fish caught east of the Sydney Harbour Bridge , how safe are they ??

[leonardgid]

Hello raiders , im sure all of us know what we should and should not eat that is  caught  in the harbour , the question is  have they ever done any tracking  on  any fish other then sharks   in the harbour ?      just about everyone that consumes  fish from the west side of the bridge  will argue that fish can and will move all over the harbour  so it makes no difference  where they are caught ,  also after all the rain  a lot of fish must be moving about  etc ,  if they have not done any studies  isn't  it about time that they  do research on this matter so that  people know better? , way too many people are catching and eating fish from the piers these days ,  food for thought.

[noelm]

Studies are great, but, most people will argue the results for a dozen reasons, people will catch and eat fish from where ever they can, it's just a fact of life, heck we even import rubbish catfish from Thailand that are farmed in what amounts to a sewer, but people still eat them.

[Welster]

These links are old but might help.  Some new and more extensive studies would be worthwhile

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/chemicals/dioxins/documents/FINAL FSANZ revised RA Dioxins Sydney Harbour seafood March 2007.pdf

 

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/FSANZ Risk assess Dioxins in NSW Prawns and fish June 06 FINAL and Web Version _2_.pdf

 

[frankS]

Fish caught EAST of the bridge in my opinion are fair game for the plate ( though I don't fish the harbor ) the harbor has good tidal movement and this refreshes the oxygen levels within the harbor. Talking about oxygen, there is that much boat movement in the harbor that the props are oxygenating the water more than most other locations. More oxygen the healthier the fish. Just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Frank 

[Little_Flatty]

I ate one last weekend. That's probably my monthly quota (because it was a good bream, split between four people).

You'll notice you can eat quite a lot of kingies/luderick/flounder/flathead and a HEAP of jackets, but not much bream, mullet etc. I think it might be correlated with how fast they grow. Table below from Fishing in Sydney Harbour (nsw.gov.au) .

[leonardgid]

8 hours ago, Welster said:

These links are old but might help.  Some new and more extensive studies would be worthwhile

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/chemicals/dioxins/documents/FINAL FSANZ revised RA Dioxins Sydney Harbour seafood March 2007.pdf

 

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/FSANZ Risk assess Dioxins in NSW Prawns and fish June 06 FINAL and Web Version _2_.pdf

 

Hmmm  interesting quick read , if im not making a mistake   they caught bream at  Clifton gardens that had higher levels of dioxins  then bream that were caught  at breakfast point ,  so ahmm...  the whole dont eat fish west of the bridge  because fish  have higher levels then fish from the east side is wrong    according tot he report 

 

[James Clain]

Personally I avoid demersal fish throughout the entire harbour as much as possible. I would never eat a bream, flathead, whiting... east of the bridge as they feed on the bottom where the dioxin wastes may still be present in the muddy bottom. Pelagics are a slightly different story. I have eaten Kingfish, bonito, just west of the bridge as they are constantly moving throughout the harbour and have potentially recently been off shore. 

[XD351]

Well I grew up fishing the Harbour and it’s tributaries , I have eaten piles of bream ,flathead, Luderick, leather jackets ,whiting ,Mulloway and I’m still here . As part my work we had to go through some fairly comprehensive blood tests a few years Back - mainly for heavy metals but there were tests  for other things and they all came back fine . The limits set in those recommendations would have a hefty safety margin so no one can sue the government if they get sick . People ate fish and prawns from the river for donkeys years before , while and after the dioxins were getting dumped in there and I have never heard of anyone dropping dead from it nor have I heard of anything where someone has eaten enough fish from there to give significant levels of dioxins in their body . If anyone has please let me know ! 
These days i fish the Hawkesbury more than the harbour but not because of the fish it is because I live and work in a concrete jungle and it is nice to get out and see some bush ! 
 

[Little_Flatty]

8 hours ago, leonardgid said:

Hmmm  interesting quick read , if im not making a mistake   they caught bream at  Clifton gardens that had higher levels of dioxins  then bream that were caught  at breakfast point ,  so ahmm...  the whole dont eat fish west of the bridge  because fish  have higher levels then fish from the east side is wrong    according tot he report 

 

I couldn't see the reference to Clifton Gardens or Breakfast Point in that study.

