| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Farmed salmon
Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry
about with them, I suppose. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108 Tim Lysyk |
Farmed salmon
"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message news:gooLb.48651$Dm.43107@edtnps89... Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry about with them, I suppose. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108 Try http://flyforums.proboards20.com/ind...m=1073593 555 TL MC |
Farmed salmon
They probably feed the salmon ground up cow parts, brains and all.
"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message news:gooLb.48651$Dm.43107@edtnps89... Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry about with them, I suppose. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108 Tim Lysyk |
Farmed salmon
I think in about 50 years people will be born with "full body cancer".
-- Bill Kiene Kiene's Fly Shop Sacramento, CA, USA www.kiene.com "Tim Lysyk" wrote in message news:gooLb.48651$Dm.43107@edtnps89... Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry about with them, I suppose. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108 Tim Lysyk |
Farmed salmon
Tim Lysyk wrote:
Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry about with them, I suppose. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108 Tim Lysyk What they were concerned about is a chemical called dioxin. However the latest I heard on the news last night was that the measured amounts were so small that it made any kinds of statictics too inaccurate to be something to be really concerned about. (I think the latter statement came from the FDA). Sounds more like a ploy to keep people from buying Scandinavian farm grown salmon and instead by wild fish caught here. |
Farmed salmon
Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:
What they were concerned about is a chemical called dioxin. However the latest I heard on the news last night was that the measured amounts were so small that it made any kinds of statictics too inaccurate to be something to be really concerned about. (I think the latter statement came from the FDA). Sounds more like a ploy to keep people from buying Scandinavian farm grown salmon and instead by wild fish caught here. I don't know, the link that Mike Connor posted suggested the problem is quite real, and severe. I don;t think it is a ploy at all. Tim Lysyk |
Farmed salmon
I try to buy only wild salmon so this doens't bother me. what does though
is whether the raising of large numbers will effect our fisheries. The west coast of Ireland used to be a good a good Altantic salmon fishery. Now there are are few fish caught on this coast. the story is that there is too much crap and too many disease associated with the massive fish pens stationed in the estuaries. the wild salmon apparently cannot survive in this situation. there are apparently large Atlantic salmon pens in British Columbia, and some have escaped. I have seen a report of one caught in the wild. "Tim Lysyk" wrote in message news:gooLb.48651$Dm.43107@edtnps89... Here is a scary sort of article about farmed salmon. Something to worry about with them, I suppose. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/08/salmon_040108 Tim Lysyk --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004 |
Farmed salmon
"Sierra fisher" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... I try to buy only wild salmon so this doens't bother me. what does though is whether the raising of large numbers will effect our fisheries. SNIP Salmon farming is causing massive damage to the environment and ecology wherever it is being done. Not only at the farms themselves. Massive amounts of irreplaceable "wild" protein is being converted into fish meal and similar. ( at a massive loss ratio!), to feed the unfortunate creatures. The cumulative and total damage this engenders is beyond estimate, and in many cases, already beyond repair. This is just another way of raping nature in order to make money, but one of the most dangerous to date. When the seas die, then mankind will die as well. Who knows? It may be a good thing. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:
What they were concerned about is a chemical called dioxin. However the latest I heard on the news last night was that the measured amounts were so small that it made any kinds of statictics too inaccurate to be something to be really concerned about. (I think the latter statement came from the FDA). I found the following article after I replied to your post. It appears there is some concern over the validity of the study. I may have to break down and actually read it. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/09/salmon040109 Tim Lysyk |
Farmed salmon
