Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
36
VT = 12
5
19
f
27
1,072
b
NH = 9
MA = 166
RI = 23
CT = 20
17
11
4
a
408
c
153
e
0
179
d
7
109
40
2
NJ = 111
126
79
225
7
DE = 42
MD = 59
DC = 1
11
21
52
9
6
64
11
10
16
14
3
22
66
28
39
138
16
0
49
21
281
3
Advisories exist for specific waterbodies only
Statewide lakes only advisory included in count
Statewide rivers and lakes advisory included in count
Statewide coastal advisory included in count
Statewide advisory for marine fish included in count
No advisories for chemical contaminants
a -Includes (1) advisory from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
b -Includes (28) advisories from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC) and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes
c -Includes (297) advisories from the (GLIFWC)
d -Includes (30) advisories from the (GLIFWC)
e -Includes (1) advisory from the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
f -Includes (2) advisories from the Aroostook Band of Micmacs
AS = 1
GU = 2
VI = 0
PR = 0
2006 Total = 3852
FIGURE 14.2
Total number of fi sh-consumption advisories per state in 2006. Note that state advisory totals are infl uenced by the scope of
each state's contaminant testing program. Some states perform more testing than others. (
Source:
USEPA 2007.)
for which it is intended. This requires identifying a target
audience and determining a communication strategy that
is appropriate for them. Ideally, evaluations are carried out
throughout this step to ensure that the advisory informa-
tion is being communicated correctly and effectively and
to ensure that it is having its intended impact on the fi sh-
consumption behaviors of the target audience.
mercury concentrations in fi sh vary by region and water
body, the USEPA recommends that consumers of non-
commercial fi sh always consider local advisories fi rst.
Vulnerable Populations
Recognizing Variations in Risks and Benefi ts
As noted throughout this chapter, fi sh-consumption guide-
lines are ideally based on both the risks and the benefi ts
of eating fi sh. The consideration of risks and benefi ts is
usually accomplished during the risk-assessment and
risk-management steps of the fi sh advisory development
process. A critically important point to recognize during
this stage of the process is that the risks and benefi ts of
fi sh consumption can differ among populations. Risks and
benefi ts, therefore, are best weighed in the context of the
population for which the advisory is being developed.
Vulnerable populations, in particular, need to be evaluated
differently from the general fi sh-eating population.
Mercury Advisories
According to the USEPA (2007), 3852 total fi sh advisories
were in effect throughout the nation in 2006 (Figure 14.2).
This represented 38% of the nation's total lake acreage (not
including the Great Lakes or their connecting waters) and
26% of the nation's total river miles (Table 14.1). Although
advisories were issued for 44 different contaminants in the
United States that year, 3080 of them (nearly 80%) were
due at least in part to mercury. This represents about 35%
of the nation's lake acres and about 25% of the nation's
river miles under advisory due to mercury.
In addition to the advisories issued by state, local, and tribal
agencies, the USEPA and USFDA in 2004 issued a joint mer-
cury advisory for consumption of noncommercial
and
com-
mercial fi sh by women of reproductive age, nursing mothers,
and young children (USEPA and USFDA 2004). Typically, the
USEPA issues advisories for noncommercial fi sh only, while
the USFDA issues advisories for commercial fi sh only; this
joint advisory marked the fi rst time the two agencies com-
bined their advice into a single advisory. Nonetheless, because
Defi ning Vulnerable Populations
In the case of mercury, vulnerable populations generally
fall into one of two categories: (1) populations that are
unusually susceptible or sensitive to mercury, and (2) popu-
lations that have potentially high mercury exposures.
Populations that are unusually susceptible or sensitive
to mercury typically experience poorer health outcomes
