PFAS found at high levels in freshwater fish

I am very worried about the impact of PFOS. On every walk or run I take, I make a point to pick up at least one piece of plastic.

But the thesis (below) is pure fearmongering. There are so many wiggle words that it’s meaningless. Further, I don’t know what the impact of drinking 1 month of PFOS “laced” water is, so how is this helpful? > a single serving of freshwater fish per year could be equal to a month of drinking water laced with the “forever chemical” PFOS at high levels that may be harmful.

I live in New England and am an avid fisherman. Due to our industrial past, I believe just about every single river in the state I reside is polluted either by PCB's or lead to the point you cannot safely consume fish regularly. It is frustrating/depressing that the ecosystems may be permanently tainted and future generations may not be able to experience the joy of (safely) preparing a fresh fish they caught.

Say what you want about Chernoybl, at least after a few hundred thousand years they'll be able to eat the fish. Lead is forever.

I'd always search online for "fishing advisory <body of water>" prior to fishing anywhere I intend to eat the fish.

At least now you won't have to spend time doing that anymore. Now we already know <body of water> is contaminated. Even the rainwater is full of PFAS.

Jeez, what an insane shame this is. I wish there was accountability and punishment for this.

"Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals are present in rainwater throughout the globe, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology."

https://environmentamerica.org/updates/update-new-study-find... SEPTEMBER 1, 2022

Companies have gotten away with knowingly poisoning people and hiding it for ages. Now they've gotten away with poisoning the entire planet and every living creature on it. What hope is there for accountability? At this point I'm honestly not sure what they'd have to do to incur meaningful punishment.

I'm amazed people haven't demanded justice for it. I'd always assumed that if it became impossible for enough people to get justice within the legal system eventually people would seek justice outside of it, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.

"Dear EWG, This Is Why Real Scientists Think Poorly Of You" https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scien...

Yeah, the problem here is that "ACSH" has, if anything, an even worse reputation than EWG.

Click bait, the article is written about a median of 500 sampled rivers and lakes in the US. Those could be anything (such as one of numerous superfund site runoff waterways). If you fish, check your local state fish and wildlife department for the lake or river you fish; they post contamination risk per waterway.

It’s true that virtually all are contaminated to some degree, but that may be quite a low risk, and is certainly not “like drinking contaminated water for a month.”

I don't think EWG.ORG has an especially great reputation.

I'm not saying PFAS' aren't an issue, but I am saying this article is written by a special interest group (ironically enough it's a press release issued by themselves, quoting themselves as though it's a news article) who have an obvious agenda.

I prefer to get my data about such things from cold research, not from "scientists" whose salaries come from fighting a cause.

Not sure if you are just skimming along?

The actual paper is legit:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165

The first author is from Duke University, the paper is peer-reviewed, and the journal 'Environmental Research' has an impact factor of 8.4 which is quite fair.

Also even if I look at the group who participated in the study, EWG, their mission seems to be focused on empowering consumers with information on environmental choices, which for an NGO seems fairly apolitical to me.

EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish. For all I know, they're right, but nobody should extend them the benefit of doubt about their neutrality.

I haven't looked into this but do you have any evidence that the tap water information they provide is fraudulent? Otherwise it seems to me that they are fulfilling their mission in informing consumers, no?

I didn't use the word "fraudulent", and so I decline to continue this discussion with you.

Sounds like what they said when people questioned lead paint, or asbestos. PFAS are, in all likelihood, the lead paint of this generation.

Furthermore you did nothing to impeach the credibility of their study.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I don't know. I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it.

> I just know I can't rely on EWG for an objective take on it.

You haven't really clarified why this is though. You've stated without backing it up with anything that

> EWG is an incredibly political organization that is not at all about empowering consumers, but rather in marshaling them for a cause, usually by convincing them that their local tap water is full of two-headed nuclear reactor fish.

If their agenda is for people to live in a better environment than it's bad by default? I would understand your approach, if you'd be able to find the bias in the study or proof of them lying/manipulating facts, but isn't this just a bit too contrarian of an approach?

I think the issue is, when you take that tack, you're not doing science anymore; it's just bare advocacy. And, indeed, if you look at EWG resources like their "tap water database" (super popular, punch in your zip code and they'll do their level best to terrify you), you've got something that is very much pretending to be a scientific resource while very much deliberately not being used that way.

The way this is delivered and presented is normal for organizations. They have a website for press releases, and the content of a press release would be a summary and reference to something apropos.

In this case it happens to be their own research. But it's still normal and reasonable for them to make a press release about it, even if it's their own study.

I think the issue here, or your complaint rather, is based on the expectation that HN items would be more independent. Of course it's often not this way, as we see plenty of promotional pieces from tech companies posted here.

Ideologically driven scientists are worse imo.

Regardless, all “scientists” are paid for results. Look at any research grant. The vast majority make several major assumptions. Anything environment related even more so. Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are). The established scientists are those giving out the grants, they won’t let you disprove their work.

> Good luck getting a grant proving prior climate science papers are bunk (most are).

Citation needed.

[1] Water - Britta: https://www.pintas.com/pfas-class-action-lawsuit/do-brita-fi...

[2] Foods: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/americas-dairyland-may-have-pfa...

[3] Chocolate cake: https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas...