I don't know, the link that Mike Connor posted suggested the problem is quite real, and severe. I don;t think it is a ploy at all. Tim Lysyk The 'ploy' thing taken aside I still see a few diverging opinions. E.g. the FDA says the levels are "not dangerous" and "the figures may be misleading" where as the group doing the investigation claims "unlimited consumption is unwise" and "thresholds set too low". The latter must be a misquote for this to make sense at all, i.e. it should have been "too high". And what does "unlimited consumption" mean ? In gradschool we once did a calculation to see how much coffe you had to drink to die from instant coffein poisoning. I think it came down to about 20L (or ~6G) in 20min. "unlimited consumption" of almost anything we eat is bad for you. Naturally the levels should be reduced if at all possible, and Im assuming that the farmers will do what they can at least to avoid the bad publicity. But Im not convinced that the levels are so high that you should panic. I tried to find the article to look at the numbers, but need to sign up for the Science mag online. All I could find were two bad charts doing an overlaid comparision of PCB and Dioxin content and the quality was such that I find it inconclusive. And I have to admit that I was always a bit sceptical of research published in certain mags. Some of them, like Nature, seem to check the validity of research better than others before it gets published. Another possible source for the contaminents could be in the packaging since most of it seems to be concentrated in the skin of the fish. E.g. its well know that you should not pack/store food items in garbage bags since they give off similar chemicals. So do the northern european fish show higher level because they have been wrapped in plastics longer ? (Were they shipped to the lab from overseas ?). If they only compared locally caught wild salmon to the farmed onces then the wild salmon might not even have been wrapped in plastic and thus have lower levels for that particular reason. There's a lot of variables in an investigation like this, and unless they have taken steps to eliminate other sources and done a controlled experiment the results could in worst case be worthless and the conclusions misleading. The only way to make sure you can 'blame the fish' is to do the measurements locally on fresh fish as they are taken from the water. Then compare local fresh farmed vs local wild fish to determine wether or not the farmed fish have significantly elevated levels of pollutants. If so then you have a 'case', if not the problem lies elsewhere i.e. the handling. And naturally you will have regional variations as well. Without reading the published article we dont know how they did the investigation, and it may not even be mentioned. And was the quality of the investigation chekked/verified by other independent researchers before the results were announced ? |
Farmed salmon
"Tim Lysyk" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:7RILb.478$Eq.22@clgrps12... Svend Tang-Petersen wrote: What they were concerned about is a chemical called dioxin. However the latest I heard on the news last night was that the measured amounts were so small that it made any kinds of statictics too inaccurate to be something to be really concerned about. (I think the latter statement came from the FDA). I found the following article after I replied to your post. It appears there is some concern over the validity of the study. I may have to break down and actually read it. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/09/salmon040109 Tim Lysyk There is a history of farmed salmon defenses, and the repudiation of various studies of such by industry funded (SURPRISE SURPRISE!) scientists, goverment bodies, and the like. None are either reasonable or logical. The damage to local ecologies is quite easily apparent and provable, even to a complete layman, and the levels of various poisons in the fish is also relatively easily provable. Some of these studies in other ( non-farmed) fish, ( especially "fatty" fish like salmonids and eels), have also revealed high toxicological levels. There are many places now where the consumption of such fish is proscribed. This is mainly due to large scale pollution, but there are other reasons, especially with farmed fish. Practically the main argument in favour of this type of farming, or against controlling it more closely, is that this would result in lost jobs. What some idiotic bureacrat has to say about it is quite immaterial to me. Most seem blithely unaware of the studies extant, and stick to their guns no matter what happens. The extremely rapid decline of other wild fish, ( notably sea trout= anadromous browns) is also directly traceable to the massively increased incidence of parasitic organisms in the vicinity of such farms, ( which are often situated in river mouths, estuaries etc) and the fact that they thus contaminate whole river systems. Severe contamination and specification of the gene pool is also a direct result of such fish escaping. In more than a few rivers, there are virtually no "wild" salmon left, and the "farmed" variety are simply not hardy enough to survive the normal rigours of a salmons´s life, quite apart from various other severe shortcomings. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:
In gradschool we once did a calculation to see how much coffe you had to drink to die from instant coffein poisoning. I think it came down to about 20L (or ~6G) in 20min. Geez. I'd better cut down. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Farmed salmon
From: Svend Tang-Petersen
So do the northern european fish show higher level because they have been wrapped in plastics longer ? The article I read in the morning paper stated that the fish tested in the study they quoted were raised in North America. IIRC, the human body stores Dioxin, so levels can build up over a period of time. I don't see where all of this amounts to an attack on Scandinavian fish farming. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
Farmed salmon
Svend,
