Great Lakes Fishing

PFAS/PFOS in the Great Lakes

1/18/23 @ 9:12 PM
Knot so hot
Knot so hot
User since 1/28/11


After further review….I’ll be limiting my consumption of whitefish,walleye, and salmon from Lake Michigan. Is this concerning to anyone else? 

Displaying 16 to 30 of 35 posts
1/25/23 @ 2:45 PM
User since 4/1/05

"PFAS in game fish is the consolation prize for those who vote republican. The GOP refuses to take action or to permit DNR to take action on PFAS in groundwater."

Brilliant comment!  I guess the GOP are the only ones that have joined fire departments and used foam, and the GOP is responsible for putting it into my lipstick.  Better throw out your shampoo and cook over the fire pit!  I blame Donald Trump!

1/25/23 @ 1:59 PM
PRO MEMBER User since 6/22/01

First it was PCB's in the fish out on Green Bay, now PFA's.  Living in the Madison area for the past 20 years, PFA's were discovered in Lake Monona around a decade ago, maybe a little less, from a creek that runs into the lake.  Now they've discovered it in all of the Madison lakes, though highest in Monona and even higher in the creek that flows into it that collects water from the airport (using a fire retardant) and the technical college (using the same stuff in their training).  Stay within the guidlines, don't eat fish every day and the amount of the "forever chemicals" being consumed is likely WAY less than the amount you're consuming by cooking on a non-stick pan, using spray oil, eating microwave popcorn, the list goes on and on with stuff that contains PFA's that we consume every day!  So am I going to stop eating fish from the Great Lakes and the Madison Chain of lakes?  Nope!

1/22/23 @ 11:39 PM
User since 2/16/17


Your statements are ridiculous as usual. PFAS have been around forever and are everywhere.  Regulators having issues agreeing on approved methods to test for them and at what levels they are harmful. Do you propose just throwing limits out there for groundwater or fish that have no science or rationale behind them.? Testing at very low levels that can difficult to quantify. What do you propose to clean them up if they are everywhere and have been there for a long time? Do you propose MMSD stop accepting any wastewater or discharging into Lake Michigan.? Just like PCBs and mercury were going to kill you so are PFAS.  You likely have been eating them for decades. I am will to bet they can be found in a lot of commercially produced foods 

1/21/23 @ 9:19 PM
User since 7/3/01

PFAS in game fish is the consolation prize for those who vote republican. 

The GOP refuses to take action or to permit DNR to take action on PFAS in groundwater.

1/21/23 @ 7:34 PM
Mendota Jim
User since 7/1/02

From the Yahoo article in this thread (copied and pasted):

  • In Lake Michigan near Milwaukee, a Coho salmon harvested in 2010 showed 19,000 parts per trillion of PFOS, while a lake trout harvested the same year from Lake Superior near Superior showed 21,000 parts per trillion of PFOS.

From the WDNR 2021 news release in this thread (copied and pasted):

The DNR also received sample results from bloater chub, cisco/lake herring, lake whitefish, lake trout, and siscowet lake trout in Lake Superior and crappie, yellow perch, channel catfish, carp, northern pike, walleye, and musky from the St. Louis River. The PFOS levels found in those fish do not warrant a consumption advisory change at this time.

Currently, the DNR and DHS are unaware of any other PFAS-based consumption advisories for other fish species in the Great Lakes.

1/21/23 @ 7:18 PM
User since 10/3/12

Nothing wrong with anything I posted, much of it factual. More factual than what a paid journalist puts out. When the molecule was put into production 80 years ago it was known as a forever chemical. In the 1960s an 1970s PFAS related chemicals were suspected of causing several issues in the human body.. That was reported in mainstream news at the time, When a forever chemical is used it will in all probabiliy find its way into the environment and living organisms. 

1/21/23 @ 2:42 PM
User since 6/19/01

 river_chaser says

My point is hysterical fiction is not news,

If your point was that news can be hyperbolic, and half the people are below average, you should have stated that.  What I read is that you didn't believe there was anything new on PFAS, and we shouldn't be concerned anyway (unless it was in our food and water [shrug]).

