Heavy Metals Content In Fish Out Of NSR Question??

[Kale 19]

I am curious to know, has anyone actually kept a tissue sample of a fish they caught and kept out of the NSR and had it run for heavy metals analysis and Hg? I have read conflicting articles and heard a thousand different opinions but am interested to hear from anyone who may have actually had analysis run to see what the metal contents are like. Now obviously age of fish will make a significant difference as a result of bio accumulation but regardless I'm interested to see if this has been done. I've been thinking about doing it myself but thought there might be valuable insight on AOF.
Please, as I mentioned, I'm looking for credible, supported responses and not just theories based on opinions and hearsay. I have theories of my own but am looking for supported results.
Thanks all and good luck in the field this fall whatever you endevour.

[Redfrog]

Great post. I hope you get some real replies.

[greylynx]

Phone your regional fish biologist. 310 0000

All you will get on here is a pile of .....

[Kale 19]

Thanks red frog. I read your thread "spit or swallow" and it had me thinking. I've been meaning to run analytical all summer just haven't gotten to it.

Lynx I have spoken and used to work with some of the provincial biologists and not to slag but notice that many of the responses I've received are based on a comparison to a provincial or federal guideline and a bit cynical which is fine but what do the guidelines really mean. I'd like a more clear frame of reference. Thought it couldn't hurt to try here. If I don't get what I'm looking for here I'll have one sampled and share soon.

[Dacotensis]

Another variable to look at might be location in the NSr.
Upstream downstream. Sask border. Etc.

[Kale 19]

Let's say down stream but really any info is appreciated.

[Bushrat]

It would be interesting if you did get some sample results, heavy metals and pollutants, growth hormones, antibiotics etc. Add some samples of store bought fish such as Tilapia from Asian fish farms, farmed salmon, etc, and see how they compare. They may not have as much heavy metals but betting they are contaminated with things that are as bad or worse.

[deanmc]

My sisters, uncles, nephews, nieces, brother in laws, dog walker, said their moms, friends, daughter, caught a ling that tasted like copper.

[Red Bullets]

Based on that fact that contaminants are a part of our society and are naturally occuring, it would explain the possible 'heavy metals' in fish tissue of the NSR.

Every time I have asked the question of mercury contamination to anyone with a title or degree, all their answers are the same. They say mercury is naturally occuring(such as mercuric chloride or methylmercury).

Also my own observation, the 'Vermilion" river is a tributary to the NSR, downstream of Edmonton, and was named for its colored clays. Those reddish clays have the mineral cinnabar. Cinnabar is the mineral that is mined for metallic mercury, which means it is a possible source of metalic mercury contamination too.

Aside from naturally occurring mercury, I often think there is one factor no one has taken into consideration as far as the NSR mercury contamination. From the 1860's until the late 1900's gold mining on the river was using metallic mercury in large quantities . In the Alberta Archives I have read personal accountings of a miner that was sluicing for the mercury that the big dredges lost in their operations. Also, a flood around the turn of the century destroyed the 5 or 6 gold dredges that were working the river local to Edmonton. Each of those dredges would have had several pounds of metallic mercury lost in the river too. These concentrations would most lkely have a downstream effect also.

Don't forget to factor in that the glaciers have been proven to have a variety of pollutants and possible heavy metals in the silt and sediments at the headwaters of The NSR and The Bow. Samples taken at the headwaters contain pesticides and persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs and DDT — these contaminants are also found in the resident fish. These pollutants leach into Bow Lake from glaciers that contain a legacy of long-range atmospheric transport of pollution from around the world. Those same glaciers feed the NSR too.

Untreated runoff from cities and farms should be the most concerning. Metals, salts, pesticides, and disease-carrying organisms all flow into our rivers untreated. Each year, nearly 11.4 million kilograms of waste (including 768,000 kg of iron, 219 kg of aluminum, 33,800 kg of phosphorus, and 16,200 kg of lead) is washed into the Bow from Calgary storm sewers alone. Edmonton would be similar.



So odds are, a tissue sample from any living creature in or on the river is going to come up with some type of measurable contaminant. No more than we can live with and tolerate or we would all be dead.

Or consider this,
The regs say don't eat more than once a week from the NSR(I think they still say that). That equates to 52 times a year. I know to eat a fresh NSR fish one to five times a year is still better quality food than the same amount of McDonalds food. Don't worry about it. Go fishing and enjoy eating the odd fish. I know you don't want an opinion so I merely stating an observation....In the 40 years I have fished the NSR I have never seen a unhealthy looking fish. Over the years I have eaten the odd one and they always tasted like a good firm river run fish. (And I still have my hair, teeth and mind.)