I haven't read the paper either. From news reports and interviews, the investigators apparently tested toxin levels in farmed fish from all fish farming nations with Norway the highest and Chile the lowest. A probable explanation for this result apparently is that the feed, pellets made from ground up "garbage" fish, is most highly contaminated in Europe because of centuries of pollution of the North Atlantic compared to decades of pollution in the south Pacific. Producing the pellets concentrates toxins. One of the significant things about the study is that this is apparently the first one with a large number of samples - much, much larger than the studies on which the US's FDA and the regulatory bodies of other nations based their laws. Many thousands of samples versus only hundreds. Shocking, but I guess I should not be surprised considering how few cattle are tested for BSE in the USA and Canada. The scientists for governments and the fish farming industry are not arguing against the validity of the test results; their arguments seem to be with risk assessment. From what I remember, Science is one of the reputable and trusted scientific journals around. I would expect that any paper published in it would have received a thorough peer review and approval from some kind of publishing committee or board. That would not guarantee that everything published in a journal is true; as I recall, papers proving Cold Fusion were published in learned journals. Evidently, the researchers who did the study were worried not only about the Dioxin that you mention, but with the total contaminant level including, but not limited to, Dioxin, PCB's, DDT, and others. If I recall the news stories and interviews correctly, the principle investigators are recommending a meal of farmed salmon no more frequently than once every two months. Here in North America, wild salmon means Pacific salmon, so the comparison in toxin levels would be for farmed Atlantic salmon versus wild Pacific salmon. As far as I know, very little if any Atlantic salmon is sold here, and rightly so; it is on the verge of becoming an endangered species. Best regards, Yuji Sakuma "Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message ... |
Farmed salmon
On 10 Jan 2004 04:01:45 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:
From: Svend Tang-Petersen So do the northern european fish show higher level because they have been wrapped in plastics longer ? The article I read in the morning paper stated that the fish tested in the study they quoted were raised in North America. IIRC, the human body stores Dioxin, so levels can build up over a period of time. I don't see where all of this amounts to an attack on Scandinavian fish farming. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller According to the report I read in Nature one of the main toxins was PCB. In a study here in the mid-west (USA) PCBs have been found to negatively affect the cognitive development of children who come from families that ate large quantities PCB contanimated fish, mostly salmon from the Great Lakes. (Of course the study should be taken with a grain of salt, as these were the children of fishermen and their cognitive development would be expected to vary from the norm.) The report also made recommendations on how the problem could be addressed. Unfortunately, none of the solutions proposed were that the salmon farms be abolished and that the watersheds of wild salmon be cleaned up enough to allow normal production of salmon. That would be my preferred fix, but what do I know? g.c. http://www.nature.com/nsu/040105/040105-10.html |
Farmed salmon
It wouldn't surprise me to see Mad Cow Disease show up in fish
next. Some idiot could grind up the diseased cows for fish food. Ernie |
Farmed salmon
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:03:26 GMT, "Ernie"
wrote: It wouldn't surprise me to see Mad Cow Disease show up in fish next. Some idiot could grind up the diseased cows for fish food. Ernie In the Nature report they did point out that animal by-products were part of the food that salmon are fed. g.c. |
Farmed salmon
"Ernie" schrieb im Newsbeitrag m... It wouldn't surprise me to see Mad Cow Disease show up in fish next. Some idiot could grind up the diseased cows for fish food. Ernie This is already happening. The sources of some meals and pellets are suspect. Part of the reason for the high concentrations of various poisons in farmed fish is due to contaminated feed.There are also various cases of disease extant, which have not hitherto occurred in wild fish. Quite apart from anything else, farmed fish are heavily dosed with various chemicals, medicines, and hormones. It is most unlikely that this results in healthy food. Quite apart from the effects on the fish themselves, and the environment in general. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
wrote...
snipped Unfortunately, none of the solutions proposed were that the salmon farms be abolished and that the watersheds of wild salmon be cleaned up enough to allow normal production of salmon. That would be my preferred fix, but what do I know? This is something that I feel very strongly about. Does anybody know of any lobbying organizations that oppose salmon farming and yet are not environmental/extreme liberal whackos? Not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal. -- Warren (sorry for the mention of "liberal," but I was thinking of groups like PETA and the "save the fish" types of idiots) (use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email) For Conclave Info: http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html |
Farmed salmon
"Mike Connor" Mike-Connor wrote...
