Hacker News Reader

Comment by BruceEel | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com