Or Maybe it's all a gov't ploy ,the warnings are just to keep the people thinking they are polluted so they don't overfish the amazing fishery on the NSR.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kale 19

I am curious to know, has anyone actually kept a tissue sample of a fish they caught and kept out of the NSR and had it run for heavy metals analysis and Hg? I have read conflicting articles and heard a thousand different opinions but am interested to hear from anyone who may have actually had analysis run to see what the metal contents are like. Now obviously age of fish will make a significant difference as a result of bio accumulation but regardless I'm interested to see if this has been done. I've been thinking about doing it myself but thought there might be valuable insight on AOF.
Please, as I mentioned, I'm looking for credible, supported responses and not just theories based on opinions and hearsay. I have theories of my own but am looking for supported results.
Thanks all and good luck in the field this fall whatever you endevour.

What is it you want to know specifically?

There are some long term data sets from the head waters to the border.

The closer you are to the mountains, the better the water quality.

Water quality from Devon and downstream is heavily impacted by agriculture, waste water and road run-off.

Here is some data.

and some more, check out table 3.1

[Kale 19]

Great stuff, thanks all who offered insight and a supported reply. So I'm not supprised to hear that it is to be expected that trace elements, organics, and pesticides may be observed in tissue samples. I figured as much. How do you think this compares to some of the lakes in and around the Edmonton area? Lets say compared to the more developed lakes such as Pigeon and Wab vs not so developed lakes such as Calling or Marie. I've always had a theory that with the constant replenishment of water, the river, despite being subject to controled and regulated releases of waste water, would be as good if not better in terms of water quality as it pertains to human health effects and the consumption of fish. Also to note the absence or percieved absence of algae growth as compared to some of our lakes. There is and always will be the propoganda re the dirty old NSR however I would be interested in a comparison of consumtive health effects from fish out of the NSR vs lets say Pigeon. Not slaging Pigeon, just thought it would be an interesting comparison. I often think people don't bat an eye when considering eating a fish out of an AB lake but when it comes to an AB river, there are numerous "wives tales" and I'm not sure there is all that much difference. I stand to be corrected.

[Red Bullets]

If I could legally, personally would prefer to eat a walleye from the river than Pigeon. The lake is prone to blue green algae. A river run fish has very firm muscle compared to a lake fish. Even a pike is firmer texture and tastes better from moving river water. River water usually stays cooler than lakes which might attribute to this too.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kale 19

Great stuff, thanks all who offered insight and a supported reply. So I'm not supprised to hear that it is to be expected that trace elements, organics, and pesticides may be observed in tissue samples. I figured as much. How do you think this compares to some of the lakes in and around the Edmonton area? Lets say compared to the more developed lakes such as Pigeon and Wab vs not so developed lakes such as Calling or Marie. I've always had a theory that with the constant replenishment of water, the river, despite being subject to controled and regulated releases of waste water, would be as good if not better in terms of water quality as it pertains to human health effects and the consumption of fish. Also to note the absence or percieved absence of algae growth as compared to some of our lakes. There is and always will be the propoganda re the dirty old NSR however I would be interested in a comparison of consumtive health effects from fish out of the NSR vs lets say Pigeon. Not slaging Pigeon, just thought it would be an interesting comparison. I often think people don't bat an eye when considering eating a fish out of an AB lake but when it comes to an AB river, there are numerous "wives tales" and I'm not sure there is all that much difference. I stand to be corrected.

Something significant to take into account, whether your source of fish is lacustrine or riverine, is where the water is coming from.

Using your examples of Pigeon vs the NSR.

The NSR is fed by the mountains right? Well, kinda. Once the water leaves the mountains the river is fed by field runoff, HWY runoff and city/road runoff as well as waste water. It is also impacted by industrial and commercial installations.

The quality of the fish is determined in part by 1) where you caught it and 2) where that fish has lived and 3) where the food that fish has eaten has lived.

WRT Pigeon, you have intense runoff from agriculture and significant residential and commercial pollution, but much less of the industrial pollution that impacts the NSR.

Finally, and this relates to lakes and rivers, is the contribution of geologic sources of contaminants to the ecosystem. It is well known that some reservoirs contain large amounts of geologic Hg which is something you want to avoid.

Ultimately, you need to assess the quality of your table fare with respect to these issues and others not mentioned (fish age etc), then determine how much and how often you should consume certain fish from certain places. Eating a fish from the lower NSR isn't going to kill you, but you may not want to eat large portions every week.

This goes with many foods however and the truth is, anything smoked, anything salty, and anything highly processed should be eaten in moderation.

We have fish on our table almost every week, but almost all of these are from above urban centers and are 6 year old fish or less. Most of them feed primarily on inverts as well which reduces the biomagnification/bioaccumulation that they experience.

[AppleJax]

These ones from last weekend didn't taste like metal...

[Kale 19]

Thanks guys. I'm going to run some analysis and see what comes up just for quriosity sake. I'll post the results once I get them.

[Jify]

I actually asked AESRD about this way back in the day, when I was asking about Burbot. Their response was along the lines of, "Most fish accumulate heavy metals as a result of bio-accumulation, particularly walleye & pike. Burbot are interesting, they bio-accumulate, but we've never picked up elevated levels of mercury within them. We believe it's because of their overly large liver."