Further, on page 6 of the table, it clearly states that the mean TEQ/g for bream is considerably higher (1.6 times) for west of the bridge vs east?

In any case, the advice from the DPI is just a recommendation. Plenty of people eat fish caught west of the bridge. I certainly did prior to the advice being issued, but I stopped afterwards. These days I don't fish east of the bridge often enough to create a problem for myself anyway. All of my fish caught west of the bridge are released.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Little_Flatty

[Little_Flatty]

9 hours ago, leonardgid said:

Hmmm  interesting quick read , if im not making a mistake   they caught bream at  Clifton gardens that had higher levels of dioxins  then bream that were caught  at breakfast point ,  so ahmm...  the whole dont eat fish west of the bridge  because fish  have higher levels then fish from the east side is wrong    according tot he report 

 

OK I got ya, didn't realise there was a second link. On page 6 of the second link:

So I'm not 100% sure of exactly what that table contains, but I'm guessing that the five figures quoted are five samples taken from Breakfast Point and Clifton Gardens respectively, and the figure to the right is the average for the sample. Based on this, it looks like one of the samples taken from Clifton Gardens is an outlier, with a TEQ/g of 49 and the other two observations > 20 are a bit suspicious as well. Perhaps a school had migrated from the upper river?

The first study has larger sample sizes but is less specific about the areas from which fish were sampled. Regardless, the sample sizes are small. I'm guessing that the sampling of fish is destructive and the scientists probably didn't want to destroy a large number of fish. If it was me running the study, I'd be sending the field crew out to get another sample from Clifton Gardens. If they get the same results, then questions need to be asked as to what has happened there in the past. But apart from the destructiveness of the exercise, these activities aren't free, so that might be why they left it as is.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Little_Flatty

[leonardgid]

9 hours ago, motiondave said:

I had a blood test recently, so signs of heavy metals or toxins, and my liver is stuffed from previous years of drinking and currently under heavy pain killers .

You will not die from eating a few fish. I eat lane cove river stuff and it's supposed to be deadly, depending on whom you talk to. I don't eat anything west of Abbotsford as my own rule of thumb. Fish do migrate. What's to say the bream you buy at the fish market has not lived most of its life under Parramatta river ferry wharf, then one time, it decided to get some ocean views before being netted. 

i agree  with everything you have said so far Dave, 

 

20 hours ago, James Clain said:

Personally I avoid demersal fish throughout the entire harbour as much as possible. I would never eat a bream, flathead, whiting... east of the bridge as they feed on the bottom where the dioxin wastes may still be present in the muddy bottom. Pelagics are a slightly different story. I have eaten Kingfish, bonito, just west of the bridge as they are constantly moving throughout the harbour and have potentially recently been off shore. 

   

 

11 hours ago, Little_Flatty said:

OK I got ya, didn't realise there was a second link. On page 6 of the second link:

So I'm not 100% sure of exactly what that table contains, but I'm guessing that the five figures quoted are five samples taken from Breakfast Point and Clifton Gardens respectively, and the figure to the right is the average for the sample. Based on this, it looks like one of the samples taken from Clifton Gardens is an outlier, with a TEQ/g of 49 and the other two observations > 20 are a bit suspicious as well. Perhaps a school had migrated from the upper river?

The first study has larger sample sizes but is less specific about the areas from which fish were sampled. Regardless, the sample sizes are small. I'm guessing that the sampling of fish is destructive and the scientists probably didn't want to destroy a large number of fish. If it was me running the study, I'd be sending the field crew out to get another sample from Clifton Gardens. If they get the same results, then questions need to be asked as to what has happened there in the past. But apart from the destructiveness of the exercise, these activities aren't free, so that might be why they left it as is.

thank you for your reply mate , cost or  no cost  i feel a real  test /tracking of fish is way over due , the east  west thing   was good at the time  , but it does not answer  all of the questions  today  for some of us  , we should be able to know if the  kingfish  caught offshore , or the bream and whiting caught of the surf   has been in the harbour and or how much dioxin  is in it ,    far too many of us  fish and  far more will in the future ,

 

10 hours ago, motiondave said:

I had a blood test recently, so signs of heavy metals or toxins, and my liver is stuffed from previous years of drinking and currently under heavy pain killers .

