Farmed salmon

"Yuji Sakuma" wrote in message
. ..
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.

True.

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.

A bit of an overstatement. People in academia are.....well, people, no
different than any others. My boss, for example, is as aware as any of the
publish or perish dictum. However, as a child of holocaust survivors he is
keenly aware that that imperative is a metaphor. He is not the least bit
interested in sacrificing his own personal integrity (with which I can
attest he is amply endowed) for an NIH grant.


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.

People, like any others. Of course there are those in the sciences whose
drive for self-promotion exceeds all others. On the other hand, it is VERY
important to remember that editing can achieve amazing wonders. Many an
innocent has been stupefied when viewing the results of an interview.

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.

Exactly. But they are also not necessarily what they appear to be.


Wolfgang

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.

None taken, but I disagree with you in part. What I posted is pretty
much considered true by several prominent sources. Yes, the issue
has become personal. As a fisherman, and one who hopes to do more
salmon fishing and wants to get some steelhead fishing in, I am
concerned about these species of fish and their environment. It has
been pretty well demonstrated that farm raised salmon are just plain
bad and do more harm than good. They are not only an environmental
threat, but they also pose a threat to native stocks of fish (you
could consider that an extension of the environment of course).
AFAIK the only "studies" done that say that these operations are not
harmful are bought and paid for by special interest groups
representing these farming operations and their cronies. This boils
down to a situation where there is only right and wrong and
"whackoism" doesn't come into play IMO.

What I consider "whackoism" are causes that don't add up either
scientifically or intellectually. They may be topics that rouse deep
passions, but that doesn't mean they can be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt and are nothing more than "feelings" or opinions.
Some people take issue with people who wear leather products, furs,
etc. Yes they are passionate about the issue, but that doesn't mean
that the issue is right or necessarily wrong because in the end it is
a personal issue. Farm raised salmon has some scientific data behind
it as well as anecdotal evidence and has grown beyond the "feeling"
or "opinion" stage, if you know what I mean.

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.

Yes, such organizations do become politically active because that is
how change is brought about. I thought I made it pretty clear what I
was trying to avoid, but apparently I failed so here we go again.....
PETA is probably against farm raised salmon due to it being
"inhumane" to the fish. Should I support their group, which also has
other agendas that I most emphatically disagree with? Should I send
money or volunteer my time to an organization that is going to be
counterproductive to other concerns of mine? I think not. What I was
looking for was a group like Mike Connor posted a link to, but here
in the US. The group I envision is about dealing with this issue and
has no political allegiance other than what it will take to bring
about change. They don't fund a particular political party, they do
not sponsor attack ads against an opposing party, etc. They are,
unlike ROFF, on topic and focused on one issue.

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.

EXACTLY!!!!! It is kind like the studies done by scientist bought
and paid for by tobacco companies! For years they told us it was
safe, but it turns out that they lied. The studies on this issue
(farmed salmon) are pretty one-sided against the industry. Of course
there will be studies done by those with a financial interest at
stake and they will try to disprove those studies that paint their
industry in a bad light. But in the end, you have to admit that a
reasonable person would come to the conclusion that salmon farming
poses a severe threat to not only the environment, but the native
fish as well. This is just correct, not whacko IMO. Of course a
person involved with salmon farming would probably disagree and I
would be obliged to kick them in the ding-ding. Saving all the
trees, not using animal products and extremes such as those are what
I call whacko. Groups with many different "causes" that I don't
agree with were what I was trying to avoid.

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 you are wrong. While I am a cynic by nature, I am also
stubborn as hell. Sometimes I refuse to admit defeat just because I
would rather make a go of it than give up. This is an issue where my
cynicism is going full bore because IME money talks and the truth can
be covered up with enough money, (that plays out on many different
levels) but I refuse to give up. And yeah, my stubbornness for Bush
is waning with each passing day as more and more facts are
revealed.....

Still, you might look to see if any of these orgs manage to make it past
your vestigial Enviro-Wack-O-Meter:

I wouldn't call it "vestigial." It is more like an awareness or
advancement that you were unaware of. g It would be easy to
sponsor any group with one cause that I shared. It would be just as
easy to sponsor a group and views of theirs that I do not share or
would wish not to contribute to. Hopefully one of the links that you
provided will offer me a much needed say in the matter. I really do
thank you for the links and have been spending quite a bit of time
checking these places out. After reading about what impact these
operations have had on other nations and their wild stocks of fish, I
desperately want to save what we still have. When the last remaining
native stocks of these fish die, it will be a sad, sad day and I
don't know if what is left to fish (hatchery fish or crossbred
mutants) will mean as much to me. I'll probably hang up the rod and
become "an old fart" and just bitch about how good it used to be.

I don't know. Maybe you are right and that I am now considered a
whacko. People in the same political party thought Theodore
Roosevelt was a whacko when he started becoming a conservationist
too. It doesn't change my views on other issues and I still find
myself agreeing with the Republican party more than that of the
Democrats, but some issues should transcend political ideologies IMO
because they are just the right thing to do. This is how I see this
particular issue.

snipped a bunch of useful links

Thanks again for the links. I cannot tell you how grateful I am.

