Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> > the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> > etc. are all quite right.
>
> Farmed salmon is much higher in PCB's and toxic chemicals
> than wild salmon.
>
> http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1225.html
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

Neither of your cites quantify the difference, only claim vague "much
higher" levels. The only useable piece of information in those articles
is the note of the direct correlation of levels in the feed and levels
in the fish, which is a no-brainer anyway.

The only thing the articles point to is a need to pay closer attention
to the feed. Using a grain / corn based feed like for the catfish ought
to eliminate the chemical concentration issues with the recycled fish
based feed.

I'll also note that the consumption recommendations noted in your cites
point out the fact that it's a non-issue for anyone with a proper
balanced diet. Only those with unnatural and unbalanced diets would have
an issue.

Jean B. wrote:

> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:03 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >
> >> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>
> >>> It just ain't right.
> >> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
> >> given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
> >> it may be necessary.
> >
> > Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
> > that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
> > Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
> > Chile.
>
> I'd have to look into the comparative nutritional benefits, etc.
> to come up with a catfish-specific response. I will say that just
> as farmed salmon is, to me anyway, noticeably inferior, catfish is
> also... different. That is, if one enjoyed the old catfish
> flavor. Which we did.


That "old catfish flavor" was primarily muddy and dirty, because cats are
scavengers and will so eat *anything*, even excreta...

It's only when catfish started being farmed under cleaner controlled
conditions did it come to be considered anything other than a "trash fish",
considered fit primarily for poor people...


--
Best
Greg

George wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe someone here can figure this out.... If the addition of ethanol
>> to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we need to
>> refill more frequently, what are we gaining? It seems to me that the
>> numbers are not what we are led to believe. And that doesn't even get
>> into the corn being used for something other than food and the
>> ramifications of that.
>>
> Its pretty simple. Think back to the not too distant past when it seemed
> most everyone needed to drive a fluffed up truck. As fuel prices rose
> people started to scream about the cost and that the government should
> "do something". Instead of fostering ways to improve efficiency and use
> less fuel the politicians with the help of the corn lobby (follow the
> money) seized on the idea of giving out huge subsidies to make ethanol
> from corn as an "alternative fuel" so everyone could keep driving their
> trucks as usual.
>
> Some of the problems:
>
> Since this vastly accelerated use was unplanned and it takes time to
> prepare fields and grow crops the price of corn soared.
>
> It is much more expensive to make ethanol than the cost of gasoline. So
> the government needs to reach into our pockets to subsidize construction
> and operation of the plants. Also they exempt it from road use taxes to
> further artificially suppress the price so money for highway
> construction is lost.
>
> It is energy inefficient to make ethanol. The process sometimes has a
> close to or net energy loss.
>
> Ethanol is corrosive. So it can't be shipped via a normal pipeline.
> Locally they truck it in from 200 miles away and then blend it when the
> transport trucks are loaded.
>
>
> Fuel economy is less as you noted.

Yes, it is lose-lose-lose... (don't know how many to put in here,
but more). I recently heard about the corrosion. Not good for
the vehicles either.

--
Jean B.

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:03 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>>>
>>>>> It just ain't right.
>>>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
>>>> given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
>>>> it may be necessary.
>>> Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
>>> that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
>>> Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
>>> Chile.
>> I'd have to look into the comparative nutritional benefits, etc.
>> to come up with a catfish-specific response. I will say that just
>> as farmed salmon is, to me anyway, noticeably inferior, catfish is
>> also... different. That is, if one enjoyed the old catfish
>> flavor. Which we did.
>
>
> That "old catfish flavor" was primarily muddy and dirty, because cats are
> scavengers and will so eat *anything*, even excreta...
>
> It's only when catfish started being farmed under cleaner controlled
> conditions did it come to be considered anything other than a "trash fish",
> considered fit primarily for poor people...
>
>
So... Farm-raised catfish don't have any excretia to eat?

