Lake Livingston Fish Ban??.

I heard something about a Ban on most all species on Lake Livingston Today . Any truth to that..??

Just read it on KPRC Houston news There is a. Ban on several Species ,some Catfish, White Bass, Stripped Bass and several others . Google click 2 Houston News .

I've been eating Lake Huron trout and salmon for years despite a fish consumption advisory.

And there's noathing wrang woth muuuuasdufuuasdf

This not your normal consumption Ban a new release of chemicals caused this , as I understand

Found it on a couple of TV station's websites. It was issued by the Health Dept. I couldn't find anything about it on TPWD website

The Lake Livingston advisory is for seven types of fish – blue catfish, flathead catfish, freshwater drum, gar, smallmouth buffalo, striped bass and white bass. The advisory is in effect for the Trinity River Basin which includes Lake Livingston and the Trinity River from U.S. 287, near Anderson County, downstream to U.S. 90, near Liberty.

I have seen data on the samples taken. 29 of 32 white bass tested acceptable. Of the three that tested not acceptable one was barely over the line. All samples from all fish tested were from 2012 to 2013.I don't remember the results break down of the other species sampled.

It's not good but as usual it's not as bad as the news media makes it out to be.

Sad as it is, that's how they pump up ratings. Accurate journalism doesn't fit in anywhere.

This information is taken direct from the 86 page report that they used to issue the advisory. Guess if you plan on eating 30 grams or more everyday for 30 years according to the state or 70 years according to the Feds you MAY be at risk. I think witchcraft may be a more exact science. There is enough double talk in this report to choke a horse...IMO


Derivation and Application of Health‐Based Assessment Comparison Values for Application to the Carcinogenic Effects (HACca) of Consumed Chemical Contaminants

The DSHS calculates cancer‐risk comparison values (HACca) from the USEPA’s chemical‐specific cancer potency factors (CPFs), also known as cancer slope factors (CSFs), derived through mathematical modeling from carcinogenicity studies. For carcinogenic outcomes, the DSHS calculates a theoretical lifetime excess risk of cancer for specific exposure scenarios for carcinogens, using a standard 70‐kg body weight and assuming an adult consumes 30 grams of edible tissue per day. The SALG risk assessors incorporate two additional factors into determinations of theoretical lifetime excess cancer risk: (1) an acceptable lifetime risk level (ARL)34 of one excess cancer case in 10,000 persons whose average daily exposure is equivalent; and, (2) daily exposure for 30 years, a modification of the 70‐year lifetime exposure assumed by the USEPA. Comparison values used to assess the probability of cancer do not contain “uncertainty” factors. However, conclusions drawn from probability determinations infer substantial safety margins for all people by virtue of the models utilized to derive the slope factors (cancer potency factors) used in calculating the HACca.
Because the calculated comparison values (HAC values) are conservative, exceeding a HAC value does not necessarily mean adverse health effects will occur. The perceived strict demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable exposures or risks is primarily a tool used by risk managers along with other information to make decisions about the degree of risk incurred by those who consume contaminated fish or shellfish. Moreover, comparison values for adverse health effects do not represent sharp dividing lines (obvious demarcations) between safe and unsafe exposures. For example, the DSHS considers it unacceptable when consumption of four or fewer meals per month of contaminated fish or shellfish would result in exposure to contaminant(s) in excess of a HAC value or other measure of risk. The DSHS also advises people who wish to minimize exposure to contaminants in fish or shellfish to eat a variety of fish and/or shellfish and to limit consumption of those species most likely to contain toxic contaminants. The DSHS aims to protect vulnerable subpopulations with its consumption advice, assuming that advice protective of vulnerable subgroups will also protect the general population from potential adverse health effects associated with consumption of contaminated fish or shellfish.

Just curious, "acceptable or not" for what substance or combination of substances?

Jes' 'tween you'n me...I don't necessarily take everything the gov'ment says 'bout such things at face value all the time. I got an' idea that some things is not nearly so bad as the gov'ment lets on an' some of 'em is likely a lot worser.

Say f'instance...'lumenum vs methyl mercury or dioxin. Not to mention some of the stuff that might aktu'ly be swimmin' in there what you caint see....

So when I get me sumthin' as vague as "acceptable or not acceptable" it makes wanna ast some questyuns.

White bass, as a migratory top predator could move into and out of "contaminated" areas and would tend to bio-concentrate some environmental contaminants being near the top of the food web. So are some of the other species that were included, largemouth bass, I think was not one of them. Also a top predator, but less migratory and tending to have a wider variety of dietary items than the white bass that eats mostly shad and other pelagic forage species.

????? So what's so bad in three out of 32 samples (9%) as to make them "not acceptable?

After flushing my toilet & spraying my yard up here in Dallas by the Trinity...I can't see why it would be a problem.....

Why do you talk like that? That's hard to read.

IMO it's not worth the paper it's printed on. They issued a FAQ document now. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8590003931

I dont eat anything out of that nasty lake and your crazy if you do.

That's right, Livingston is nasty witches pot of brewing chemicals, contamination, and foreign body.

I guess thats why the catfishin is so good there