk of brain damage and other disorders, and is particularly dangerous for children and pregnant women. Yet despite these facts, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), spurred on by the Administration and powerful special interests, has proposed a rule change to the Clean Air Act that would actually allow power plants to continue emitting unacceptable mercury pollution into our air. This pollution ends up in our waters when it falls out of the atmosphere and accumulates in the food chain.
Across the country, more than 12 million acres of lakes and 400,000 miles of rivers are under advisory, warning people to avoid or limit fish consumption due to mercury pollution. This same mercury contamination also severely affects bird species that eat fish, such as the common loon. A major source of this pollution: coal-fire power plants, as they remain the largest unregulated industrial source of mercury in the country.
And that's what makes this proposal so preposterous! As currently written, the Clean Air Act requires power plants to update their facilities in order to significantly reduce the mercury emissions within a specific, limited timeframe. The EPA's proposal seeks to delay mercury reductions by power plants by a decade or more, and sets targets so weak that power plants will be allowed to emit six to seven times more mercury between 2010 and 2018 and three times more mercury after 2018 than enforcement of our current clean air protections would allow. This is unacceptable, and serves no purpose other than to appease special interests, as according to industry experts and EPA's own analyses, the technology to dramatically clean up power plans is available and affordable!
For future generations and the state of our environment, we as a nation must reduce the amount of mercury pollution coming from power plants. And now a group of U.S. Senators has joined the fight. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and Mark Dayton (D-MN) have drafted a letter asking President Bush not to weaken mercury standards by calling on the EPA to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants.
To date, 32 Senators have signed the letter, but many more are needed. [Delaware's Senators ? Biden and Carper ? have signed the letter.] The more U.S. Senators that sign onto this letter, the better chance there is that the EPA will drop its proposal and maintain the mercury provisions that are currently written in the Clean Air Act.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.