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> George wrote:
> > Jean B. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Maybe someone here can figure this out.... If the addition of ethanol
> >> to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we need to
> >> refill more frequently, what are we gaining? It seems to me that the
> >> numbers are not what we are led to believe. And that doesn't even get
> >> into the corn being used for something other than food and the
> >> ramifications of that.
> >>
> > Its pretty simple. Think back to the not too distant past when it seemed
> > most everyone needed to drive a fluffed up truck. As fuel prices rose
> > people started to scream about the cost and that the government should
> > "do something". Instead of fostering ways to improve efficiency and use
> > less fuel the politicians with the help of the corn lobby (follow the
> > money) seized on the idea of giving out huge subsidies to make ethanol
> > from corn as an "alternative fuel" so everyone could keep driving their
> > trucks as usual.
> >
> > Some of the problems:
> >
> > Since this vastly accelerated use was unplanned and it takes time to
> > prepare fields and grow crops the price of corn soared.
> >
> > It is much more expensive to make ethanol than the cost of gasoline. So
> > the government needs to reach into our pockets to subsidize construction
> > and operation of the plants. Also they exempt it from road use taxes to
> > further artificially suppress the price so money for highway
> > construction is lost.
> >
> > It is energy inefficient to make ethanol. The process sometimes has a
> > close to or net energy loss.
> >
> > Ethanol is corrosive. So it can't be shipped via a normal pipeline.
> > Locally they truck it in from 200 miles away and then blend it when the
> > transport trucks are loaded.
> >
> >
> > Fuel economy is less as you noted.
>
> Yes, it is lose-lose-lose... (don't know how many to put in here,
> but more). I recently heard about the corrosion. Not good for
> the vehicles either.

Corrosion is only an issue for older vehicles, and the same type of
issue applies to the new ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) as well.
Vehicles / engines built in recent years have taken the new fuels into
account and use different materials in the fuel system that are tolerant
of the new fuels.

The only "win" with ethanol is lower tailpipe emissions, something that
is not even a win when you consider the emissions generated in
production of the ethanol.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:42:07 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>
>more login crap

i had no problem.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>George wrote:
>>
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>> >
>> > It just ain't right.
>> > --
>> >
>> > modom
>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>
>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>
>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>

ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
fleet mileage, etc.

>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
>resulting massive pollution,

mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
protested its use.

>banning Freon based on junk science and the
>resulting switch to refrigerants that are toxic, less efficient and far
>worse "greenhouse" gasses, as well as the huge impact of replacing
>otherwise perfectly serviceable equipment.
>
>Plenty more examples too, but those who point out all these
>environmentalist caused disasters and point to the need to fully study
>any possible drastic changes and validate the often junk science
>supporting them get attacked as "deniers", or apologists for big
>business or some such.
>
>If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
>environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
>to realize the error of so much of what they push.

you don't know what you're talking about. i suppose you think global
warming is a myth promoted by al gore to enrich himself, and that he
bribed the nobel committee.

but feel to rave on in ignorance while your betters snicker at you.

blake

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>>
>> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
>> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
>
>The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>actually make a profit for a change.

spurred on by those sneaky environmentalists, i guess. try archer
daniels midland and corn-belt congressmen eager for boodle. or those
poor mega-farmers who are facing the poodles at the door.

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:54:26 -0500, "modom (palindrome guy)"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>
>>> "Pete C." wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>>> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>>> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>>>
>>> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
>>> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
>>
>>The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>>actually make a profit for a change.
>
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
>
>http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
>
>http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
>
>Environmentalists, my ass.

but rush told him it was the environmentalists! they're all liberals,
you see, and therefore devils in human form. look out!

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:02:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> >> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> >> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>> >>
>> >> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
>> >> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
>> >
>> >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>> >actually make a profit for a change.
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
>>
>> http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
>>
>> http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
>>
>> Environmentalists, my ass.
>
>What's your point? I didn't say the government didn't get involved and
>then all those who found a way to profit from the stupid plan. That
>doesn't change it's origins.

yeah, it's all those birkenstock-wearing liberal tree-huggers who hold
all the power in this country. it's a crying shame!

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
> >actually make a profit for a change.
>
> spurred on by those sneaky environmentalists, i guess. try archer
> daniels midland and corn-belt congressmen eager for boodle. or those
> poor mega-farmers who are facing the poodles at the door.

Are you now or have you ever been an environmentalist?

Answer the question!