Salmon farming is causing massive damage to the environment and ecology wherever it is being done. Not only at the farms themselves. Massive amounts of irreplaceable "wild" protein is being converted into fish meal and similar. ( at a massive loss ratio!), to feed the unfortunate creatures. The cumulative and total damage this engenders is beyond estimate, and in many cases, already beyond repair. Hey Mike, I appreciate your views and postings on the subject (and thank Tim for bringing the subject up). This is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed ASAP. It is up to anglers like ourselves and the consumers to end this practice immediately. This is just another way of raping nature in order to make money, but one of the most dangerous to date. When the seas die, then mankind will die as well. Who knows? It may be a good thing. Sad and very true. Our very lives are based upon water and the wholesale destruction of our waters is something that affects every living being on this planet. Oceans can no longer be our dumping ground or waste dump. Does anyone know of any groups that are lobbying governments to fix the problem and who are not environmental whackos? Unfortunately, there are groups who use this sad fact for their political gain (PETA, et al). I am just looking for a group to support that has no political gain at all and is merely interested in the well-being of people and our environment. Suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. -- Warren (use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email) For Conclave Info: http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html |
Farmed salmon
"Warren" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... SNIP This one is pretty active http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/ There are others. You will find some info on this board; http://flyforums.proboards20.com/ind...?board=general http://flyforums.proboards20.com/ind...3 555&start=0 I belong to one such organisation, in fact I am an executive member. This does not concentrate on salmonids however; http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn Searching google will turn up quite a lot as well. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
|
Farmed salmon
Warren wrote:
....... This is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed ASAP. It is up to anglers like ourselves and the consumers to end this practice immediately. ....... Sad and very true. Our very lives are based upon water and the wholesale destruction of our waters is something that affects every living being on this planet. Oceans can no longer be our dumping ground or waste dump. ...... Does anyone know of any groups that are lobbying governments to fix the problem and who are not environmental whackos? Unfortunately, there are groups who use this sad fact for their political gain (PETA, et al). I am just looking for a group to support that has no political gain at all and is merely interested in the well-being of people and our environment. Suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. No offensive, Warren, but you are becoming seriously confused (though maybe in this case, that's a good thing g). Most of what you've written above IS, in fact, environmental whackoism. Starts to affect something of "personal" concern, so welcome to the club, eh? Farmed salmon, proprietary potatoes, Round-up Ready soybeans, or hormone-laced, antibiotic-drenched, offal-fed, downer cattle.... once "consumers" cede the entire food production system to a handful of mega-agribusinesses they better get used to 1) eating crap, 2) seeing the environment take it in the butt. Groups "interested in the well-being of people and our environment" BECOME politically active (and annoying to some) simply because having clout in the political process is how you get things done. Don't feel shy, though. Quite apart from the chi-chi charity circuit types who use environmental awareness for PR purposes while their corporations spew anything and everything anywhere and everywhere, a lot of conservatives (the right-thinking sort, anyway) are staunch, true environmentalists. So jump right in. Strange bedfellows and all that. In another article on the farmed salmon story, a scientist at a large U.S. university claims the study in fact shows that farmed salmon is perfectly safe. Go to that scientist's CV on his university's web site, look at the list of his research publications, look up the publications themselves and