Is This Safe To Eat? What We Learned About the Fish Consumption Warning.

This week on the Montana Outdoor Podcast your host Downrigger Dale talks with a panel of experts to go over the latest fish consumption warnings that were issued by the FWP, Montana DEQ and the Department of Health and Humane services. When that press release about the fish consumption warnings came out back in late April Rigger called his buddy Greg Lemon at the FWP. Greg was able to get a date set when three experts from the Department of Health and Human Services, DEQ and the FWP could all get together and come on the podcast. Rigger and the Captain had received lots of emails from folks that were concerned about consuming the fish that they were catching. After all, the headline of the press release said, “DATA INDICATES FISH CAUGHT IN SOME MONTANA WATERBODIES MAY CONTAIN DETECTABLE LEVELS OF THE MAN-MADE POLLUTANTS KNOWN AS PFAS”. PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. What are those? The experts on podcast will explain it way better than we can, all we know is that they are not good for you if you eat a lot of them. As Rigger put it after he had heard that one of the fish mentioned was Walleye; “The headline alone was enough to scare the P-FAS out of me that is for sure! Especially since my health has not been the best lately and I love to eat Walleye!”. That is why he wanted to get the facts directly from the experts. And that is exactly what you will get when you watch or listen to this podcast, especially if you are one of the folks that had heard about it like Rigger and got pretty darn concerned. So here is what we recommend. First, watch or listen to the podcast as it gives some great information that we are sure will make you feel a lot better when you get the facts from the experts that Rigger has on this week’s podcast. If you want to get even more info there are some links below that will give you some great info as well, however you will probably understand that info better if you watch or listen to the podcast first. Also, there are links to take you straight to the emails of the experts on the podcast as well, if you want to ask them questions directly. Bottomline; Montana basically has cleanest fish and water in the country! That said, there are recommendations that you should follow especially for women that are pregnant or for younger kids. So, watch or listen to this podcast to get great info and help you find the details you need!

Links:

•  Click here to read the press release that came a while back.
• One of the experts on the podcast is Trevor Selch who is a Fisheries Pollution Biologist with the FWP, and he gave us a copy of the Montana Sport Fish Consumption Guidelines which is full of great info. Click here to look that over.
  • Click here to email Trevor with you questions.
• Another expert on the podcast is Andy Ulven. He is the Water Quality Planning Bureau Chief with the Montana DEQ. And here are the links to some publications that will also give you lots more info about what is being done about all this.
  • Montana’s 2020 PFAS Action Plan
  • 2024 Action Plan Progress Report
  • 2023 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Fish Tissue and Surface Water Report
  • If you have questions for Andy, click here to email him.
• Dawn Nelson was another expert on the podcast who was also very helpful. She is a Toxicology & Environmental Public Health Supervisor with the Montana Department of Public Health & Human Services. She said you are welcome to click here to email herwith any questions you have.
• Questions for Rigger? He would love to hear from you, just click here to email him! 

Transcript

SPEAKER_04 0:00

I want to address something that has many of you I mean bunches of you have emailed me and asked about a press release that came out and and there were, you know, various local TV stations, radio stations, and that all around Montana and that that talked about some um uh toxic stuff that might be in some of our fish. Uh and so there was a a um uh a warning that came out uh about you know, these are some of the fish that you may not want to consume or don't consume a lot of them. We're gonna go through all that. But what the purpose of this is is to clear all that up for you folks, so that and I got a lot of your questions from your emails, so uh those will be most you probably recognize a lot of these questions uh because uh they're mostly all from from you out there that that view it. So we're gonna get into all that, and I think this'll put you at ease for those of you that were a little concerned. I think this will put you at ease, and for the rest of you that were confused, like me, uh, this should clear up a lot of your confusion too. So we're gonna do all that next.

SPEAKER_00 1:14

The Montana Outdoor Podcast is brought to you by Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer, home of boss snow plows and accessories. And Diamond C trailers and accessories. Go to rmtte.com and see everything they have waiting for you online. Or just come by 5680 Expressway in Missoula and buy Superior Hardwoods of Montana, delivering the highest quality lumber, paneling, flooring, and reclaimed wood products anywhere in North America. Let them guide you through the woods at their showroom in Missoula on Highway 93 South or at superior-hardwoods.com.

