Just read about it on on the Tulsa World website... there's probably better coverage somewhere else but I thought I'd pass it on. Looks like its mainly in a lot of the smaller lakes.
Fish in 16 state lakes show unsafe mercury levels | Tulsa World
Printable View
Just read about it on on the Tulsa World website... there's probably better coverage somewhere else but I thought I'd pass it on. Looks like its mainly in a lot of the smaller lakes.
Fish in 16 state lakes show unsafe mercury levels | Tulsa World
This news article sure brings a sadness to my heart. I hope the damage can be reversed and the fish can return to less than toxic mercury levels.
Thanks for sharing this chance.
Stink- The problem with the mercury is that it is in the soil or in the drainage in sufficient quantity to to be absorbed by the fish, or the forage base. The predators then eat the forage and start absorbing the mercury into their meat. The older the fish the higher the concentration. Fish that do NOT eat other fish such as carp are not effected by the mercury.
Stink- The problem with the mercury is that it is in the soil or in the drainage in sufficient quantity to to be absorbed by the fish, or the forage base. The predators then eat the forage and start absorbing the mercury into their meat. The older the fish the higher the concentration. Fish that do NOT eat other fish such as carp are not effected by the mercury.
I wonder what the content was 50 yrs ago or 100 yrs ago? None of this was cited in the article. There's just enough information to draw an emotional response. I had those emotional thoughts and feelings reading it.
I agree that the coal fired plants should be moving to scrub mercury as they do sulfur dioxide and other harmful pollutants.
At least mercury is heavy and settles to the bottom where it gets covered in sediment removing itself from the food chain unlike other pollutants that suspend and continue to be endlessly affluent.
Kit Paper Mouth- I think you best read my comment again about mercury settling out and being covered up. It isn't covered up. It is in solution and absorbed by some of the food chain. Before I wrote my post I confirmed my thoughts with a 30+ year fisheries staff member.
Does this mean I need to get rid of all that crappie I have in my freezer from Broken Bow. I know the article didn't state crappie, but it also stated they didn't test all spieces. I would have a hard time throwing away about 200 fillets of crappie.
I see how it could have been interpret from my statement that all mercury settles and gets covered. I should have stated clearer that some gets absorbed and the rest settles and get covered. Not all of it makes it into the flora and fauna.Quote:
Originally Posted by cricket george
The bad deal with channel channel cat & carp is the issue with PCB's and Dioxin's.
If coal fired plants are the major cause?
Interesting how if you go to:
Lakes with No Advisories
That Sooner is listed as No Advisory, but Konawa wasn't listed on either list, advisory or no advisory.
The EPA had a fact sheet out in 2005 from testing in 2004, but I couldn't find any other information or data from this testing.
Wonder when we will hear from ODWC?
Aserioushunter - My comment was based on a discussion with 1 of the departments staff. The key to this is that the forage absorbs the mercury and it is then eaten thereby passing the mercury into the predator. Carp dont eat enough forage i.e. fish to be a concern. Furthermore if the predators are eaten in moderation then their appears to not be an issue with consumption. My understanding is that we would have to eat a steady weekly diet of fish to build up sufficient mercury over a long period of time to hurt us.
The mercury seems to be a natural occuring substance in the soil so we just have to live with it. Pregnant women and kids can have problem where the adult men and non pregnant women have less of a concern.
This is partly why the 30" length limit was put on the blue cats in Okla. A 30"er is an old fish even though it only weights 10 pounds or so. A 60 pounder has alot more "toxins" in it meat so it needs to be released and not eaten. I have had discussions with ODWC fisheries staff on this very topic. Personally I will refrain from keeping any bluecats over 20 pounds. I would love to land a 50 or 60 pounder on rod and reel and then release it but harvest for the table the 10's and under.
Papermouth- No, I would not suggest you throw out your crappie from Broken Bow. I seriously doubt you eat crappie often enough to pose a problem for you and your family. Of course if you are concerned and want to chuck the crappie my freezer has a little room left in it:)
OOOOPPPSSSSS, my mistake, I meant crappie jiggin instead of papermouth on the repl.
I doubt that the coal burning is the whole issue. Like CG said it is naturally occurring and that can account for 1/3 of what they find. If the coal issue was the only issue then it would seem Oologah would not be on the lowest level list, there's a power plant that uses coal right next to it. It seems that a lot of the larger lakes are safer probably due in part to the larger pool of water to dilute the toxins with and the fact that there is a lot of new water in old water out action.
CG do carp not eat the zoo-plankton? According to that article (again its Tulsa World, so it's investigation may be lacking) the zoo-plankton are absorbing the mercury and that's how it's introduced up into the food-stream.
cricket george I know that there is mercury and other heavy metals in our heavy clay soil occuring naturally and from past transgressions being stored in the soil. I knew that you would bring that up.:) Any disturbance of soil from construction or dredging will stir up the metals and with rainfall the metals will be transported to the rivers/lakes and on up the chain. So you can't tell how much is natural, past history, or current. If it was the coal plants you would see high levels near them. It is just like global warming. There isn't enough data over long enough time to tell.
On the fish that they termed "Do not eat", I wouldn't eat them until the levels come down to be on the safe side. The ones that tested a little high I would limit meals to 4-6 times a month if you wanted to be on the safe side.
Personally, pass the tarter sauce it won't change my eating habits any.
Is there any way to find out when they will check Eufaula? I don't want to buy a house there if I cannot eat the fish. We would eat fish 4-5 times a week if we had that much in the freezer. Would catfish be the worst fish to eat since they are usually bigger and eat off the bottom? Of course I don't have any problem even catching larger fish! I catch the little ones just big enough to make the size limit. :D
George is spot on, it has nothing to do with pollution, it's about the buildup of naturally occuring toxins in predator fish. You can still eat them, just follow the recommendations.
Every time I see some guy cleaning a catfish over a few pounds I'm confused. Are they ignorant or do they just not care? First of all, they taste like crap. Second of all these are the very fish that have the most buildup of these toxins. Yet people keep on cleaning them and feeding them to their families and friends. Not to mention in some cases, the person is killing a creature that is potentially older than they are just so they can get a few pounds of nasty tasting fillets. It seems rediculous to me but whatever, it's their choice.
I generally keep blues that are 10 pounds and down because of this problem. I have had lenghty discussions with ODWC fisheries staff regarding the toxin issue.
When I'm fishing for blues, I usually try to keep the little ones that are less than 20 inches or so. Maybe it's my imagination but I swear I can taste the differnce between a little 12 incher and a 24 incher. If I'm eating them, I'm keeping the little ones. Again, just my choice, everyone is different.