read the acknowledgments at the end, and discover large amounts of his research is funded by Monsanto, which (if you look a bit farther in other directions) you find is working on genetically modifying salmon to make them more "adapted" to the conditions farmed salmon are raised under. Hm. Anyway, wild salmon are goners. What tipped it, in my view, are recent, apparently successful attempts in the PNW to eliminate the distinction between wild stocks and hatchery-bred stocks of salmon/steelhead, with misleading claims that they are essentially identical genetically. If that big lie is swallowed, it's all downhill. Still, you might look to see if any of these orgs manage to make it past your vestigial Enviro-Wack-O-Meter: http://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/ (these are the folks that organize the research/fishing trips to Kamchatka) http://www.wildsalmon.org/ Or my favorites (for different reasons): http://home.teleport.com/~salmo/ (the Science and Research section of their "Library" is a great resource) http://www.salmonnation.com/ Or, more traditionally, Oregon Trout's Salmon Watch educational program would be a good thing to support: http://www.ortrout.org/8success/salmon.html JR |
Farmed salmon
Warren wrote: wrote... snipped Unfortunately, none of the solutions proposed were that the salmon farms be abolished and that the watersheds of wild salmon be cleaned up enough to allow normal production of salmon. That would be my preferred fix, but what do I know? This is something that I feel very strongly about. Does anybody know of any lobbying organizations that oppose salmon farming and yet are not environmental/extreme liberal whackos? Not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal. Even though the words sounds the same, there are VERY few conservative politicians or conservative groups that are conservationists. (Which I'm guessing is what you're looking for) Unfortunately most conservative groups and individuals are interested in conserving capital, not the environment. Business and the production of income is far more important to the majority of conservative politicians and groups than environmental issues. Protecting the environment costs money either for the tax payer or some industry. Exploiting the environment generates money. I think that candidates who are fiscally conservative but more socially and environmentally liberal would be appealing to alot of people. However, with our present political climate, finding such people is HIGHLY unlikely. IMO, this is because of the adversarial polarization that results from our two party system and is one of the weaknesses of a two party system. I'm making some assumptions here about your politics, but I'm guessing that if you want to support some environmental groups that share your concern about the salmon farms, you are going to be supporting some things that you consider "whacko". Willi |
Farmed salmon
"Willi" wrote in message ... Even though the words sounds the same, there are VERY few conservative politicians or conservative groups that are conservationists. (Which I'm guessing is what you're looking for) Unfortunately most conservative groups and individuals are interested in conserving capital, not the environment. Business and the production of income is far more important to the majority of conservative politicians and groups than environmental issues. Protecting the environment costs money either for the tax payer or some industry. Exploiting the environment generates money. Willi You are correct. Unfortunately. Danl |
Farmed salmon
This has been here before, it may be of interest.
http://www.chambers-associates.org/R...y_of_Fish.html "Warren" wrote in message ... wrote... snipped Unfortunately, none of the solutions proposed were that the salmon farms be abolished and that the watersheds of wild salmon be cleaned up enough to allow normal production of salmon. That would be my preferred fix, but what do I know? This is something that I feel very strongly about. Does anybody know of any lobbying organizations that oppose salmon farming and yet are not environmental/extreme liberal whackos? Not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal. -- Warren (sorry for the mention of "liberal," but I was thinking of groups like PETA and the "save the fish" types of idiots) (use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email) For Conclave Info: http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html |
Farmed salmon
wrote...