SPEAKER_04 1:54

Roger, I appreciate you for the wonderful introduction as you always do. Before we get into our topic, which is a big topic, so many of you have emailed me on. I want to welcome in a couple groups that join us a lot on this program. First is our active military. We have active military members from bases, ships, and even planes all around the world that like to watch this podcast. And we are honored to have you as part of our family. So thank you very much. Thank you for what you're doing. I know, especially right now, a lot of you are doing some rather dangerous work right now. And we just want you to know that we're thinking about you. You're in our prayers, we love you, and a lot of us miss you a whole bunch. Can't wait for you to get home. So be careful out there and thanks so much for watching and listening. Also, our veterans around the state of Montana and around the rest of the country. Thank you so much for being part of our podcast as well. Uh, and part of our family. Thank you for your service, including my daughter, who's also a veteran. Thank you, my dear, and we'll see you soon. So, uh, the rest of you, hey, uh, one quick thing, if you wouldn't mind, be sure to share, like, and subscribe to our podcast. That helps us out a lot, especially on places like YouTube and Apple Podcasts, and all well, there's 25 of different sites around the world that uh that are part of our podcast. Now, uh with regular viewers and listeners in over 2,000 cities and over 80 countries around the world. So, welcome all of you, and thanks for being part of this. And can't wait to see you next time you're here in Montana. Now, let's get into the topic at hand. And this was a press release that came out through DEQ and FWP and that. It says data indicates fish caught in some of Montana's water bodies may contain detectable levels of the man-made pollutants known as PFAS. Now, a lot of you read that and they went, whoa, whoa, wait a minute now. Uh so am I not supposed to eat any of the fish I catch anymore in Montana? What's going on? And we got all these questions that started coming out, and so I said, okay, wait a minute, no one panic. First, I'm gonna get a hold of my friend Greg Landman at the FWP, and he will get me some experts to come on. And that's who you're looking at right now on your screen, are three great experts. I'm gonna have them introduce themselves now, and then I'm gonna ask each of them to just give you a little background on what they do, just so you know who we're talking to, and then I'm gonna get into your questions. So let's see, we'll just start with you, Trevor. Go ahead and and introduce who you are and and that, and then we'll just kind of go around the room here.

SPEAKER_03 4:42

Sure. Yeah, my name is Trevor Selch. I'm the fisheries pollution biologist with Fishwild Life and Parks, and I'm based out of Helena, and I work statewide on all sorts of water quality issues, and I've been in this position with FWP since 2007.

SPEAKER_04 4:56

All right, and down below or like the Brady Bunch here. We got us all on little squares. Tell us what you do and where you're from, Don.

SPEAKER_01 5:03

Hi, everyone. My name is Don Nelson. I'm a uh toxicologist with the Department of Public Health and Human Services at the state, and I'm a supervisor for the toxicology and environmental public health section. My team um evaluates chemical exposures across the state um related to hazardous waste sites, but also just um sort of these um larger issues around fish consumption, um, if there are any um spills that that might happen, we evaluate those as well.

SPEAKER_02 5:36

All right. And Andy, how about you? Yeah, good afternoon, everyone. Uh my name is Andy Alvin. I'm the Water Quality Planning Bureau Chief with Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Uh and the Water Quality Planning Bureau really works to establish water quality standards to measure data against to determine if water bodies are impaired or not. And then we provide recommendations on how to meet meet water quality standards and uh improve water quality overall. And I'm based here in Eleanor.

SPEAKER_04 6:06

Awesome. Thank you all for being here. Uh, it really means a lot to all of us here. That it's uh just wonderful to have you here. And and I know this is gonna do us all some real good in in getting some questions answered. So let's start with the first question, uh, which is what are PFAS substances? And do you know how they got into our water? Who would like to take that one?

SPEAKER_02 6:32

Yeah, I'll I'll start off with that one. So uh per and polyfluoral alkyl substances, uh more commonly referred to as PFAS or PFOS, depending on how you uh like to pronounce it, they're really a group of man-made chemicals. There's thousands of different individual chemical combinations. Um, and two of the most common of those that you may have heard of are PFOA or PFOA and PFOS or PFOS. Um so those have really been manufactured in the United States and across the world uh since the 1940s, is really when they were first introduced, uh, with much more use uh across the the the remaining parts of the 20th century. Um and as far as how they got into our waters, you know, there's not a conclusive single source by any means. There's been some earlier studies in Montana and across the country indicating that PFOS may be entering surface waters through, you know, sources like stormwater runoff, industrial and municipal wastewater, landfills, use using biosolids for fertilizers, um, firefighting foams, and even atmospheric deposition. So coming down in the rainfall and in dust as well. So it's kind of coming from a variety of sources.

SPEAKER_04 7:53

Okay, yeah, because you know, Montana doesn't have a huge amount of manufacturing. And so I was thinking, well, where'd it go? So it it could actually be traveling from outside of Montana. Is that is am I understanding that correctly, Andy? That's right.

SPEAKER_02 8:06

I there's a lot of products. Um, you may have heard of, you know, things like Teflon, uh nonstick cookware. Uh there's carpets that contain like Scotchcard and different uh stain-resistant materials, Gore-Tex. There's a lot of uh household products that that actually contain it. So it it becomes part of our consumer system. It's in our waste streams, it's in our trash, it's in our our our you know what we flush down the toilet as well. It's it's kind of it's within us and and in all the things that we're using.

SPEAKER_04 8:37

Yeah, and I I think this is the perfect time to remind people, uh, and I think this will shed a lot of light on of why don't throw anything in our waterways. I mean, really, don't do it because some stuff that you might just think is harmful, may you know, harmless, you know, maybe it blew out out of your boat as you're going along and you think, ah, well, don't worry about go back and get it, please. Uh let's let's try to be real careful with this stuff because you never know. So we if we all do our part, that that could help, I would assume. Um is there a way to remove this stuff from our waterways? Is that possible? Who wants to take that?

