mark_s Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Also in what quantities of fish you eat are these dioxins dangerous. Is it a kilo of fish a day Martin Today's paper recommends eating 150gms or less of fish from the harbour per calender month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Thanks Mark. Thats not much fish, 1.8kg a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutch Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Thanks Mark. Thats not much fish, 1.8kg a year I may start selling my fish mail order Seriously tho, sounds like young couples trying for kids should abstain from eating harbour fish altogether Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damariboyz Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Martin Today's paper recommends eating 150gms or less of fish from the harbour per calender month. Ive just done a quick calculation and if Iam right this wont effect me at all. My current catch rate is so pathetic that Ionly average about a 125 gram intake of fish a month anyway. shit does this mean im in the 90% club Happy Russell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombora Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hiya guys, you may have misheard alan jones _ he was merely parroting (PS The Parrot is his nickname here) the Tele follow up yarn today which reveals dioxin levels 100 times WHO standards in bream caught at Homebush, but, more frightening is dioxin levels of 10 times WHO standards in bream caught at places like Balmoral and Wollstonecraft. Government is in the rpocess of now testing 19 other species _ a mix of bottom dwellers like whiting and flathead, and pelagics like kings and tailor, with a view to modifying the bans/don't eat advice. Lots more questions to be answered, methinks. Cheers Bombie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bob Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Was it Ian Mcdonald the NSW Fisheries who has left the job last week.Makes you wonder especially as the reports on the radio said that the problem was known for the last 5 years.Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Rock Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Big Bob - it was the other Ian Macdonald that got the boot, the federal minister in charge of fisheries. Coincidentally, the NSW minister for fisheries is also called Ian Macdonald (exact same spelling) and he's very much still around. Mondo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KamakaziCroat Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ha this is all somewhat amusing... I serisouly doubt that eating the odd fish from the harbour will do you much harm after all everything else in this modern world will kill you sooner or later. (apparenlty however mobile phones Don't giv you cancer according to one study released this week) Perhaps the best result we can hope for is the permenant closure of Syd Harbour as a comercial fishery... (i can wish can't i) Who's gonna stop you taking fish? Am i gonna get a fine or just bowel cancer? True, i read a journal that says we have 400 more toxins in our bodies that our grandparents (well people in their 70's/80s) never had in their day... no wonder why there is so much cancer/bird flu/obese kids etc etc its all of these scientifically manufactured flavours and preservatives. For example, to extract banana flavor from real bananas it would cost companies $14 for a litre of cencentrate whereas the artificial flavouring is only $3 a litre, if you are head of a big company which would you choose? and its all these untested chemicals we put into our body and the waste that these comapnies but into our waterways that are killing us and our sport/livelyhood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikila Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Just saw the news, WHY are tax payers compensating the pros who troll up the bloody Para toxic river or ANY pros who catch in the great harbour ......... this is crazy. If the company I work for died because our market died/was shut off we would not expect or ask for compensation. This is another reflection on the bias and stupidity of this government to the industry. One rule for "them" - another for the "real" world. God help Pittwater. A valid point!!!! & How about that any compensation that is paid comes out of the pockets of the polluters not the public purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken A Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Who's gonna stop you taking fish? Am i gonna get a fine or just bowel cancer? No one is going to stop you taking fish if your simply a rec fisho? Fisheries made a recommend on how much you should consume that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pugwash Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I guess we'll have to wait for the further tests on other fish to know how "big" the problem is. From a fishing point of view I've heard a whisper that the commercial guys will never be allowed back in the Harbour. Bring it on! My source of info tells me that we won't know fishing like it if the harbour is left alone. Turns out the "darlings" sweep the Harbour just like they did Pittwater recently. They do it only at night so people don't see them and they don't miss much. Did anyone notice how few Kings were caught this weekend compared with only a week before? Piss them all off and let the price of fish go up as far as I'm concerned. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 It's a real shame the way it's been exposed, surely this problem has been around for a long time yet they announce 'high' dioxin levels days before one of our biggest public Holidays. Today is my daughters Birthday and she wanted a rod and reel for her present! ( Honestly I didn't influence her at all!) As a small time fisho, I often enjoyed going for a fish in the Harbour in my tinny and if lucky bringing home a feed.The plan was that I take her out tomorrow to test out her new outfit hopefully with some bait that we caught ourselves..she loves pumping nippers with me! Where to now?? Imagine the looks from passerbys if they saw us fishing? I guess I'll have to buy a bigger boat now to accomodate the Outside conditions or potentially loose an enjoyable pastime I had with my daughter before she gets sucked up into the real world of female commercialism and become a young woman at 12 sob sob I do see the brighter side though and hope that in my lifetime the fish stocks and more importantly the quality of our harbour improves so that we can all enjoy this precious harbour once again. Happy Australia day to all! Tigh Lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outnumbered Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 a couple of thoughts going through my mind. these contaminants have been in the water for decades, yet the government place a "temporary 3 month" ban on commercial fishing? who are they trying to kid with that. Why don't they be honest and say that the ban will last until the problem is fixed, the time for rose colored glasses is well and truely over. how do we fix it? do we need to dredge the entire area to a depth of a metre plus? thats a hell of a lot of contaminated waste to get rid of and it would effectively sterilise the waterway. we know the government has lied to us, so have they been telling the truth about the botany bay seepage? and what about our other waterways? should we be demanding a complete and detailed audit of contaminant levels in all of them? what are the flow on effects going to be to the rec fishing? thousands of people who have been taking fish will now either have to go to other waterways if they want to catch a feed putting more pressure on those areas or give up their hobby, either way the local tackle shops, boat hire and charter operators are sure to suffer. any way i try to look at it all i see is one hell of a big problem that is going to take many years to recover from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRCORTEX Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think this is the best thing to happen for non-commercial fishermen in years. My philosophy is "have some fun" then put that catch back into the water with as little stress as possible". If I want to eat one of my piscatorial pals - I'm happy to stop off at the local fishshop/market, and buy some - I don't have to clean, scale, and I even get to choose which one I want Now, I believe, if we can all feel this way, we all benefit. The pro makes a good living, and we get to have fun. Regards, Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Soprano Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 What I'm interested to know is whether the fishing charter operators in the harbour are still allowed to continue operation now that this ban is in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pugwash Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Tony, I think the answer to that is yes. Charter operators are not commercial fishermen so they should not be affexted by this ban. Cheers Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johblow Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I've heard that the "safe" levels for dioxins have been revised down by a factor of 10 or something (maybe it was a hundred - not sure). Whatever the figure, this has something to do with the sudden-ness of it all. Apperently dioxins are more dangerous than first thought. Its all very interesting. I heard a number of years back that human flesh was not fit for our own consumption (bummer for the canobals still among us) due to the high level of toxins around the place. Well, we gotta die of something... Someone mentioned Union Carbide - thats what i heard too recently (apparently the UC plant in Sydney was making agent orange during the vietnam war for the yanks - dunno if this was any influence of the current issue) . A lot of this dates back many 10's of years as also previously said, so we have to sit tight to some extend a it all leaches out. The paint factory and chemical plants at Rhodes which are now gone were/are pretty well known landmarks there. All i can imagine is that the level of toxins must have been once a lot higher. Re: botany bay, I believe that there are problems with continual leaching of "historical" pollution into the water table around port botany, and i guess that the saving grace is its location much closer to the sea than hombush etc, so the pollution dissipates faster? Dunno. Personally, i recon the companies that poluted the river ought to be compensating the pro fishos. Im quite sure that most of the companies involved still exist in close to original corporate form. Time to dust of the alvey...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken A Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 I just heard on the morning news that the closure is indefinite & commercial licenses will be bought back etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitto Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 They had no choice But $6 million sounds excessive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now