:-)

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:03 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>>>>> It just ain't right.
>>>>>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
>>>>>> given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
>>>>>> it may be necessary.
>>>>> Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
>>>>> that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
>>>>> Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
>>>>> Chile.
>>>> I'd have to look into the comparative nutritional benefits, etc.
>>>> to come up with a catfish-specific response. I will say that just
>>>> as farmed salmon is, to me anyway, noticeably inferior, catfish is
>>>> also... different. That is, if one enjoyed the old catfish
>>>> flavor. Which we did.
>>>
>>> That "old catfish flavor" was primarily muddy and dirty, because cats
> are
>>> scavengers and will so eat *anything*, even excreta...
>>>
>>> It's only when catfish started being farmed under cleaner controlled
>>> conditions did it come to be considered anything other than a "trash
> fish",
>>> considered fit primarily for poor people...
>>>
>>>
>> So... Farm-raised catfish don't have any excretia to eat?
>>
>
>
> Notice I said "cleaner"...nothing is absolute.
>
> :-)
>
> I grew up near the Mississippi and catfish was often on the menu. Fishermen
> friends would sometimes give us some and it could be a real crap
> (literally) - shoot as to quality. Sometimes the fish would be fine,
> sometimes full of mud and junk...
>
> If we bought from a commercial fishery, no prob, they'd catch those cats and
> put them in big horse tanks for a few days with constantly fresh circulated
> water and a diet of feed grain. They'd eventually be purged of most
> impurities...
>
> That very same fish market now sells catfish - but it's the farm - raised
> catfish fillets. If you want wild - caught outta the river, it's a special
> order, and thus more expensive...
>
> I notice that my local stupormarket (Treasure Island, Chicago) has whole
> catfish "on sale" for $3.98/lb; I don't think it's a whole lot cheaper in
> stores on the South Side, which cater to a largely black clientele. So much
> for "poor food"...
>
> Anyways, now I have a hankerin' for fried catfish...and at this moment I'm
> making coleslaw, so...
>
> ;-)
>
>
Damn. Now I want catfish too. First, that would mean
farm-raised, because I don't think there are any other options
here (near Boston). Second, I'd have to use ground almonds
instead of the corn meal. Soon...

--
Jean B.

Jean B. wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Jean B. wrote:
> >
> >> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:04:03 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It just ain't right.
> >>>> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right. I suppose, though, that
> >>>> given the condition of the seas, and the population of the world,
> >>>> it may be necessary.
> >>> Not sure about that. Catfish farming isn't practiced the same way
> >>> that, say, salmon farming is. For starters it's done in ponds in
> >>> Mississippi's Delta region up by Leland, not in pens off the coast of
> >>> Chile.
> >> I'd have to look into the comparative nutritional benefits, etc.
> >> to come up with a catfish-specific response. I will say that just
> >> as farmed salmon is, to me anyway, noticeably inferior, catfish is
> >> also... different. That is, if one enjoyed the old catfish
> >> flavor. Which we did.
> >
> >
> > That "old catfish flavor" was primarily muddy and dirty, because cats
are
> > scavengers and will so eat *anything*, even excreta...
> >
> > It's only when catfish started being farmed under cleaner controlled
> > conditions did it come to be considered anything other than a "trash
fish",
> > considered fit primarily for poor people...
> >
> >
> So... Farm-raised catfish don't have any excretia to eat?
>


Notice I said "cleaner"...nothing is absolute.

:-)

I grew up near the Mississippi and catfish was often on the menu. Fishermen
friends would sometimes give us some and it could be a real crap
(literally) - shoot as to quality. Sometimes the fish would be fine,
sometimes full of mud and junk...

If we bought from a commercial fishery, no prob, they'd catch those cats and
put them in big horse tanks for a few days with constantly fresh circulated
water and a diet of feed grain. They'd eventually be purged of most
impurities...

That very same fish market now sells catfish - but it's the farm - raised
catfish fillets. If you want wild - caught outta the river, it's a special
order, and thus more expensive...

I notice that my local stupormarket (Treasure Island, Chicago) has whole
catfish "on sale" for $3.98/lb; I don't think it's a whole lot cheaper in
stores on the South Side, which cater to a largely black clientele. So much
for "poor food"...

Anyways, now I have a hankerin' for fried catfish...and at this moment I'm
making coleslaw, so...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>George wrote:
>>>
>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>> >
>>> > It just ain't right.
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > modom
>>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>
>>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>>
>>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>>
>
> ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
> minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
> 'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
> fleet mileage, etc.
>
>>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
>>resulting massive pollution,
>
> mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
> again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
> protested its use.

Wasn't it compensation for the loss of lead? Wasn't the loss of lead an
environmental thang?