No offensive, Warren, but you are becoming seriously confused (though maybe in this case, that's a good thing g). Most of what you've written above IS, in fact, environmental whackoism. Starts to affect something of "personal" concern, so welcome to the club, eh? Farmed salmon, proprietary potatoes, Round-up Ready soybeans, or hormone-laced, antibiotic-drenched, offal-fed, downer cattle.... once "consumers" cede the entire food production system to a handful of mega-agribusinesses they better get used to 1) eating crap, 2) seeing the environment take it in the butt. Nothing I wrote was whacko, it is just common sense combined with a responsibility to do something about a given situation. As a fisherman, wild and native fish are a topic of concern and I do not view conservation, protection and/or restoration of fisheries as whacko efforts; it is a responsibility. No matter what political allegiances you may have, some things are just bad and there is no other conclusion that can be reached when armed with the facts. A group dedicated to ending salmon farming because it is inhumane to the fish being raised would fall within my personal view of being a whacko group. Can you see the distinction yet or are you still confused? You need not read more into what I have said than what is there; concern as an angler for a wild, native strain of fish and the larger group of fish in the oceans. My concern and determination are not the beginning of a new line of thinking where I start smoking dope, grow my hair long and started flashing peace signs instead of the middle finger to assholes while eating tofu burgers. Funk dat! Groups "interested in the well-being of people and our environment" BECOME politically active (and annoying to some) simply because having clout in the political process is how you get things done. Don't feel shy, though. Quite apart from the chi-chi charity circuit types who use environmental awareness for PR purposes while their corporations spew anything and everything anywhere and everywhere, a lot of conservatives (the right-thinking sort, anyway) are staunch, true environmentalists. So jump right in. Strange bedfellows and all that. Political lobbying for a cause is one thing because it can bring about the needed change. Funding a politician or party under the guise of a good cause is what I am trying to avoid. This should not be a political issue other than instituting the changes that are needed to remedy the situation. Groups with multiple agendas and causes are not the sort that I am looking for because I may disagree with their other platforms. I am looking for a specific group with a specific goal in ending salmon farming so as to protect native fish populations and fisheries. Just because other organizations endorse this goal does not mean that I want to join their particular group and be a part of their other goals. Anyway, wild salmon are goners. What tipped it, in my view, are recent, apparently successful attempts in the PNW to eliminate the distinction between wild stocks and hatchery-bred stocks of salmon/steelhead, with misleading claims that they are essentially identical genetically. If that big lie is swallowed, it's all downhill. I sure hope that wild salmon and steelhead aren't goners. That will be a sad, sad day and I refuse to just write it off as foregone conclusion. There is still some small hope and I will gladly fight for that hope using what meager contributions I can to ensure that the day does not come. It is my duty as a fisherman, who hopes to someday enjoy more of that type of fishing than I have, to make the effort. If not for my own enjoyment, then for the enjoyment of future generations such as my daughter whom I someday hope to take on a fishing trip like that. Still, you might look to see if any of these orgs manage to make it past your vestigial Enviro-Wack-O-Meter: Well, I don't see PETA in the list so there is hope that my Enviro- Wack-O-Meter won't be red-lined. ;-) I added them to the ones that Mike offered and will check them out. I have spent some time with the link Mike posted and that is EXACTLY the type of group I am looking for. The article 'Getting Involved' by Leon Roskilly just the sort of thing I needed to get my ass busy but lazy cheap ass involved. I look forward to finding equally hopeful articles and suggestions in the links you provided. I thank you and Mike for taking the time to post the links. Now if you will excuse me, I am going fishing. :-) -- Warren (use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email) For Conclave Info: http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html |
Farmed salmon
Danl wrote:
"Willi" wrote in message ... Even though the words sounds the same, there are VERY few conservative politicians or conservative groups that are conservationists. (Which I'm guessing is what you're looking for) Unfortunately most conservative groups and individuals are interested in conserving capital, not the environment. Business and the production of income is far more important to the majority of conservative politicians and groups than environmental issues. Protecting the environment costs money either for the tax payer or some industry. Exploiting the environment generates money. Willi You are correct. Unfortunately. I'd like to know just what "conservative" politicians are conservative about. Is it fiscal conservatism? NO. (Huge tax cuts leading to huge deficits -- IOW, voodoo economics.) Is it conservation in the environmental sense? God, no. Is it a conservative approach to foreign policy? No, no, no. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Farmed salmon