PS: Willi, are you up to speed yet? g
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

There is a large number of publications out there. Some are topic
specific such
as PRL and others cover science in general so that you can keep up
with
research in other fields than your own. Examples of these would be
Nature and
apparently the Science Journal (given that its published by the
American Association for Advancement of Science I assume it has a
broader topic span with a partly American focus). Schools probably
spend most of their publication budget on the first group within the
areas of research done at the school and less money on the latter. I
went to school in Europe and would not be surprised if it was decided
to spend the money on Nature instead since its regional and not on a
similar US focused publication.

And Im sure few American schools would have a version of a similar
{insert almost any country but the US here}AAS publication.

rw wrote in message om...
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!

"Yuji Sakuma" wrote in message ...
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

(Im using 'you' as a general term below, not as a specific).

No, I dont put that kind of trust neither in the FDA nor the guys who
caused the stir in the first place.

At the end of the day its simply a question of how much you personally
think the
risk to your health is increased by eating farmed vs non-farmed fish
(in this
case). Here the interpretation of the results seems very
controversial.
If the measured levels (depending on which chemical) were maybe 10-20%
of the levels set by the FDA I'd probably not eat farmed fish either.
However Im guessing that the health benefits from eating farmed fish
vs no fish at all by far offsets the suggested increased risk, e.g.
reduced risk or various coronary conditions etc..

The added risk to your health from eating farmed vs non-farmed fish is
probably far less than the additional risk you impose on your health
if you either eat, drink or answer your cellphone while driving. And
most people have no problem with that. (not even mentioning what was
in the burger you ate in the first place).

wrote...
At the end of the day its simply a question of how much you personally
think the
risk to your health is increased by eating farmed vs non-farmed fish
(in this
case). Here the interpretation of the results seems very
controversial.
If the measured levels (depending on which chemical) were maybe 10-20%
of the levels set by the FDA I'd probably not eat farmed fish either.
However Im guessing that the health benefits from eating farmed fish
vs no fish at all by far offsets the suggested increased risk, e.g.
reduced risk or various coronary conditions etc..

The added risk to your health from eating farmed vs non-farmed fish is
probably far less than the additional risk you impose on your health
if you either eat, drink or answer your cellphone while driving. And
most people have no problem with that. (not even mentioning what was
in the burger you ate in the first place).

What about the health of the fishery? Have you looked at those yet?
What are your views on those risks?
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

What about the health of the fishery? Have you looked at those yet?
What are your views on those risks?


The quick answer is, no I havent.

There's a big difference between saying that I dont think there's a
significant
risk if you eat the farmed fish to imply that the farms dont have an
environmental impact.

Its like saying that just because you dont think that the pork chop
you ate last night wasnt unhealthy that farming doesnt influence the
environment. Back home we've had and still have significant problems
with nutrients from various kinds of fertilizers getting washed out
into the rivers and fjords. This leads to heavy algea growth and when
they rot they use up most of the oxygen in the shallow parts of the
fjords killing everything around leaving a stinking mess behind. Im
dont know what the situation is here in the US, but its probably not
much better.

Im sure there are similar problems associated with fishfarms, but I
dont have any firsthand experience with those nor with their extend. I
can easily imagine
issues arising from larger farms e.g. if excess food and bio-waste in
abundance is introduced into an area at such rates that it cannot
recover. And large crowded populations of anything tend to encourage
infections, virus etc that most likely will transfer to the local wild
fish. Especially if they hang around to eat any excess food.

So hopefully there are locals not tied to the industri monitoring the
effects and who will raise the red flag when needed.

As to what I prefer at the end of my line ? Wild fish, what else ?

In article ,
Warren wrote:

What about the health of the fishery? Have you looked at those yet?
What are your views on those risks?

And how does it affect the fisher compared to all the creeks that are
damned, cemented, canaled etc?

In article ,
(Svend Tang-Petersen) wrote:


What about the health of the fishery? Have you looked at those yet?
What are your views on those risks?


Oh, and I forgot, not only is their everything I said in my previous
post, but also consider the water tempeture rises from the electric
companies. I live in Chico, and this year we had about 5000 -10,000
salmon killed in a little creek that runs through town (butte creek)
because of PGE letting the water getting too warm

steve sullivan wrote:

In article ,
(Svend Tang-Petersen) wrote:


What about the health of the fishery? Have you looked at those yet?
What are your views on those risks?


Oh, and I forgot, not only is their everything I said in my previous
post, but also consider the water tempeture rises from the electric
companies. I live in Chico, and this year we had about 5000 -10,000
salmon killed in a little creek that runs through town (butte creek)
because of PGE letting the water getting too warm

We had a similar incident in NorCal where water was diverted for irregation

at the time when salmon and steelhead were comming in. Killed about 60.000
fish in a few days.

Half of the people exploit the environment: if you work with metal, you pay
someone to go mine the metal; If you work with plastic, you make it
necessary for the oil companies find more oil: if you make clothes, you make
it necessay for the farmer to raise cotton ( and use naurual gas to make
fertilizer for the crop). the other half of the people are in the service
industry and their purpose is to allow the people who are exploiting the
enviornment to spend more time at it.
If you want to preserve the environment completely, we ought to sit on our
hands and starve


"rw" wrote in message
m...
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.



---
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