You will not die from eating a few fish. I eat lane cove river stuff and it's supposed to be deadly, depending on whom you talk to. I don't eat anything west of Abbotsford as my own rule of thumb. Fish do migrate. What's to say the bream you buy at the fish market has not lived most of its life under Parramatta river ferry wharf, then one time, it decided to get some ocean views before being netted. 

  Hi Dave  , i agree with you , at the moment  with what i know nothing will stop me  from keeping a feed of bream or whiting  or any other fish  if it all looks good  and healthy  to  me  east or west of the bridge,  however  it would be good to know   where fish have been  and for how long ,   thank you for your reply.

 

[Fab1]

On 3/4/2022 at 4:54 PM, Little_Flatty said:

I ate one last weekend. That's probably my monthly quota (because it was a good bream, split between four people).

You'll notice you can eat quite a lot of kingies/luderick/flounder/flathead and a HEAP of jackets, but not much bream, mullet etc. I think it might be correlated with how fast they grow. Table below from Fishing in Sydney Harbour (nsw.gov.au) .

Remind me to reject an offer to come to your place for a feed of bream.I'd starve!!!

[Fab1]

Your all killing yourselves with the amount of pesticides and crap you're all eating when you have vegetables etc anyway not to mention all the shit we breath in everyday.Just eat whatever you want when you want as one day we will be here and the next we will be gone like Warnie regardless.

[XD351]

1 hour ago, Fab1 said:

Your all killing yourselves with the amount of pesticides and crap you're all eating when you have vegetables etc anyway not to mention all the shit we breath in everyday.Just eat whatever you want when you want as one day we will be here and the next we will be gone like Warnie regardless.

Yup and think of the chemicals they pump into chickens to make them grow faster and lay more eggs ! 
Sad fact of life is we live with the sins of our predecessors and they can’t be fixed but we can make sure we don’t follow their mistakes .

You never know what tomorrow’s tide will bring so fish the tide you have !

[Fab1]

7 minutes ago, XD351 said:

Yup and think of the chemicals they pump into chickens to make them grow faster and lay more eggs ! 
Sad fact of life is we live with the sins of our predecessors and they can’t be fixed but we can make sure we don’t follow their mistakes .

You never know what tomorrow’s tide will bring so fish the tide you have !

Amen to that.You don't get this athletic,lean,fabulous 120kg body Fab 1 has by eating lettuce.

I certainly didn't get it by eating keeper fish.😂🤣

Edited March 5, 2022 by Fab1

[XD351]

I like chicken and it probably explains the man boobs !

[Little_Flatty]

9 hours ago, leonardgid said:

i agree  with everything you have said so far Dave, 

 

   

 

thank you for your reply mate , cost or  no cost  i feel a real  test /tracking of fish is way over due , the east  west thing   was good at the time  , but it does not answer  all of the questions  today  for some of us  , we should be able to know if the  kingfish  caught offshore , or the bream and whiting caught of the surf   has been in the harbour and or how much dioxin  is in it ,    far too many of us  fish and  far more will in the future ,

 

  Hi Dave  , i agree with you , at the moment  with what i know nothing will stop me  from keeping a feed of bream or whiting  or any other fish  if it all looks good  and healthy  to  me  east or west of the bridge,  however  it would be good to know   where fish have been  and for how long ,   thank you for your reply.

 

That's a good question actually. The studies are around 15 years old. I wonder if the DPI is doing regular monitoring of dioxin levels in fish in the harbour, or if they are so concentrated in the sediments that levels won't change much in the near future. Worth asking the question or researching.

On wanting to keep the odd fish, I hear you. If it wasn't for these guidelines and my decision to follow them, I'd be consistently providing my family with a feed of freshly caught fish. Alas, I've been catching a lot of my fish from areas where even the most foolhardy of us wouldn't want to consume the fish (a range of a few km either side of Homebush Bay). All that said, I know a few anglers who happily consume fish from that area.