SPEAKER_02 9:18

I'm gonna take that as well, and then and then I'll kick it around uh more to the other folks here. Um so the simple answer is is there is no easy way to remove PFOS from a waterway once they get there. Really, really, what we're looking at is you know, the best option is reducing PFOS transport and controlling the sources. So treating or containing contaminated sites, if we're aware of uh of the source, um, that's really really the key to this. Um removing PFOS from drinking water. So if there's a public water supply, like a water intake from a surface water or groundwater, there's testing infiltration and additional treatment systems that can be implemented to ensure the water that comes out of your sink or the tap in your house is safe to drink. Um but it as far as removing it from ambient, you know, free-flowing waters and lakes, it's really challenging to do. Pretty tough to do. Okay.

SPEAKER_04 10:14

All right. Um so is uh maybe you guys could go over the the types of fish and the waterways that we really need to watch out for that have been that you've identified as being affected the most.

SPEAKER_03 10:30

Yeah, this is Trevor Sellsworth, Fishwell Ivan Park. So I can I can kind of cover that. You know, for for this PFOS study, um, it's kind of important to understand that this wasn't the random sampling event. Um, we targeted waterways that had previous PFOS detections in water, you know, waterways that were you know kind of near known sources, you know, we wanted to cover major drainages, you know, real popular fisheries that people utilize a lot. Um, and then just looking at fish species and sizes that would likely contain PFAS. So we really did target kind of larger, older individuals, you know, that would likely have a lot more time to accumulate those. And so um, you know, based on the literature, you know, a higher trophic level, and by that just means usually a fish that's you know primarily eating other fish, um, they're expected to, and bottom feeders, you know, higher trophic level bottom feeders expected to accumulate a lot of PFOS. Um, so in Montana, you know, the typical fish that we think of would be maybe the channel catfish would fit that description. But um, in our sampling, we actually didn't find that where we did sample channel catfish, Fort Peck, um, the Missouri River, the Yellowstone River, they actually had, you know, quite a bit lower concentrations than some other species. So that that was a little surprising. Um, but you know, overall, we targeted a whole lot of different species. We we looked at northern pike, walleye, channel catfish, um brown trout, which you know are highly preciverous, especially once they get to a certain size. We looked at rainbow trout, uh, mountain whitefish, uh, smallmouth bass, and yellow perch. So we really covered a large variety. And of course, you know, not all those were in every water body, as we know, um, where those are different, differently located based on thermal preferences and habitat. But um, and then as far as the drainages that we covered, you know, we were kind of all over, you know, covered the major drainages in Montana, you know, starting in the Missouri River drainage, you know, we started all the way up in the East Gallatin River there and near Bozeman. Uh, we covered Prickly Pearl Creek here in the Helena Valley, which flows into Lake Helena. We we sampled Lake Helena. And then on the Missouri River, we sampled some um impoundments there in Great Falls, Rainbow Dam, Cochrane to Morodi Dam. And then we sampled uh Judith Landing down to Crooked Creek on the Missouri, flowing into Fort Peck Reservoir. Um, obviously, we sampled Fort Peck Reservoir as well. Uh, we sampled Nelson Reservoir, which is you know up there in our FWP region six. Um, over in region one, we sampled um the Flathead River as well as Flathead Lake. And both of those samples actually came back non-detect for PFOS, which was surprising. I don't know that any fish samples even taken nationwide have had non-detects in there in fish samples. Um and then down in region two, we sampled the Clark Fork River, kind of down, you know, in the Missoula area and downstream. Um, then we sampled over in region five, we sampled the Yellowstone um near Billings. And so it really covered, you know, a large portion of the of the state. As far as you know, the the individuals that had the highest concentrations that we found, those came out of Cochrane Reservoir, some northern pike there, as well as some walleye. Um, Fort Peck, you know, our larger walleye, those 22 to 26, and then 26 to 30 inch walleye, which are extremely large walleye. Although if you fish Fort Peck, they'll they're they seem to be more common than other places in the package. Yeah. Um the Yellowstone River. Um, this was a surprising one. We sampled channel catfish there, but they actually found it ended up being really low. And the mountain whitefish had some of the highest concentrations there, along with with smallmouth bass. And so um, those are kind of the the general areas that the study kind of looked at, um, and you know, really covering a large portion of the state.

SPEAKER_04 14:02

What about some of those, you know, the real big fish that live a long time, like paddle fish or sturgeon, anything like that? Um, did you find anything in those or did you test those?

SPEAKER_03 14:13

Um, we did not test those specifically. One unique thing that we we did in this study, um, there was a study on blue suckers um going on in the upper Missouri, just upstream of Fort Peck. And they were going to actually have to, you know, um sacrifice some of those individuals as part of their study to look at um a number of things, including their inner ear bones to age them, the odolus. And so we wanted to take this because this PFOS study was actually happening at the same time, we wanted to utilize as much as we could. And so these are really, these are bottom feeding, you know, lower trophic level um species, but fish that are really long-lived. And so we wanted to see if if the PFOS would would be really high in them. And so we did sample them. They were actually more moderate to low, actually, we found in them. And so while we didn't sample paddle fish or anything like that, you know, it's a it's a lower trophic level um, you know, feeder that's kind of long-lived in that same general area. So that would probably be the best surrogate for that um that we have right now.

SPEAKER_04 15:10

Okay. So if I'm understanding this right, uh pike, walleye, um, what were the other ones that would be the most common that would probably have this in them?

