eating local fish

#2
A sad state of affairs. There's reason to hope that Inslee will be better informed and more pro-active on environmental issues than previous governors, but this is going to be an uphill battle.
D
 

Vladimir Steblina

Retired Forester...now fishing instead of working
#3
Maybe we should change the name of the state to BOEING. Wow, do they run things!

I would just like to see CARP included in the fish advisory standards. As a retiree the hand writing is on the wall......figure I could probably catch enough carp to feed the family.....on dough balls, not flies!
 

Jim Darden

Active Member
#4
Shucks...this must be wrong, everyone knows it is the Republicans that wreck the environment, not the Democrats. That's why we keep putting them back into office so they can appoint folks to look out for our interests in the WDFW.
 

sweetlou

Active Member
#5
Shucks...this must be wrong, everyone knows it is the Republicans that wreck the environment, not the Democrats. That's why we keep putting them back into office so they can appoint folks to look out for our interests in the WDFW.
Right, and the Liberals on the west side of the state do what again??? Putz
 

Stewart

Skunk Happens
#8
I've really only been keeping tabs on this issue around Spokane. The Spokane tribe is pushing for a much lower level of PCBs than the current standards. Their reason being that the tribe is and was historically a fish eating group. Their higher levels of consumption mean that they are consuming more PCBs than the average. Locally, PCBs are entering the river from rain runoff and Inland Paper's paper recycling process. Apparently there are PCBs in some Asian (Chinese?) inks. I think everybody can agree that PCB consumption is really bad. From there you get to who is going to pay to clean up etc. If we're talking about rain sewers that dump directly into the river, then it's the municipality that owns the pipe. Which in turn means we the taxpayers... In the case of an industrial discharger, it's the company. Sure there will be some of the usual political BS, but it's a health vs money issue.
 

Krusty

Active Member
#9
The world's sewers, rivers, and oceans are a receptacle for all the toxic waste we can push into them. PCB's are only the tip of the iceberg...there are hundreds of 'Emerging Pollutants of Concern' that were created, marketed, and discharged before we even attempted to understand their fate and effect on ecosystems....and many more created every year.

Most toxics (like PCB's) are bioaccumulative, which means they are taken up and concentrated by each level in the food chain...at the top are predatory fish...and mankind. Voila! The nasty stuff you (and the powerful industries that fight regulation of toxics) flushed down the drain, are right back on your plate...where they belong. Enjoy your fish, citizen!
 

Krusty

Active Member
#11
This isn't a political issue unless you make it one. And the second you do, the politicians have already won.
It is a defacto political issue; candidates from both parties receive funding from lobbyists....with the implicit intent of killing toxics regulation. Scientists get short shrift in these discussions...it's about the money, not the long term effects.
 

Flyborg

Active Member
#12
candidates from both parties receive funding from lobbyists....with the implicit intent of killing toxics regulation. Scientists get short shrift in these discussions...it's about the money, not the long term effects.
Which is why I don't view it as a political issue, at least from the perspective of our intentionally divisive two party system. The instant words like "liberal" and "conservative" come into play, people lose focus on the real issue. Exactly what our politicians count on happening. The only thing of note to me from a political standpoint is that some people are still apparently surprised by corporate sponsored democracy.

This is about Americans and the country we claim to love so much. As long as we allow it to be a political issue, nothing will change. We'll point fingers at the other side, and continue to ignore the politicians and corporations exchanging smiles behind their hands. Who cares about the long term affects of water toxicity when we have such serious issues like homosexual marriage completely riveting the nations attention.

If I sound bitter it's because I am. We've handed the reigns of our nation to corporate overlords, but still refuse to look outside the political dichotomy that made it happen. Fake moral issues and crises continue to divide us while we allow far worse issues to continue with nary a peep.

As long as we play at politics, we allow politicians to direct the conversation. I say fuck democrats, fuck republicans, fuck liberals and fuck conservatives. Fuck them with the giant spiked dildo of political nepotism and corporate cronyism. Fuck them in the ass with the fist of the TARP act. Put down the bullshit politics, stand up, and be American's.
 

Jim Wallace

Smells like low tide.
#13
I can agree with each of the last two posts. I don't eat very much fish, maybe only 6 times a month at about 8 oz (pre-cooked) per serving. doing the math, 6 X 8 oz = 48 oz. At just under 28 grams per oz, that is 28 X 48 = 1344 grams per month. Divide that by 30.5 days and you get 44 grams per day.
that works out to seven (actually 6.75, but I'm rounding!!!!!) times the figure that Boeing (er...the state of WA) wants us to believe. Yeah...right.:mad:

So Boeing assumes we eat only one (or maybe two small) servings of fish per month? ???:confused:

Edited to correct...my consumption is per month, not per week. I can hardly type, as this kind of corporate lying and manipulation pisses me off so much. Screw Boeing anyway...Has anyone here forgotten that the rat bastards moved their HQ to Chicago? I talked to a Boeing employee at the beach last weekend while I was waiting for a forum member to show up for yak fishing. The Boeing guy was in a brand new Mercedes RV.

OH, and that does not include the clams and oysters that I eat...another 3 or 4 meals per month on the average. And these are filthy filter feeders!
 

Krusty

Active Member
#14
I can agree with each of the last two posts. I don't eat very much fish, maybe only 6 times a month at about 8 oz (pre-cooked) per serving. doing the math, 6 X 8 oz = 48 oz. At just under 28 grams per oz, that is 28 X 48 = 1344 grams per month. Divide that by 30.5 days and you get 44 grams per day.
that works out to seven (actually 6.75, but I'm rounding!!!!!) times the figure that Boeing (er...the state of WA) wants us to believe. Yeah...right.:mad:

In other word, Boeing assumes that WA residents only eat

Edited to correct...my consumption is per month, not per week.

OH, and that does not include the clams and oysters that I eat...another 3 or 4 meals per month on the average.
Jeez...we're gonna hafta bury you in one a them Hanford style dangerous waste vaults...no...on second thought....those things are leaking too!

Try to stay alive until we can figure this one out, ok?
 

Old Man

Just an Old Man
#15
Keep talking about political shit and they will lock this thread down.

About the only fish I eat is canned Tuna. Can't get fresh fish here in this third world country, Montana.