So, what does the risk/benefit equation look like now?

A JAMA article [1] from 2006 concluded that:

   Overall, the health benefits of eating fish greatly outweigh the potential risks—especially when guidelines are used to reduce the small chance of being affected by these risks.

But I guess the effect and pervasiveness of PFAS were not as much on the radar back then as they are now..

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/203693

> EWG found the median amounts of PFAS in freshwater fish were an astounding 280 times greater than forever chemicals detected in some commercially caught and sold fish.

This report looks like it is about fish caught and prepared by individual fisherman, not what you’d get in a grocery.

Another part to that point is that the PFAS levels will vary wildly depending on the specific body of water, the species of fish, the size of the fish, and potentially even the different parts of the fish (fat, belly, etc).

Most states test the larger bodies of water for contaminates. I'm not sure that PFAS is included in all of the tests. But that could be a good place to start.

I think the real impact of PFAS on humans (and biology in general) will take decades to realize. By then, we may be in a very difficult situation or reverse or recover from.

Imagine if PFAS accumulation negatively impacted reproduction in humans, such that after enough generations of PFAS-laden humans reproduction were nearly impossible. That's just a dark fantasy, but we don't really know yet.

Given the unknowns, I would avoid consuming things with concentrations of known unnatural substances when (if) there are other food alternatives.

The article you linked is not about freshwater fish specifically, unlike the article OP posted. It does have this to say, though, at the end.

> Compared with store-bought fish, locally caught freshwater fish may have higher chemical levels, so local advisories should be consulted.

Yes indeed, but I was more thinking of this as a general consideration as I'd imagine non-negligible PFAS concentrations may occur in store-bought fish too. It'd be good to see more studies on this.

It would be interesting to know what these levels would be (likely lower) in fish that are closer to the bottom of the food chain, such as Krill, Sardines, etc.

There are a few weak studies that “suggest” a “possible association” between some PFAS chemicals and some specific health outcomes. Far from a robust evidence corpus as you seem to believe and as propagated by the usual suspect from the press.

Those papers are almost always cited out of context, especially the one from the USAF from 1973. The concentrations on this one were gigantic and were based on an animal model, not on actual human outcomes in the real world with realistic exposure values.

Study after study with workers dealing directly with the substance has failed to find any mortality effect. Other studies like the one pointing to a slight impact on birth weight failed to account for that the results are most likely out to be primarily a confounding effect, in that pregnant mothers with reduced kidney function tend to have higher blood serum levels of PFAS, as well as babies with lower birth weight, so PFAS doesn’t cause the lower birth weight.

The studies on immune function with high concentrations of PFAS substances failed to find a causal link, and even then, it was done with a sense that has been largely phased out of industrial use.

Let's not forget that organization at the forefront of the PFAS scare, the EWG (Environmental Working Group), is an NGO behind other dubious scaremongering activism like linking vaccines to autism. The modus operandi and the conspiracy theory link and moral outrage are the same, but this scare is more palatable for a progressive public. Still, the PFAS scare is currently, based on the current scientific evidence, as baseless as the anti-vax crowd arguments.

So can fish harvesting be used for cleanup? Is it viable?

It depends on the body of water and the DNR has guidelines for this. This isn't remotely news, it's fear mongering. Places with PFAS are generally port rivers and industrial zones. People don't fish there (or if they do, they throw them back).

One may safely assume that _every_ lake and river in the US is contaminated with PFAs.

Unless those people are poor and hungry, like those 20% on food stamps...

They are forever chemicals precisely because they are utterly non-reactive compounds. Unless they act as catalysts for some unknown prejudicial biochemical reaction, I don't see the reason for all this panic.

> [...] PFAS, which have been linked to a range of serious health issues including liver damage, high cholesterol, reduced immune responses and several kinds of cancer

The links are rather tenuous at best right now. The only thing we have strong evidence for is possible hormonal effects, which is bad, but plastic particles are probably not giving you liver failure.

Liver damage is super common in the US, with 1 out of 3ish people having some amount of fatty liver, because america is stupidly fat

There are a few weak studies that “suggest” a “possible association” between some PFAS chemicals and some specific health outcomes. Far from a robust evidence corpus as you seem to believe and as propagated by the usual suspect from the press.

Those papers are almost always cited out of context, especially the one from the USAF from 1973. The concentrations on this one were gigantic and were based on an animal model, not on actual human outcomes in the real world with realistic exposure values.

Study after study with workers dealing directly with the substance has failed to find any mortality effect. Other studies like the one pointing to a slight impact on birth weight failed to account for that the results are most likely out to be primarily a confounding effect, in that pregnant mothers with reduced kidney function tend to have higher blood serum levels of PFAS, as well as babies with lower birth weight, so PFAS doesn’t cause the lower birth weight.

The studies on immune function with high concentrations of PFAS substances failed to find a causal link, and even then, it was done with a sense that has been largely phased out of industrial use.

Let's not forget that organization at the forefront of the PFAS scare, the EWG (Environmental Working Group), is an NGO behind other dubious scaremongering activism like linking vaccines to autism. The modus operandi and the conspiracy theory link and moral outrage are the same, but this scare is more palatable for a progressive public. Still, the PFAS scare is currently, based on the current scientific evidence, as baseless as the anti-vax crowd arguments.