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

"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

"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

"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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.