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Mark Thorson wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>> >actually make a profit for a change.
>>
>> spurred on by those sneaky environmentalists, i guess. try archer
>> daniels midland and corn-belt congressmen eager for boodle. or those
>> poor mega-farmers who are facing the poodles at the door.
>
> Are you now or have you ever been an environmentalist?

How close was I to posting that question? Close enough that I Googled it
up to make sure I had the original right.

> Answer the question!
>
> :-)

I'll take a fifth, here. <hic>


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:06:56 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>Anyways, now I have a hankerin' for fried catfish

This thread reminded me I haven't made catfish in ages. I've only
prepared farm raised (I think) and have been very happy with it. Not
being a fish lover at heart, I doubt I'd like catfish today if I'd
ever eaten one that tasted even remotely muddy.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2008-07-18, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>> more login crap
>>
>> Yep, that's what I got.
>
> I didn't. I got the article. It was interesting.

They did not ask me to login, either.

It is sad to see these catfish farms close. I am particularly fond of
blue cat and channel cat, we had those in our pond on the farm.

Catfish probably come in 200 varieties around the world, and the
varieties they grow, is what I will have to live with if I buy catfish
in the supermarket. That is pretty sad.

Becca

Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> blake murphy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>George wrote:
> >>>
> >>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>> >
> >>> > It just ain't right.
> >>> > --
> >>> >
> >>> > modom
> >>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
> >>>
> >>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
> >>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
> >>
> >>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> >>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> >>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
> >>
> >
> > ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
> > minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
> > 'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
> > fleet mileage, etc.
> >
> >>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
> >>resulting massive pollution,
> >
> > mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
> > again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
> > protested its use.
>
> Wasn't it compensation for the loss of lead? Wasn't the loss of lead an
> environmental thang?

Neither. MTBE is an oxygenate and was required to be added to gasoline
for the express purpose of reducing tailpipe emissions. MMT was the
replacement for lead. Both were environmental things, though the MMT
doesn't seem to have had any disastrous consequences like MTBE has.

Pete C. wrote:

>
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>George wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>> >>> >
>> >>> > It just ain't right.
>> >>> > --
>> >>> >
>> >>> > modom
>> >>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>> >>>
>> >>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>> >>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>> >>
>> >>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> >>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> >>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
>> > minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
>> > 'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
>> > fleet mileage, etc.
>> >
>> >>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
>> >>resulting massive pollution,
>> >
>> > mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
>> > again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
>> > protested its use.
>>
>> Wasn't it compensation for the loss of lead? Wasn't the loss of lead an
>> environmental thang?
>
> Neither. MTBE is an oxygenate and was required to be added to gasoline
> for the express purpose of reducing tailpipe emissions. MMT was the
> replacement for lead. Both were environmental things, though the MMT
> doesn't seem to have had any disastrous consequences like MTBE has.

Ahh. Okay. Got my Ms mixed up. Well, at least I was right that the MTBE
was an environmentalism agenda thing, even though I though I was talking
about something else. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:08:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>George wrote:
>>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>> > Pete C. > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> >> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> >> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>> >
>> > I don't personally know any environmentalists who ever
>> > favored ethanol.
>>
>> Everything I read about the environmentalists says that they believe in
>> more efficiency and less consumption. Grinding up food to make more fuel
>> doesn't strike me as anything an environmentalists would want.
>
>Ethanol gives lower tailpipe emissions than gasoline. It was the
>uneducated environmentalists who were promoting ethanol as reducing
>pollution that started the problem since they lacked the education to be
>able to look at the bigger picture.
>

you keep saying this and i don't think it's true. can you provide a
cite?

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:44:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
>> > the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
>> > etc. are all quite right.
>>
>> Farmed salmon is much higher in PCB's and toxic chemicals
>> than wild salmon.
>>
>> http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1225.html
>>
>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63
>
>Neither of your cites quantify the difference, only claim vague "much
>higher" levels. The only useable piece of information in those articles
>is the note of the direct correlation of levels in the feed and levels
>in the fish, which is a no-brainer anyway.
>

what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:36:34 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>"Pete C." wrote:
>>
>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Mark Thorson wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> "Pete C." wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> > >> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> > >> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>> > >>
>> > >> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
>> > >> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
>> > >
>> > >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>> > >actually make a profit for a change.
>> >
>> > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
>> >
>> > http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
>> >
>> > http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
>> >
>> > Environmentalists, my ass.
>>
>> What's your point? I didn't say the government didn't get involved and
>> then all those who found a way to profit from the stupid plan. That
>> doesn't change it's origins.
>
>Environmentalists are the new communists?