8 hours ago, Fab1 said:

Remind me to reject an offer to come to your place for a feed of bream.I'd starve!!!

🤣 150g a month doesn't go far! You're much better off targeting other species, particularly those you could eat 1800g worth of in a month. I served it up steamed whole with a few other dishes, so it went around nicely.

[noelm]

On 3/4/2022 at 2:35 PM, noelm said:

Studies are great, but, most people will argue the results for a dozen reasons, people will catch and eat fish from where ever they can, it's just a fact of life, heck we even import rubbish catfish from Thailand that are farmed in what amounts to a sewer, but people still eat them.

See what I mean, a thousand studies will not stop people taking/eating fish from anywhere they like.

[leonardgid]

On 3/4/2022 at 2:35 PM, noelm said:

Studies are great, but, most people will argue the results for a dozen reasons, people will catch and eat fish from where ever they can, it's just a fact of life, heck we even import rubbish catfish from Thailand that are farmed in what amounts to a sewer, but people still eat them.

agree ,however  everyone  that wets a line  has   the right to know  if the fish they catch anywhere  is safe to eat  in large  quantities,  and while there is a cost  with any study   , cost should not be  an issue  when it has to do with public health,    specially  when the amount of people that fish   keeps on growing  and they share their catch  with other family and friends,  as i pointed out  on one of the studies  that a raider  posted here   . there is  evidence that  the east of the bridge  versus the west of the bridge  does not  appear to be accurate , fish  can and will travel , so the unsuspecting individual that has been catching  whiting  of the surf  recently  could be  actually catching  fish that have been  west of the bridge  for a long time ,    

[leonardgid]

On 3/4/2022 at 3:13 PM, Welster said:

These links are old but might help.  Some new and more extensive studies would be worthwhile

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/chemicals/dioxins/documents/FINAL FSANZ revised RA Dioxins Sydney Harbour seafood March 2007.pdf

 

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/FSANZ Risk assess Dioxins in NSW Prawns and fish June 06 FINAL and Web Version _2_.pdf

 

thanks for sharing , had a quick look through  the studies  came across  something that  makes the east versus west of the bridge theory  not accurate  in my opinion.

[leonardgid]

On 3/4/2022 at 3:53 PM, frankS said:

Fish caught EAST of the bridge in my opinion are fair game for the plate ( though I don't fish the harbor ) the harbor has good tidal movement and this refreshes the oxygen levels within the harbor. Talking about oxygen, there is that much boat movement in the harbor that the props are oxygenating the water more than most other locations. More oxygen the healthier the fish. Just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Frank 

thanks for your  reply

[leonardgid]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:58 PM, James Clain said:

Personally I avoid demersal fish throughout the entire harbour as much as possible. I would never eat a bream, flathead, whiting... east of the bridge as they feed on the bottom where the dioxin wastes may still be present in the muddy bottom. Pelagics are a slightly different story. I have eaten Kingfish, bonito, just west of the bridge as they are constantly moving throughout the harbour and have potentially recently been off shore. 

sure makes sense , but   fish like king and bonnies have been caught  all the way  up the river  , a fair size king fish   could be feeding on any number of different fish , for example  silver biddies     small bream , whiting etc  , that same king  at some stage can and does  spend  time inshore/offshore?      , people fishing there  could be under the impression that  fish are safe to eat in large quantities  because they are not from the harbour , again i feel the public has a right to know  where their fish has been etc , this is a growing city   cost should not be  an issue  when  it comes to public health .  