"Chas Wade" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:oSqMb.32080$xy6.83099@attbi_s02... SNIP I think "conservative" is just like liberal, Republican, Democratic, Tory, Wigg, and a score of other such names. No trace of the origin left in the meaning. Chas I agree with that, just a set of basically meaningless labels. All the more surprising that people should get so excited about them, and even engage in various absolutely pointless battles to defend or uphold them. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
rw wrote:
I'd like to know just what "conservative" politicians are conservative about. Is it fiscal conservatism? NO. (Huge tax cuts leading to huge deficits -- IOW, voodoo economics.) Is it conservation in the environmental sense? God, no. Is it a conservative approach to foreign policy? No, no, no. I think "conservative" is just like liberal, Republican, Democratic, Tory, Wigg, and a score of other such names. No trace of the origin left in the meaning. Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Farmed salmon
"Mike Connor" Mike-Connor wrote:
I agree with that, just a set of basically meaningless labels. All the more surprising that people should get so excited about them, and even engage in various absolutely pointless battles to defend or uphold them. We're on the same page there Mike. I am curious that you managed to post that reply 6 minutes before I sent the message. You haven't advertised your time machine yet. ;-) Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Farmed salmon
"Chas Wade" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:J0rMb.30240$nt4.63203@attbi_s51... SNIP We're on the same page there Mike. I am curious that you managed to post that reply 6 minutes before I sent the message. You haven't advertised your time machine yet. ;-) My machine is synchronised to an atomic clock http://www.worldtimeserver.com/ so the time is correct. Maybe the news server is out, or even your machine? No idea really. Incorrect time settings can play strange tricks with newsgroups. TL MC |
Farmed salmon
"Mike Connor" Mike-Connor wrote:
"Chas Wade" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:J0rMb.30240$nt4.63203@attbi_s51... SNIP We're on the same page there Mike. I am curious that you managed to post that reply 6 minutes before I sent the message. You haven't advertised your time machine yet. ;-) My machine is synchronised to an atomic clock http://www.worldtimeserver.com/ so the time is correct. Maybe the news server is out, or even your machine? No idea really. Incorrect time settings can play strange tricks with newsgroups. Interesting, I'm just 1 minute behind http://www.worldtimeserver.com, so it must be in the servers somewhere. Thanks, Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Farmed salmon
More than anything else what I was trying to say in my ramblings was that Im always a bit sceptical when people publish their research in a magazine rather than a journal. It simply makes me wonder if the research wasnt good enough or the conclusions made too far fetched for it to be accepted. All the other bull I mentioned were simply potential explanations that you'd normally have to rule out before you can publish. And I was simply wondering if they actually had done that. It takes a lot of effort to design an experiment (more work than the actual lab work) so that you make sure your results/measurements actually let you answer the questions you were trying to answer. It reminds me of a story in one of Richard Feynmanns boooks. Back in the 50s and 60s a lot of research was done into brainfunctions and learning abilities. One of the favorite experiments was to run mice through a maze and test their ability to 'memorize' how to find the cheese. Lots of experiments were made and one team actually did a study on how to construct a maze in such a way that the mice had no other ways to tell (e.g. by the sound of their feet on the wood or lighting etc) how to get there, i.e. they were forced to actually be able to memorize the path. So basically this paper established the foundation of how to conduct the experiments and have reliable results. However very few if any papers published later referenced this, so you can only guess at the quality of their results and conclusions. In this particular case (of the fish), even if the basic work was done correctly the interpretation of the results may still be controversial. If the measured amounts are higher in farmed salmon but still far below what the general scientific community regards as the upper level for whats acceptable for human consumption the group may interpret it in a way which is at odds with their research peers i.e. not everyone agreeing what the safe level is (my fist email). Thus your paper may not be accepted in the scientific community, but you can probably find some journalist who is willing to bring it simply because of the stir it will cause. |
Farmed salmon
Hello Svend,
I am not a scientist but in a previous life (engineer, now retired) I occasionally had a need to read papers published in the journal Science . It is one of the most highly respected and prestigeous scientific journals on the planet. Hardly a magazine, as you put it. Yuji Sakuma ================================================== ===== "Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message ... More than anything else what I was trying to say in my ramblings was that Im always a bit sceptical when people publish their research in a magazine rather than a journal. It simply makes me wonder if the research wasnt good enough or the conclusions made too far fetched for it to be accepted. |
