Fishing is often perceived as an enjoyable activity, and eating fish is viewed as safe and healthful. However, with recent increases in consumption advisories because of contamination, the public is faced with whether to eat fish or not. In this article I examine the knowledge base of people fishing along the Savannah River, where South Carolina has issued consumption advisories because of mercury and radionuclides. Over 250 people fishing from the Augusta lock and dam to south of the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS) were interviewed from early April until late November 1997. Overall 82% of the fishermen thought the fish were safe to eat, even though 62% had heard some warnings about eating the fish. There were significant differences in whether people thought the fish were safe to eat as a function of income, age, education, and whether they were employed at the Savannah River Site. Significantly more fishermen thought the fish were safe who made more than $20,000/year, were over 34 yr of age, worked at SRS, and had no college or technical training, compared to others. Significantly fewer blacks had heard of consumption advisories than whites, fewer low-income people had heard, and fewer people who had not worked at SRS had heard, compared to others. Most people heard about the advisories from television, newspapers, and other people, although more blacks than whites heard about advisories from the radio. There were also significant ethnic differences in distance traveled, and in whether specific fish were frozen for later consumption. These data can be used to design an information program to target the people who may be most at risk from eating fish obtained from the Savannah River.