....and atheists, queers and muslims.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:09 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:33 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >Mark Thorson wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "Pete C." wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>> > > >> > another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>> > > >> > environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It's not environmentalists. It's the corn industry.
>> > > >> Follow the money. They're the ones making it.
>> > > >
>> > > >The farmers only jumped on the bandwagon once they found that they could
>> > > >actually make a profit for a change.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060425.html
>> > >
>> > > http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=8780213
>> > >
>> > > http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/biof...signs_act_rfs/
>> > >
>> > > Environmentalists, my ass.
>> >
>> > What's your point? I didn't say the government didn't get involved and
>> > then all those who found a way to profit from the stupid plan. That
>> > doesn't change it's origins.
>>
>> Environmentalists are the new communists?
>
>Uneducated environmentalists *are* dangerous.

and now you've launched your own cold war. sturdy lad.

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:46:15 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>
>Jean B. wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd have to look into the comparative nutritional benefits, etc.
>> to come up with a catfish-specific response. I will say that just
>> as farmed salmon is, to me anyway, noticeably inferior, catfish is
>> also... different. That is, if one enjoyed the old catfish
>> flavor. Which we did.
>
>
>That "old catfish flavor" was primarily muddy and dirty, because cats are
>scavengers and will so eat *anything*, even excreta...
>
>It's only when catfish started being farmed under cleaner controlled
>conditions did it come to be considered anything other than a "trash fish",
>considered fit primarily for poor people...

lobster and oysters were also considered fit 'primarily for poor
people.' what difference does it make?

blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:11:32 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>George wrote:
>>>>
>>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>> >
>>>> > It just ain't right.
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > modom
>>>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>>
>>>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>>>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>>>
>>>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
>>>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
>>>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
>>>
>>
>> ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
>> minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
>> 'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
>> fleet mileage, etc.
>>
>>>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
>>>resulting massive pollution,
>>
>> mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
>> again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
>> protested its use.
>
>Wasn't it compensation for the loss of lead? Wasn't the loss of lead an
>environmental thang?
>

yes, environmentalists worked to remove lead from gasoline, with good
reason unless you like mental retardation and lead poisoning. that
doesn't mean they were behind the addition of m.b.t.e and the
'resulting massive pollution.'

your pal,
blake

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:44:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> >> > the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> >> > etc. are all quite right.
> >>
> >> Farmed salmon is much higher in PCB's and toxic chemicals
> >> than wild salmon.
> >>
> >> http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1225.html
> >>
> >> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63
> >
> >Neither of your cites quantify the difference, only claim vague "much
> >higher" levels. The only useable piece of information in those articles
> >is the note of the direct correlation of levels in the feed and levels
> >in the fish, which is a no-brainer anyway.
> >
>
> what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
> the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?

Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
in the real world.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >>
> >> blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>George wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >> >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > It just ain't right.
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > modom
> >> >>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
> >> >>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
> >> >>
> >> >>Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> >> >>another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> >> >>environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
> >> > minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
> >> > 'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
> >> > fleet mileage, etc.
> >> >
> >> >>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
> >> >>resulting massive pollution,
> >> >
> >> > mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
> >> > again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
> >> > protested its use.
> >>
> >> Wasn't it compensation for the loss of lead? Wasn't the loss of lead an
> >> environmental thang?
> >
> > Neither. MTBE is an oxygenate and was required to be added to gasoline
> > for the express purpose of reducing tailpipe emissions. MMT was the
> > replacement for lead. Both were environmental things, though the MMT
> > doesn't seem to have had any disastrous consequences like MTBE has.
>
> Ahh. Okay. Got my Ms mixed up. Well, at least I was right that the MTBE
> was an environmentalism agenda thing, even though I though I was talking
> about something else. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Easy enough to mix up similar sounding items like that, especially ones
that nobody pays attention to.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:08:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >Ethanol gives lower tailpipe emissions than gasoline. It was the
> >uneducated environmentalists who were promoting ethanol as reducing
> >pollution that started the problem since they lacked the education to be
> >able to look at the bigger picture.
>
> you keep saying this and i don't think it's true. can you provide a
> cite?