SPEAKER_03 15:21

Yeah, I mean, northern, I mean, smallmouth bass, you know, northern pike, walleye, um, you know, some larger brown trout as well. I mean, and and channel catfish, like I said, are expected to be there, but we didn't see as high concentrations as we were expecting in them. Um, but yeah, those are kind of your typical, you're you're any kind of predator that you that kind of eats other fish, you know, and then larger individuals are are are typically what we'd we'd find it.

SPEAKER_04 15:46

So are there any types of fish that we should not eat at all? Just just throw them back, do not eat them. And if so, what waterways would they be in that we should just stay away from, if at all?

SPEAKER_03 15:59

Sure. Yeah, so I mean, so we have consumption advisories. I mean, we're talking kind of on the on the PFOS topic today because that's that's kind of the new thing that came out. But you know, we've been sampling um, you know, contaminants and fish for fish consumption advisories since the 90s. And the primary primary uh contaminant is typically mercury. Mercury is a global pollutant that kind of lands everywhere. It accumulates basically in every fish, um, whether it's even detectable or not. Um, and so you know, for our consumption guidelines, we have two consumer groups. We have women of childbearing age and and children, which is ages six and younger. And then we kind of have an other adults group, you know, that are less sensitive. And so um the you know, that first group obviously is a little more conservative as far as that goes. But um, based on the PFOS sampling, there's actually no advisory to completely you know avoid consumption in either one of those groups. In fact, the most restrictive advisory was for the women and children, obviously, um, is for one meal per month in those really large 22 to 26 inch walleye in Fort Peck. Um, but how what's interesting though is that there was already an avoid advisory in place for mercury for Fort Peck for those same consumer groups for the, you know, for for walleye. And so the PFOS advisory that came out really didn't change that. And so, um, in fact, you know, the only areas where PFOS actually created a new advisory, you know, across the entire state were species and size groups that we had never previously sampled for any contaminants, uh, like mercury, for example. And so my guess is if we did sample for mercury in those, um, it would more likely be more you know stringent than the PFOS PFOS guidance was. And so um, the PFOS really didn't really didn't move the needle on fish consumption much in the entire state. Okay.

SPEAKER_04 17:45

So that's good news that you know we it's okay to to eat them, but if you fit some of those categories, you know, be be super careful. But that's good news, and and that was a big question. That was a lot of people were were asking about that. Um, so uh my next question was are there types of fish we should only eat certain amounts of? But it sounds like we kind of answered that. Um, I think.

SPEAKER_03 18:10

Yeah, I mean, in general, you know, your top-level predators, you know, fish that eat other fish are typically going to have the most contaminants across the board again. So your larger walleye, northern pike, your lake trout, um, smallmouth bass, brown trout. Um, for you know, for water bodies statewide, and this is getting you know outside of PFOS for, yeah, we're getting into more of the mercury stuff, but you know, we do have water bodies that have pretty high levels of mercury in them in the fish species. And those are you know, typically in your larger top-level predators again, but like Bighorn Reservoir, you know, has really high concentrations in the larger individuals for brown trout, um, channel catfish, walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass. Um, in 2020, we actually listed the Clark Fork River from the bitter root to the flathead for dioxins, furans, coplanar PCBs. And that was obviously a really big deal from sampling that was conducted down there. And then kind of further down on the Clark Fork, you know, those lower Clark Fork reservoirs, Noxin and Cabinet Gorge, um, they've got some elevated concentrations of mercury in fish as well for the northern pike, smallmouth bass and walleye. And then up kind of in the north central area, Tiber Reservoir in the northern pike and walleye have pretty high concentrations of mercury. And again, that's really in those, in those um larger individuals. You know, for if we use walleye as an example, you know, that I always kind of look at all the data and that 20-inch threshold seems to really play no matter what water body you're in. So if you keep those those walleye under 20 inches, that's a good, you know, good eaters, eater size. Once they get beyond that, their growth really slows down. They seem to really pack on that mercury. Um, so I know people like to target target walleye in the state. But um, you know, if you go to our website, you know, fdip.mt.gov, you know, we have a fish tab at the top. And if you scroll down to the additional angling resources, we have a PDF that contains all of the fish consumption advisory that's in the state. And that's literally thousands of species and size groups in there listed um that you can look up your specific water body. And if you're if the uh if it's if your water body is not listed in there, there's kind of general guidance as well as well, just to kind of shoot for as far as size and species to target.

