Salton Sea, Alamo River and New River

[tissuestudy2015]

I am an environmental scientist, and I am preparing a fish tissue study for 2015 for a state agency, in order to provide sufficient data sets for a consumption advisory. I want to obtain information from anyone who is catching and EATING fish taken from the Salton Sea, Alamo River, or New River. Please note the species and the amount of each one consumed; dates would be great too. This information would be extremely helpful in making the study successful. I had little idea how many folks were actually consuming fish from these waters, and I think it's imperative to conduct this study for protecting human health. It's hard to believe there have been no advisories issued up to this point, and I want to fix that, so please help by responding on this thread. Please pass this on to anyone else who you think can assist. Thank you everyone.
-Jeff

[walrus]

Jeff,

Gee this sounds like a great idea, however you should mention every group/agency/ university, etc that's funding the study.

I know that's something I would want to know before I participate.

From experience I know the results of such reports tend to favor what the payees want to hear, otherwise you're out of work. Everyone wants to please the boss to keep their job, especially these days.

I'm not trying to be a problem, but, to come here on as non-fisherman asking us to do the work, catching, cleaning, cooking and eating the fish without compensation, meanwhile you're getting paid to write the numbers down.

Be up front with us tell us every single person this report will be prepared for. Also will you agree to give all the raw data, unedited or opinionated back to all those who participate by giving samples?

I already see a bias when you said that the study is to find if eating fish is harmful, and gives away of how you'll study the data. The premise of the study is could have been to prove eating fish from the target area the is safe and part of a healthy diet.

Thanks

[tacmik]

Originally Posted by walrus

Jeff,

Gee this sounds like a great idea, however you should mention every group/agency/ university, etc that's funding the study.

I know that's something I would want to know before I participate.

From experience I know the results of such reports tend to favor what the payees want to hear, otherwise you're out of work. Everyone wants to please the boss to keep their job, especially these days.

I'm not trying to be a problem, but, to come here on as non-fisherman asking us to do the work, catching, cleaning, cooking and eating the fish without compensation, meanwhile you're getting paid to write the numbers down.

Be up front with us tell us every single person this report will be prepared for. Also will you agree to give all the raw data, unedited or opinionated back to all those who participate by giving samples?

I already see a bias when you said that the study is to find if eating fish is harmful, and gives away of how you'll study the data. The premise of the study is could have been to prove eating fish from the target area the is safe and part of a healthy diet.

Thanks

Just so you don't think we are just A holes. We got burned big time by the enviro's with the MLPA's and lost prime fishing areas due to their backing and skewed data.

[alanw]

I'm fine with being and A-hole when it comes to government agencies doing a biased study with the goal of regulating some of my freedoms away. Look what just happened with lead hunting ammo in California and the controversy surrounding that. These liberals always have an agenda and they look for evidence in support of it instead of making unbiased decisions based on pure scientific facts.

[dmrides]

Originally Posted by alanw

unbiased decisions based on pure scientific facts.

Facts?!? Come on man, this is California. Get with the times, modem policies are based on emotions. Anyway, your so called "facts" are too hard to understand. I don't have time for facts, I am too busy working on my diorama to protest the windmills that are killing all the eagles.

[YakDout]

Originally Posted by dmrides

Facts?!? Come on man, this is California. Get with the times, modem policies are based on emotions. Anyway, your so called "facts" are too hard to understand. I don't have time for facts, I am too busy working on my diorama to protest the windmills that are killing all the eagles.

Dmrides, are you referring to the bald eagles of Capistrano?

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by tissuestudy2015

I am an environmental scientist, and I am preparing a fish tissue study for 2015 for a state agency.

Which agency? "a state agency" could be almost anyone.

Originally Posted by tissuestudy2015

It's hard to believe there have been no advisories issued up to this point

Maybe it's hard to believe because it's not true.

Did a search and the DHS has had advisories for those bodies of water since the 80s.

".... Currently sportfishing for these species is open, but there are restrictions/advisories regarding consumption. In 1986, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) issued a health advisory for sportfish because selenium concentrations in fillets of croaker (3.8 ppm wet weight), orangemouth corvina (3.6 ppm), sargo (2.1 ppm) and tilapia (1.7 ppm) exceeded or approach the DHS health advisory level of 2.0 ppm (Rasmussen et al., 1987). The advisory is also included in the health warning notices of the California Sport Fishing regulations (CDFG, 1992c). The adult public is advised, to consume no more than 4 ounces of fish every 2 weeks. Pregnant women and children are warned to avoid any fish from the Salton Sea. Fish from the Salton Sea have con-tinued to exceed the 2.0 ppm health advisory level in subsequent years (Rasmussen, 1988; Rasmussen and Starrett, 1989) demonstrating that significant bioaccumulation is currently occurring...."

That's a excerpt from:

Final Environmental Impact Report

Imperial Irrigation District,
May 1994

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/EIRAq...ologyFish.html

The Office of Health Hazard Assessment (the guys who put out state advisories) also put out a advisory for the Salton Sea over a decade ago. If your from the OEHHA I'd think you'd already know that., but I'm thinking maybe they are about to upgrade their advisory since it's not all that current.

Speaking of the OEHHA someone told me that they now have put out new general guidelines recommending that people have only one meal a week of most California freshwater fish and some of the larger fish like Large Trout, Bass and Striped Bass should not be consumed by women or children at all.

Know anything about that?

Maybe it's a Fukishima problem (that's a joke)

As to fishing: the only guys I know of that fish the rivers fish them for flatheads, all catch and release, and they know better then to eat them. Some people do eat Tilapia out of the Salton Sea, but I'd pass on them as well.

[Squid Vicious]

.....I'll pass....

[bubblehide]

So lets get this right. Your not studying the fish themselves. Your not looking at any toxicity levels in the fish, right? What your really trying to study is who and how many people are fishing these waters, along with what and how much they are catching, right? Yet your trying to make it sound like your studying the toxicity levels of the fish for advisory standards, right?

Well I've done some research myself, as I recall, I have the legal right to know who you are, who your supervised by, if you have a supervisor? What research agencies, colleges, universities... your associated with, and their respective departments, along with contact person information in each agencies research department. And, who(s) funding the research?

Additionally, Since you've already designed your study, I'd like a copy of your methods section, you can post it here, or PM it to me.

[makobob]

Jeff, you state this is a Fish Tissue study. So what tissue samples do you need and from which species? How big of a tissue sample is needed and from which area of said fish. Where do you need to have samples sent and how? When would you like to start recieving samples?