Better green than dead. That's what I say! :-)

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:09 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >> Environmentalists are the new communists?
> >
> >Uneducated environmentalists *are* dangerous.
>
> and now you've launched your own cold war. sturdy lad.

I have a list of 200 environmentalists in the USDA,
EPA, and Department of Energy, many of whom occupy
key decision-making roles!

On Jul 19, 11:52*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:09 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
>
> > >Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > >> Environmentalists are the new communists?
>
> > >Uneducated environmentalists *are* dangerous.
>
> > and now you've launched your own cold war. *sturdy lad.
>
> I have a list of 200 environmentalists in the USDA,
> EPA, and Department of Energy, many of whom occupy
> key decision-making roles!

Senator, have you no shame?

This thread, while entertaining, has a 'dog bites man' quality. I
don't see anything remarkable in a small decline in a not very
interesting farmed fish, and the reasons and speculations for the
decline all seem to be ordinary examples of how capitalism works,
again unremarkable. -aem

aem wrote on Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:12:08 -0700 (PDT):

> On Jul 19, 11:52 am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:09 -0500, "Pete C."
> >> > wrote:
>>
> > >> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
> > >>> Environmentalists are the new communists?
>>
> > >> Uneducated environmentalists *are* dangerous.
>>
> >> and now you've launched your own cold war. sturdy lad.
>>
>> I have a list of 200 environmentalists in the USDA,
>> EPA, and Department of Energy, many of whom occupy
>> key decision-making roles!

> Senator, have you no shame?

>Idon't see anything remarkable in a small decline in a not very
>interesting farmed fish,

What happens to farmed catfish is a matter of little interest to me but
what I recently tried, liked and lamented their discontinuation were the
individually packed "Frozen Tilapia Loins" that Trader Joe's had for a
very short time. Tilapia is not the greatest fish but it beats catfish,
IMHO!

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> blake murphy wrote:
> >
> > what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
> > the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?
>
> Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
> between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
> in the real world.

In this study, PCB levels in salmon ranged from
145-460 ppb. That's a huge amount!

Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Jul 1;36(13):2797-805.
Investigation of selected persistent organic pollutants
in farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), salmon
aquaculture feed, and fish oil components of the feed.
Jacobs MN, Covaci A, Schepens P.
School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of
Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.

There is extensive literature documenting the
bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants
in the marine environment, but relatively little data
are available on contamination pathways in aquaculture
systems such as that for farmed salmon. In recent years,
the salmon industry has grown significantly in Europe.
This study reports on the determination of a wide range
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine
pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
in farmed and wild European Atlantic salmon fish,
aquaculture feeds, and fish oils used to supplement
the feeds. The study confirms previous reports of
relatively high concentrations of PCBs and indicates
moderate concentrations of organochlorine pesticides
and PBDEs in farmed Scottish and European salmon.
Concentrations of the selected persistent organic
pollutants varied among the samples: PCBs (salmon,
145-460 ng/g lipid; salmon feeds, 76-1153 ng/g lipid;
fish oils, 9-253 ng/g lipid), S DDTs (salmon, 5-250 ng/g
lipid; salmon feeds, 34-52 ng/g lipid; fish oils,
11-218 ng/g lipid), and PBDEs (salmon, 1-85 ng/g lipid:
salmon feeds, 8-24 ng/g lipid; fish oils, ND-13 ng/g
lipid). Comparison of the samples for all groups of
contaminants, except for HCHs, showed an increase in
concentration in the order fish oil < feed < salmon.
Homologue profiles were similar, with an increase in
contribution of hepta- and octa-PCBs in the fish, and
profiles of DDTs were similar in all three types of
samples. With a constant contribution to the total PCB
content, the ICES 7 PCBs appear to be reliable
predictors of the PCB contamination profile through all
the samples. For PBDEs, BDE 47 dominated the profiles,
with no significant difference in the PBDE profiles for
the three matrixes. Samples with higher PCB contents
generally showed higher levels of the pesticide residues,
but this was not the case with the PBDEs, indicating the
existence of different pollution sources.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > blake murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
> > > the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?
> >
> > Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
> > between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
> > in the real world.
>
> In this study, PCB levels in salmon ranged from
> 145-460 ppb. That's a huge amount!
>

Again, incomplete data. Where is the data from the wild caught control
samples? Without that data no meaningful conclusion can be drawn as to
the alleged difference between wild caught and farmed product.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> > >
> > > blake murphy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
> > > > the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?
> > >
> > > Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
> > > between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
> > > in the real world.
> >
> > In this study, PCB levels in salmon ranged from
> > 145-460 ppb. That's a huge amount!
>
> Again, incomplete data. Where is the data from the wild caught control
> samples? Without that data no meaningful conclusion can be drawn as to
> the alleged difference between wild caught and farmed product.