SPEAKER_04 20:20

So yeah, if you could if you could send me that, um that would be great. And then uh I'll get that in the podcast description so all of our viewers will be able to pull that up and and look at it. That would be great. Now uh we're gonna talk a bit about uh if there are certain health conditions that people might have that could, you know, possibly make you a little more susceptible. You know, for example, for me, I have severe rheumatoid arthritis. So I am in a I'm always immune compromised. Would would that be something like that? We're gonna talk about that and several more of your questions right after this. Over the years, you've heard me talk a lot about Superior Hardwoods of Montana. Yeah, I've talked a great deal about their incredible reclaimed wood from old barns, green elevators, old homesteads, even an old log flume zigzagging down a mountainside in Montana. If there's an amazing piece of wood that can be reclaimed and turned into an unbelievable, one of a kind wood floor, paneling, or well, just about anything, Superior Hardwoods of Montana has found it, created it, and showed all of us right there online at superior-hardwoods.com. They truly are artists that just happen to use wood as their canvas. And yes, I've also talked about their amazing ability to find some of the most unbelievable exotic woods from all over the world. I was asked the other day if Superior Hardwoods of Montana ever just sold no. Normal wood floors or paneling? Or do they only sell wood products that are incredible and unusual? I had to stop and think about that question for a minute. No, not because I could not think of a case where Superior Hardwoods of Montana sold just some usual nice looking flooring or paneling. They do that a lot. I had to think about it because the folks at Superior Hardwoods of Montana make really any piece of wood incredible and unusual. Simply because you will not find any, let me say that again, you will not find any place on earth that cares more about what they sell than Superior Hardwoods of Montana. I guess that's why they've been in business since 1977. It's a a passion of everyone at Superior Hardwoods of Montana. I know that because I've known these folks for, well, most of the 65 years that I've been around. So believe me when I say at Superior Hardwoods of Montana, they absolutely cannot wait to guide you through the woods. Go see them next time you're in Missoula, or why not go see them right now at superior-hardwoods.com. Superior Hardwoods of Montana. Go see them. Back here on the Montana Outdoor Podcast, we are talking with three great experts. Thank you all for being on with us. And uh they are giving us some great information about uh this press release that came out uh throughout the media and all that talking about PFAS substances and fish and some warnings there. Um, this is a podcast you should probably save uh so you can go back through it, especially if you've got other family members that have stated some concerns. This would be a good podcast to save uh and go ahead and play that for other family members, just so everybody gets a good clear understanding of what it is. So, on that question of are there any health conditions that people, for example, like me that are immune compromised, are are the things like that that make us more susceptible, or is that really involved at all?

SPEAKER_01 24:11

Yeah, I'll take this one. Who would like to do that? Yeah, I have Don Nelson, I'm a toxicologist with the state. Um, so the really the conditions that we are most concerned about would be um women who are pregnant, um, who may become pregnant or breastfeeding, um, infants, young children. These groups of people are particularly sensitive to contaminants, just in general, especially those that can cause neurodevelopmental effects. Um, you know, like mercury has that issue. There are some developmental concerns with PFAS at higher levels. And so um, those are kind of the conditions in terms of um medical, other medical conditions. I, you know, our our um state, our agency really recommends that people talk to their doctor about that. Um, because I, you know, there are groups of people who may particular, you know, may have um high immunocompromised um conditions, maybe some other conditions that may make them more sensitive to contaminants in general, not just PFAS. And so that I would just really highly recommend talking to your doctor. I also want to point out that um consuming fish has really um health benefits, and there's key nutrients in fish, right? That the the some of the health effects that we're concerned about with PFAS, there's a balance with eating enough fish. Um, and there's lots of research showing that um it can help some of these health effects or these health problems or health conditions that people have. And particularly with um brain development, uh growth in children, some of those nutrients and fish are really, really important for that.

SPEAKER_04 25:57

Okay. Yeah, in fact, my doctor, um my cardiologist is always on me about um eating, you know, more fish and things like that in my diet. And and I love to catch fish, but I'm not a big fish eater. And so I I had mentioned this and said, see, I I probably shouldn't eat that. He goes, Well, give me some information on that.

SPEAKER_01 26:17

I don't think and I did, and he said, You're okay, you can eat the well and I think it's important too to you know, just like any other food, I feel like it's important to to eat in moderation, eat a variety of fish and and from different sources. So not just one water body, not just one species, not just one size. Um, so important to kind of vary your diet.

SPEAKER_04 26:41

Now, one question I got a lot from people is you know, uh uh most all of our viewers and listeners that catch fish, you know, they they clean their own fish. And they said, is there a way I can tell if if a fish has these contaminants in it? Does it is there something to look for? Uh who wants to take that one?

SPEAKER_01 27:02

I okay why don't you start, Trevor, and then I'll jump in.

SPEAKER_03 27:07

Okay. Yeah, I mean, I can it's Trevor with Fishwell and Parks. I can, you know, the short answer is, you know, you can't tell with with basically any of these contaminants that we measure for fish consumption advisories, the the fish will look completely healthy. Um, it's not like you know, stressors that result in fish kills, for example, you know, high high temperature dissolved oxygen, you know, ammonia nitrogen or something, um, dissolved metals from from a mine added or something where the fish might show visual signs of stress when you're when you're seeing them in the water or you capture them or whatnot. Um, or or disease, you know, once example. These types of contaminants typically um they might have some effects on the fish or reproduction, or for example, but when you when you catch them, you know, I've I've handled a lot of fish that are, you know, really high concentrations of mercury or other contaminants, and they look perfectly healthy.

SPEAKER_04 27:56

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 27:56

Don, go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 27:57

Yeah, I was just gonna add that um I'm not aware of any testing of fish. And I think it would be really difficult to actually do given the complexity of sampling, analysis, um, processing the fish. It's it's just a lot of work, and there's a lot of things that we have to watch for because PFAS is in so many different products that those products can then contaminate the fish when you're you know, when you're doing your work. So um I, you know, it it's not really a viable option right now. You know, perhaps in the future somebody will come up with some innovation. But at this point, yeah. And I again just pointing people to the fish consumption guidelines because the sampling analyses that were conducted for that study were conducted according to a ri rigorous process and procedure.