Farmed salmon
"Yuji Sakuma" wrote in message .. . Hello Svend, I am not a scientist but in a previous life (engineer, now retired) I occasionally had a need to read papers published in the journal Science . It is one of the most highly respected and prestigeous scientific journals on the planet. Hardly a magazine, as you put it. Yuji Sakuma Svend had snipped any reference to the post he was responding to, so I wasn't aware of what magazine he was referring to. For what it's worth (coming from an English major who, nevertheless, does work in a scientific field), I agree wholeheartedly. More importantly, the people I work with and for are genuine hardcore dyed in the wool scientists and the overwhelming majority of them subscribe to "Science" and/or it's British counterpart, "Nature". Being published in either is, I believe, generally regarded as a greater mark of distinction than acceptance by virtually any specialized peer reviewed journal, in part because it implies a broader interest base without in the least diminishing the legitimacy, within it's field, of the work published. In addition, while I'm not familiar with their editorial policies, I strongly suspect that both magazines subject submissions to as rigorous a peer review policy as any other journal. I would further guess that their stature guarantees them a pick of highly qualified reviewers (whose own reputations are thereby enhanced) willing to work on short notice, thus allowing them to get hot new findings to the presses faster than most of the specialized journals. Wolfgang who, it must be admitted, mostly just looks at the pictures. |
Farmed salmon
I usually read various 'review letters' and journals and may have come across this one. I guess what threw me off was that the initial link posted had a reference to sciencemag.com, but off course the text calls it the science journal. (most of what I was part of doing was in Physics Review Letters). So it was most likely published in what Id call 'a proper journal' which is good. My initial posting was about the reactions from the FDA and other researchers who downplayed the seriousness of the findings. I.e. the levels in farmed may be higher, but is still well within the accepted limits. But the way it was initially handled in the media has almost led people to beleive that they should not eat farmed fish at all. (I ran across a few of those at Costco this weekend). I cant help having a slight feeling of sensationalism in this whole story. If the levels were critical the FDA would ban import and sales (especially import). And when one of the authors says 'unlimited consumption is unwise' thats a very weak statement and sort of indicates that they really dont know how bad or not it actually is. Yuji Sakuma wrote: Hello Svend, I am not a scientist but in a previous life (engineer, now retired) I occasionally had a need to read papers published in the journal Science . It is one of the most highly respected and prestigeous scientific journals on the planet. Hardly a magazine, as you put it. Yuji Sakuma ================================================== ===== "Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message ... More than anything else what I was trying to say in my ramblings was that Im always a bit sceptical when people publish their research in a magazine rather than a journal. It simply makes me wonder if the research wasnt good enough or the conclusions made too far fetched for it to be accepted. |
Farmed salmon
Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:
I usually read various 'review letters' and journals and may have come across this one. I guess what threw me off was that the initial link posted had a reference to sciencemag.com, but off course the text calls it the science journal. (most of what I was part of doing was in Physics Review Letters). You were "doing" Phys Rev Lett and you never heard of Science Magazine, the flagship of the AAAS? Good God! -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Farmed salmon
The paper on farmed salmon that we are talking about was written by
academics. I have never worked in academia but I hear that there is an intense pressure to publish. In which case, I would think that the more sensational the findings, the better. Being published, or even better, becoming famous is the goal because then the research grants will come rolling in and you will eat, maybe enhance the reputation of the school and get a promotion. One of the principal investigators, I don't even remember his name, was on television being interviewed for a science program on Discovery Channel. I was not totally happy with the manner in which he answered questions, not with his answers per se. My take was that he was more interested in creating a stir than he was in telling about the science. This does not of course, invalidate the science. Your comment below indicates an unquestioning trust in the FDA - me, I think of the US FDA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as people not gods. People may be experts but they are not infallible. Yuji Sakuma ================================================== = "Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message ... I cant help having a slight feeling of sensationalism in this whole story. If the levels were critical the FDA would ban import and sales (especially import). And when one of the authors says 'unlimited consumption is unwise' thats a very weak statement and sort of indicates that they really dont know how bad or not it actually is. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter