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

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
...

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.

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.

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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