SPEAKER_04 28:49

Now, um has anyone that you guys know of become like really sick or or died from this in Montana?

SPEAKER_01 28:58

I'll I'll take that one. Don Nelson, toxicologist. So I am not aware of anything related to PFAS. Um, Montana State does not collect data on illnesses related to eating fish with contaminants. So not aware, haven't heard any stories. Um, I have heard some mercury concerns and issues, but not PFAS.

SPEAKER_04 29:22

Okay. All right. Uh, and of course, you know, with COVID that came out and all that, pretty soon all of us were doing our own testing at home. Or that is there any way to do that with for to test ourselves?

SPEAKER_01 29:35

To test our blood. So um you can talk to your doctor about that. There is a way to test for blood or uh PFAS in blood. Um, it is um really a snapshot of recent exposure. And I think it's harder to say long-term exposure with the blood, but definitely, you know, if you're interested and you're concerned, um, talk to your doctor.

SPEAKER_04 30:01

Okay. All right. Well, there you go, folks. And that was one uh some folks kind of assumed might be out there, given that we seem to be able to test for about anything nowadays. I know my doctors test me for all kinds of stuff since I don't have a great immune system. So uh okay, well, good good to know that. Um how about is there a certain way that a person could cook fish that would maybe reduce this this contaminant or something like that, or is that even possible?

SPEAKER_01 30:36

I'll take that. Um so yeah, cooking can reduce PFAS and fish. Um so it depends on the cooking time, the amount of cooking oil or water. Um, and I'll talk about the different ways of cooking. Um, and then the types of PFAS. So shorter chains tend to be a little better and easier to get rid of. Um, those three factors have the biggest impact on the changes in concentrations. Um, but I also will just sort of cameo at that, that it's completely eliminating PFAS is difficult to do, but we can take some actions to reduce it significantly. So um so in reviewing, I kind of did some a little bit of research on um three cooking methods. So boiling, frying, and baking. Avoid boiling appears to be the best option of the three, and deep frying also seems to be better than baking. Um, studies have shown that boiling fish in generous amounts of water or um of water releases the PFAS into the water, um, and then you would dump the water. So um it is kind of purges out of there a certain amount. Um, and one study showed that um if somebody cooked uh their fish in like half a liter, 16 ounces of water, um it reduced the PFAS concentrations by about 55%. And then um, if somebody had uh it added um a lot more water, like two and a half gallons, that resulted in almost 90% less of PFAS in their fish. So um, so there, you know, there is way. I don't know if boiling is the most um delectable way of doing it, but um, and then uh you know, there's some mixed results around talking about um frying, but I did find some studies that show deep frying um in oil um can do can also decrease PFAS concentrations for the same reasons where PFAS comes out of the fish into the oil. Um, and of course, you couldn't reuse the oil. You would want to get rid of that oil. And I know people like, you know, fry fish in the same oil over and over. So that's a little tricky. You could add some PFAS and actually concentrate it in your fish if you were to use the same um oil. And then um, like I said before, studies are showing sort of mixed results around baking. Um, so one early study had showed there's a reduction, but more current research is showing that baking can actually increase PFAS concentrations. Um and then um if you grill, so one of the things to do is to um most of the PFAS or a lot of the PFAS is in the fat and skin. So removing the skin, removing the fat. Um, and then if if somebody wanted to grill it um or even bake it, you could do it on a on a um a grill or a rack. And then it um over the whatever fat is left could drip out and the PFAS could go with that. So there's more PFAS showing up in whole fish because of the fat and skin in the organs. PFAS also tends to accumulate in organs. Um, so filet is the least amount. Um trying to think if there's some other uh oh, and then cooking time also matters. So um 10 minutes on average, like 10 minutes of cooking reduced PFAS by about 32%. Um, whereas 25% or 25 minutes reduced it by 80%. So, you know, so there's a lot of different factors, and there's definitely ways um to reduce our PFAS.

SPEAKER_04 34:20

Well, my favorite fish to eat is walleye, and I love it deep fried, so that's good news for me. Um but um how about as far as uh the the different parts of fish? You were mentioning the fat and those things. Is there is there certain parts of the fish you should just not uh eat? I know some people do weird stuff like you know, eat the cheeks of walleye and things like that. Is there any parts of fish we should stay away from uh in addition to obviously fat? Let's not put a piece eat consume a piece of fish fat for sure, but what else?

SPEAKER_01 35:02

That's a good question. Um, you know, I don't know the full answer on that. Um, I would also say with the you know, cooking and how to prepare fish, there's ongoing research on this. So the one that I had kind of quoted was a very recent study. Um so we're just constantly night I would certainly recommend people, you know, we have it's so easy to do their your own research now um online and you know, trying to stay up with what's happening um and what's you know, the information on PFAS. Um, I think organs in general tend to accumulate more contaminants, um, not even just PFAS, other things. And they're also some of these um biophilic like dioxins and PCBs, um, PFAS tend to stay in the fat more than the muscle tissue.

SPEAKER_04 35:55

Okay. All right. Well, that's some good information for us. Um, we're gonna take one more quick break, and then when we come back, we will talk about uh where these levels are at now. Have they increased in our environment? Have they decreased over the years? We'll find out about that, and then we'll kind of start to wrap things up here and get some final thoughts from our our great panel that we have here. That's next. They would not be a podcast if it weren't for the support of great Montana-owned companies like Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer. So if you enjoy any of these podcasts and you happen to need a new trailer for work or hauling things on your next adventure, why not go see the folks that support what you like to do? For example, you can find right now at Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer something that all folks who love Montana's outdoors can always appreciate. And that is top-tier toughness. That's what we need here in Montana's Great Outdoors. Whether we're on the job site or the open road, headed for our favorite fishing spot. Here's what I want you to do right now. Head to Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer either the next time you're in Missoula or right now at rmte.com. Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer is your dealer for baseline equipment dump trailers. You're gonna love these. What's great about anything from Baseline is everything they make is built to work as hard as you do. Baseline is a heavy-duty, high performance trailer that hauls, dumps, and delivers no matter the load. Backed by real expertise and hometown service, you can trust. And the only place you'll find them is at Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer, there at 5680 Expressway in Missoula, or on the web at rmtte.com. As my friends at Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer put it, baseline is basics done best. And don't forget, gang, you can also find the Diamond C Single Axle PSA Trailer. PSA stands for premium single axle trailer, by the way. And I have to tell you, premium is an understatement. The Diamond C single Axle PSA has a sleek design, rock solid frame, and unbeatable performance. The PSA is your go-to for daily hauling, whether it's at the job site or at the campsite. And you guessed it, you will only find them at Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer, your local Diamond C single Axle PSA trailer dealer, right there at 5680 Expressway in Missoula. Or go see them at RMTTE.com. Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer, your workhard and play hard headquarters at rmtte.com. Back here on the Montana Outdoor Podcast, and uh got great panel here learning all about the uh the PFAS in fish, and uh I you guys have been great. This has been wonderful to really get these questions answered. Uh it's very, very helpful. So thank you again for doing that. As far as the levels go in our water, in our fish, is there any historical data that would tell us that it has increased a lot over, say, the last five years, or have we seen it decreasing? Who wants to tackle that one?

SPEAKER_02 39:33

I'll I'll jump in. This is Andy from uh DEQ again. I I would say, you know, it's generally speaking, it's difficult to compare current PFAS conditions to those in the past and and to be able to draw any meaningful comparisons or conclusions about trends. Um so we know that PFAS have been around since you know around the 1940s and and kind of increased in use over time as we as we saw things like uh you know, Gore-Tex and different carpets and uh nonstick cookware kind of come into common use. So um certainly it would appear from the the first intervention of PFAS to when they were so commonplace, there was definitely an increasing trend. But there's really no data to back that up. And the the main reason of that or for that is that public awareness and lab testing of PFAS has become is really a recent phenomenon. Um the first ETA drinking water method was actually like a laboratory method to detect, was developed in 2009. Um, and that only covered a few of these thousands of compounds. Um and then additional methods have been developed. You know, really the last five to ten years has has seen the biggest growth in lab capabilities to detect. So we so we have a pretty limited amount of time where we actually have data that we might be able to compare to. Um and we're just and we're continuing to do more sampling now, I would say, as across the country. I will note uh, you know, maybe a silver lining here. EPA recently reported that PFOS in fish tissue is actually trending lower across the country based on national random sampling. And you know, there's there's not a conclusive answer to why that might be the case, but I I would say in general, there has been less use of the substance as we've as we've learned more about the health impacts and and more about the products and the types of products that contain it. So I think I think that's one potential conclusion there. But it is really difficult to say conclusively that there are trends or not.

SPEAKER_04 41:40

Uh and I just got an email uh earlier today, as a matter of fact. Uh so I didn't get that to you guys ahead of time to do a little research on it. But uh Jade in Billings had sent me an email asking, you know, uh she said her grandparents live up on the High Line, and and several of those towns up on the High Line get their water from these reservoirs. Um Nelson, others, uh uh is that something they should be concerned about? Uh or or are they able to, in the city water side of things, able to filter any of this out?

SPEAKER_02 42:21

Yeah, so that's a good question. And and there's actually a lot more going on right now on the drinking water side of things. So there there are new rules, uh, what we refer to as max contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. So one of the first steps in that is having public water systems actually do the testing and do are they detecting it or not? And then if they based on if they detect it, then that puts them into some more more investigation and reporting that DET will assist them on. Um, and if they if they kind of like test out a bit or they don't have any any hits of PFOA or PFOS, then they they get into a little bit different reporting regimen. So that is ongoing now. And you know, really our our public water supply bureau uh staff would be the best folks to to talk to about specific public waters.

SPEAKER_04 43:14

Well, certainly I would I would hope that if they did detect it, they would let us know.

SPEAKER_02 43:18

So yeah, right. And there's a lot that goes along with that. So making sure that it's that it's an actual hit before it's well, and Jade went on to ask.

SPEAKER_04 43:32

She said that uh her grandpa's cows uh and cattle of which they eat um uh drink their water from some of these nearby waterways. Would it get into beef and stuff like that? I mean, is that a concern or that's a good question.

SPEAKER_01 43:51

And um, there have been studies that show that PFAS can get into animals that we eat. Um I'm not I I haven't looked taken a deep dive in that, but that is something that has been seen, particularly there have been studies in other states like further east, um, where um there have been issues with groundwater contamination with PS you know higher levels than we see um in other states, particularly ours. But um and then also the application of um biosolids on agricultural lands have also more and more work being done on that and looking into the impacts of applying that to our energy fields and what that would mean for potential health effects.

