This and other stories like it are rich on hype and poor on facts.  The fact that something is detected doesn’t mean that it is in the water in sufficient concentrations to be a problem.  It isn’t even clear from the article that the problems described are from fish taken from the wild and not from fish and mussels exposed in the laboratory and if the concentrations were the same.  The part about the vultures is purely anecdotal.  They were seen eating dead cows and then the whole lot of them disappeared.  No real, scientific evidence that the birds were killed off by the cows.

This is similar to other stories about chemicals in the environment that all go “we detected them, so be terrified.“  Very unfortunately the media doesn’t present enough of the facts, just a nice story with lots of scare, devoid on hard facts for anyone to make an informed decision.  My guess is that it wouldn’t be as exciting a story or sell as much advertising if they reported facts rather than hype and supposition.  It would, at least, be a much duller story and sell less advertising.  But then, the poor reporters would have to do some real work instead of taking what was handed to them.

Do we have a problem?  You will never know with this kind of reporting.