But we know the numbers for farmed salmon, and
the numbers ain't good!

This study gives numbers comparing farmed vs. wild,
and there's a huge difference, especially at the
high end of the range.

Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Sep 1;40(17):5347-54.
PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and organochlorine pesticides in farmed
Atlantic salmon from Maine, eastern Canada, and Norway,
and wild salmon from Alaska.
Shaw SD, Brenner D, Berger ML, Carpenter DO, Hong CS,
Kannan K.
Marine Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 1652,
Blue Hill, Maine 04614, USA.

Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from Maine and
eastern Canada, wild Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), and organically farmed Norwegian salmon
samples were analyzed for the presence of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin-like PCBs, polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and
chlorinated pesticides. PCDD and PCDF congeners were not
detected in > 80% of the samples analyzed. Total PCB
concentrations (7.2-29.5 ng/g, wet weight, ww) in the
farmed salmon were significantly higher than those in
the wild Alaskan Chinook samples (3.9-8.1 ng/g, ww).
Concentrations of PCBs, WHO PCB TEQs, and chlorinated
pesticides varied significantly by region. PCB and WHO
PCB TEQ concentrations in farmed salmon from eastern
Canada were lower than those reported in samples
collected two years earlier, possibly reflecting recent
industry efforts to lower contaminant concentrations in
feed. Organically farmed Norwegian salmon had the highest
concentrations of PCBs (mean: 27 ng/g, ww) and WHO PCB
TEQs (2.85 pg/g,ww); their TEQ values are in the higher
range of those reported in farmed salmon from around the
world. Removal of skin from salmon fillets resulted in
highly variable reductions of lipids and contaminants,
and in some skin-off samples, contaminant levels were
higher, suggesting that skin removal does not protect
the consumer from health risks associated with
consumption of farmed salmon.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Pete C." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > blake murphy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
> > > > > the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?
> > > >
> > > > Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
> > > > between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
> > > > in the real world.
> > >
> > > In this study, PCB levels in salmon ranged from
> > > 145-460 ppb. That's a huge amount!
> >
> > Again, incomplete data. Where is the data from the wild caught control
> > samples? Without that data no meaningful conclusion can be drawn as to
> > the alleged difference between wild caught and farmed product.
>
> But we know the numbers for farmed salmon, and
> the numbers ain't good!
>
> This study gives numbers comparing farmed vs. wild,
> and there's a huge difference, especially at the
> high end of the range.
>
> Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Sep 1;40(17):5347-54.
> PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and organochlorine pesticides in farmed
> Atlantic salmon from Maine, eastern Canada, and Norway,
> and wild salmon from Alaska.
> Shaw SD, Brenner D, Berger ML, Carpenter DO, Hong CS,
> Kannan K.
> Marine Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 1652,
> Blue Hill, Maine 04614, USA.
>
> Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from Maine and
> eastern Canada, wild Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
> tshawytscha), and organically farmed Norwegian salmon
> samples were analyzed for the presence of polychlorinated
> biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin-like PCBs, polychlorinated
> dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and
> chlorinated pesticides. PCDD and PCDF congeners were not
> detected in > 80% of the samples analyzed. Total PCB
> concentrations (7.2-29.5 ng/g, wet weight, ww) in the
> farmed salmon were significantly higher than those in
> the wild Alaskan Chinook samples (3.9-8.1 ng/g, ww).
> Concentrations of PCBs, WHO PCB TEQs, and chlorinated
> pesticides varied significantly by region. PCB and WHO
> PCB TEQ concentrations in farmed salmon from eastern
> Canada were lower than those reported in samples
> collected two years earlier, possibly reflecting recent
> industry efforts to lower contaminant concentrations in
> feed. Organically farmed Norwegian salmon had the highest
> concentrations of PCBs (mean: 27 ng/g, ww) and WHO PCB
> TEQs (2.85 pg/g,ww); their TEQ values are in the higher
> range of those reported in farmed salmon from around the
> world. Removal of skin from salmon fillets resulted in
> highly variable reductions of lipids and contaminants,
> and in some skin-off samples, contaminant levels were
> higher, suggesting that skin removal does not protect
> the consumer from health risks associated with
> consumption of farmed salmon.