[leonardgid]

On 3/5/2022 at 7:44 AM, XD351 said:

Well I grew up fishing the Harbour and it’s tributaries , I have eaten piles of bream ,flathead, Luderick, leather jackets ,whiting ,Mulloway and I’m still here . As part my work we had to go through some fairly comprehensive blood tests a few years Back - mainly for heavy metals but there were tests  for other things and they all came back fine . The limits set in those recommendations would have a hefty safety margin so no one can sue the government if they get sick . People ate fish and prawns from the river for donkeys years before , while and after the dioxins were getting dumped in there and I have never heard of anyone dropping dead from it nor have I heard of anything where someone has eaten enough fish from there to give significant levels of dioxins in their body . If anyone has please let me know ! 
These days i fish the Hawkesbury more than the harbour but not because of the fish it is because I live and work in a concrete jungle and it is nice to get out and see some bush ! 
 

same  here ,  ive fished the harbour for decades  , ate the catch  don't have issues ,  but as  they have pointed out  there are dioxins  in the  fish and everyone has a right to know the risks involved for what ever reason  , previous studies do not appear to be all that accurate ,    

[Denisfisho]

On 3/4/2022 at 2:29 PM, leonardgid said:

Hello raiders , im sure all of us know what we should and should not eat that is  caught  in the harbour , the question is  have they ever done any tracking  on  any fish other then sharks   in the harbour ?      just about everyone that consumes  fish from the west side of the bridge  will argue that fish can and will move all over the harbour  so it makes no difference  where they are caught ,  also after all the rain  a lot of fish must be moving about  etc ,  if they have not done any studies  isn't  it about time that they  do research on this matter so that  people know better? , way too many people are catching and eating fish from the piers these days ,  food for thought.

people will convince themselves to justify the easy option most of the time - in this case catching from the west of the bridge as theres more spots and a shorter drive for most fishos

Edited March 6, 2022 by Denisfisho

[Little_Flatty]

1 hour ago, Denisfisho said:

people will convince themselves to justify the easy option most of the time - in this case catching from the west of the bridge as theres more spots and a shorter drive for most fishos

That's definitely true but I will note that @leonardgid was originally asking about fish caught east of the bridge and did raise the point it would be nice to know levels of dioxins in fish in the greater Sydney area, on an ongoing basis.

Regardless of the advice, some people will eat fish west of the bridge - I've met many - but apart from pointing out the government advice (once and only once), I'll never argue with them as it's their life. From their point of view, I've chosen to miss out on many good feeds of fresh fish. That's my choice.

2 hours ago, leonardgid said:

same  here ,  ive fished the harbour for decades  , ate the catch  don't have issues ,  but as  they have pointed out  there are dioxins  in the  fish and everyone has a right to know the risks involved for what ever reason  , previous studies do not appear to be all that accurate ,    

I'm no marine biologist, but I suspect it's actually very complex to accurately determine dioxin levels in the fish.

Firstly, fish might move around a lot and secondly, it might be a destructive process to sample them. You'd likely also need a very large sample size to get an accurate estimate, which is likely costly in terms of both resources and labour.

To me as a final year student in a masters of applied statistics, the sample sizes do appear to be very small. Small sample sizes are common in biological and medical studies, for budgetary and ethical reasons. Often there is no other option. For instance, if sampling dioxin levels in fish is a destructive process and we needed 1000 fish to get a decent estimate, then you could imagine the backlash from both the angling community - amongst others - about destroying 1000 fish in every location designated for the study. If it's not that, then there would be an uproar from both bureaucrats and the public about the cost of testing that many fish. As a result of those two things, small sample sizes are common.

Weird data points are also part of life. I've encountered them in just about every set of data I have ever touched, and it's often the interesting part of the job. There appears to be something off about the Clifton Gardens result, and it also seems interesting that as far up as Breakfast Point, the fish seem to have about 'normal' levels of dioxins. I have lots of questions on that front. Unfortunately, without larger samples or more sophisticated/time/labour-intensive (read: expensive) experiments, it will be difficult to know with any accuracy what true levels are. That's why we need experts, like scientists, doctors and statisticians, to help bridge the gap. Ultimately it would have been their insight that informed the 'west of the bridge' rule and we don't really have much else to go off unfortunately.

Agree with them or not, I suspect that the view of the government(s) that have led us is that they sleep well at night knowing that the commercial fleet is no longer fishing these waters. That's a lot of dioxins not being fed to the population without their knowledge.

For the rest of us recreational anglers, they put up some signs and leave it up to us. We have been advised, and we can make our own decisions with regard to own levels of fish consumption from the harbour.