SPEAKER_04 44:42

Okay. All right. Uh well, I really appreciate uh all of you for what you've done today and and putting our I think you put a lot of minds at ease here as far as you know what this it really is and what it's about, what to look for in that. If people have questions, you know, after watching this this podcast, if any of our viewers or listeners do, um would that be something I could just forward on to you folks and then you could, you know, email them back? Would that be okay? Or or how do you how do you prefer that? Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 45:18

Um yeah, I I think typically questions um either go to us um directly or to our communications um offices at our different agencies.

SPEAKER_04 45:30

Okay. Would you mind if I put your emails in the podcast description to contact you? Sure.

SPEAKER_02 45:36

Yeah, that works.

SPEAKER_04 45:37

Yeah, that works. You're all that that'd be great. Okay. Well then I'll put it in there. So if you folks have questions, you know, obviously keep it to this topic, but yeah. Um, you know, yeah, don't don't try to date any of the people here or any of that. I mean, this is certainly on that. I'm kidding. Uh our our viewers are really cool, so no worries there. But anyway, uh thank you for doing that. That that's great because uh I uh I've learned a lot, but I don't know anything about this stuff. So it's great to be able to have the experts answer those those questions directly. All right, well, let's wrap it up. Anything else that any of you would like to uh say before we we head out here? Uh let's start with um with who wants to start out here.

SPEAKER_02 46:24

I can jump in. Okay. Okay. Andy from DEQ. You know, I just would like to say thank you for having us on and and emphasize the results of the study that we did are are really, you know, just that a study, and they're not representative of all Montana waters. Uh they were they were definitely intended to target places that we might expect to see PFAS uh more likely. Um so yeah, just on average to Montana's results are lower than most other states. And I think that's something that we can kind of hang our hat on. We're you know primarily a headwater state, most of the water in our state originates in the state. And we don't we didn't have that legacy of PFAS manufacturing, which which some other places have.

SPEAKER_04 47:07

How about you, Don? Anything you want to close with?

SPEAKER_01 47:10

Yeah, I guess I would just say that, you know, in general research suggests that for most people, the nutritional benefits of eating fish outweigh the risk of exposure to low levels of PFAS in fish. Um and so I think it's just really important to eat in moderation from safe sources. Um consult our fish consumption guidelines. We've put a lot of work into that, um, looking at you know, potential exposure, potential health effects, um, you know, balancing that health benefit of eating fish with uh potential for exposure. Um, and I think that that information just really allows Montanans to kind of make their choices and have it. Our goal is to provide as much information as we can for people to make good decisions.

SPEAKER_04 47:56

Great.

SPEAKER_03 47:57

Thank you, Don. Trevor, how about you? Yeah, just to even follow up on what Andy said, you know, we targeted, you know, species, water bodies, sizes, you know, that we expected to find the worst case scenarios. And, you know, even in doing that, you know, we found, I think, from what I can tell, the lowest concentrations in the country. Um, and there's only 20 other states that have even adopted fish fish consumption advisories for PFAS. So we're you know, we're even ahead of the game there. And so great. Um, yeah, we still have amazing fisheries, um, clean fisheries. Um, you know, go out and go out and enjoy Montana.

SPEAKER_04 48:29

Yeah. Well, that that is great. And it's it's good to know that we're we're uh got this out in front of us and we're we're we're tackling it. And it's also great to know that as far as uh nasty stuff in the water, we we rank way down there, which which makes sense. Uh but it also reminds us, uh again, everyone, um don't throw stuff in the water. Uh that is a big help. And and when you see something, even though you didn't throw it in, pick it up. Let's toss it. Uh for the most part, I think most Montanas are great about that. And that that's a good thing. That's why people love to come here. Um, all right. Well, that should do it then. Uh I hopefully you guys will be able to come on again, maybe do an update next year or whatever, and just so we can kind of follow up and and stay in touch. And if anything else comes up, by all means let me know and we'll we'll do it sooner. So there you have it, folks. There are the answers to your questions. Uh, after all, this podcast is your podcast. I am just your humble host and try to gather all this stuff up. So uh let us know if there's anything else you want to know about or look about. That's what this podcast is all about. Until then, take care everyone. Be safe out there and be good to each other. And we'll see you next time here on the Montana Outdoor Podcast.

SPEAKER_00 49:54

Thanks for watching the Montana Outdoor Podcast. You know there's no way we could do this podcast without the incredible support of sponsors like Superior Hardwoods of Montana, home of the largest selection of in-stock, high-end wood products and flooring in the western United States. Let them guide you through the woods at superior-hardwoods.com. And of course, Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer in Missoula, home of both snow clouds and accessories, and Diamond C trailers and accessories. Go see them on the web at rmtte.com. We'd love to hear what you thought of this week's podcast. When you get a minute or two, shoot us an email and tell us your thoughts. Same goes if you have any questions for Rigger or this week's guest. Just send your questions or comments to downrigger at MontanaOutdoor.com. Hey, don't forget we should be dropping a new podcast this next Saturday. Until then, gang, we hope to see you soon out in Montana's great outdoors.