The fact that PFAS IS being found in both our food, and many WI water sources IS newsworthy, particularly to those directly affected.  I'm also pleased that attention is being brought to the subject through coverage, and that large corporations who have polluted/poisoned our commonly held natural resources in search of private profits may be held accountable.

1/21/23 @ 12:39 PM
User since 10/25/16

If you are concerned about this, there is a great way to reduce your PFAS/PFOS levels. Donate blood! I used to donate often, but stopped. I'm thinking I'll start donating again, and I'll keep eating fish!


1/21/23 @ 11:03 AM
User since 10/3/12

double post?

1/21/23 @ 10:50 AM
User since 10/3/12

My point is hysterical fiction is not news, it breeds ignorance and shows how illiterate people can be if they so choose.  Its probably easier if I just agree that a certain portion of people dont understand raw facts so hysteria has to be plastered into the articles to get people interested in the articles.  I do have a hard time agreeing with that style of "news" since it breeds more ignorance.

1/21/23 @ 9:56 AM
User since 6/19/01

river_chaser says:

True it shouldtn be in our water or food but there is no new knowledge here and suddenly its plastered all over the news with hysterical news commentary.

Perhaps its because PFAS/PFOS ARE being found in our water sources, nearly every type tested, and now in our food sources.  Would you consider that "new knowledge" and perhaps even newsworthy?

1/20/23 @ 2:46 PM
User since 1/16/22

Additional: sorry for blurred print. This article states ppt or parts per trillion. The study looks legit And does have their study results.I’ve believed our fish are compromised for many years but still eat them. The fishing industry is huge and the dollars supports our waters. These chemicals are so unfortunate but how do you ignore them and then think its safe to eat fish regularly or cook up for family? 

1/20/23 @ 1:57 PM
User since 1/16/22

Absolutely concerning. Us old guys too late but for moms, kids and grandkids definitely something to notice. younger fish, very selective harvest and a much lower consumption, and I fish mostly the Mississippi River. I think many interior lakes are less affected, imo. 

1/20/23 @ 12:55 PM
User since 10/3/12

Curious why the sudden explosion in the media in PFAS bordering on more media hysteria.  PFAs have been around since the 1940s and mostly were not known to the public until 10 years ago.  Theyve been known as a forever chemical since they were invented, Being a forever chemical is not a new discovery.  True it shouldtn be in our water or food but there is no new knowledge here and suddenly its plastered all over the news with hysterical news commentary.
From CNN interview of a scientist **“You’d have to drink an incredible amount of water — we estimate a month of contaminated water — to get the same exposure as you would from a single serving of freshwater fish,” Andrews said. **
Thats a quote from a senior scientist of an environmental group. Yet no science is cited as to what harm has been caused to people who consume that one serving of fish or even people who eat fish every week. 
Talking about dumbing down the information. Another news source, this one being a newspaper has the headline Fish Full of Forever Chemicals.  If we a are tallking about science lets do so in terms of being educated like parts per million. Saying a fish is full of chemicals is like a 3rd grader saying her teacher is full of cr_p. Hardly factual and doesnt convey any serious knowledge of the subject on behalf of the articles author. 

1/19/23 @ 6:16 PM
Fish Hound
User since 1/29/02

The article talks about fish sampled in 2010 being high in count, then they say samples later taken from 2013 and 2015 are lower.

Are you really worried about a study with results from 12 years ago that the results had been trending down since then but the most recent information is still 7 years ago?

Displaying 16 to 30 of 35 posts
Copyright © 2001-2023 Lake-Link Inc. All rights reserved.
No portion of this website can be used or distributed without prior written consent of Lake-Link, Inc.
This website may contain affiliate links, meaning when you click the links and make a purchase, we may receive a small commission.
Lake-Link Home
fishing geared up by