What I see from that data is that levels in both are quite variable, and
indeed some of the farmed samples had lower levels (7.2 ng/g) than some
of the wild samples (8.1 ng/g).

Showing just the high and low of a group of samples is misleading since
you don't know what the distribution is. Those extremes may represent
only one sample, and make it very easy to distort the data to fit an
agenda. The only mean value given was for the organic farmed Norwegian
samples.

It's entirely possible that most of the samples from both groups were in
the 7-8 ng/g range showing no difference between farmed and wild, or
most of the wild near 4 ng/g and most of the farmed near 29 ng/g showing
a huge difference.

Again, it's incomplete data and subject to presentation in a manner that
may be misleading. Either way we're talking about extremely low levels.

Pete C. wrote:

>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > Mark Thorson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Pete C." wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > blake murphy wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
>> > > > > the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?
>> > > >
>> > > > Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
>> > > > between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
>> > > > in the real world.
>> > >
>> > > In this study, PCB levels in salmon ranged from
>> > > 145-460 ppb. That's a huge amount!
>> >
>> > Again, incomplete data. Where is the data from the wild caught control
>> > samples? Without that data no meaningful conclusion can be drawn as to
>> > the alleged difference between wild caught and farmed product.
>>
>> But we know the numbers for farmed salmon, and
>> the numbers ain't good!
>>
>> This study gives numbers comparing farmed vs. wild,
>> and there's a huge difference, especially at the
>> high end of the range.
>>
>> Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Sep 1;40(17):5347-54.
>> PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and organochlorine pesticides in farmed
>> Atlantic salmon from Maine, eastern Canada, and Norway,
>> and wild salmon from Alaska.
>> Shaw SD, Brenner D, Berger ML, Carpenter DO, Hong CS,
>> Kannan K.
>> Marine Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 1652,
>> Blue Hill, Maine 04614, USA.
>>
>> Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from Maine and
>> eastern Canada, wild Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
>> tshawytscha), and organically farmed Norwegian salmon
>> samples were analyzed for the presence of polychlorinated
>> biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin-like PCBs, polychlorinated
>> dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and
>> chlorinated pesticides. PCDD and PCDF congeners were not
>> detected in > 80% of the samples analyzed. Total PCB
>> concentrations (7.2-29.5 ng/g, wet weight, ww) in the
>> farmed salmon were significantly higher than those in
>> the wild Alaskan Chinook samples (3.9-8.1 ng/g, ww).
>> Concentrations of PCBs, WHO PCB TEQs, and chlorinated
>> pesticides varied significantly by region. PCB and WHO
>> PCB TEQ concentrations in farmed salmon from eastern
>> Canada were lower than those reported in samples
>> collected two years earlier, possibly reflecting recent
>> industry efforts to lower contaminant concentrations in
>> feed. Organically farmed Norwegian salmon had the highest
>> concentrations of PCBs (mean: 27 ng/g, ww) and WHO PCB
>> TEQs (2.85 pg/g,ww); their TEQ values are in the higher
>> range of those reported in farmed salmon from around the
>> world. Removal of skin from salmon fillets resulted in
>> highly variable reductions of lipids and contaminants,
>> and in some skin-off samples, contaminant levels were
>> higher, suggesting that skin removal does not protect
>> the consumer from health risks associated with
>> consumption of farmed salmon.
>
>
> What I see from that data is that levels in both are quite variable, and
> indeed some of the farmed samples had lower levels (7.2 ng/g) than some
> of the wild samples (8.1 ng/g).
>
> Showing just the high and low of a group of samples is misleading since
> you don't know what the distribution is. Those extremes may represent
> only one sample, and make it very easy to distort the data to fit an
> agenda. The only mean value given was for the organic farmed Norwegian
> samples.
>
> It's entirely possible that most of the samples from both groups were in
> the 7-8 ng/g range showing no difference between farmed and wild, or
> most of the wild near 4 ng/g and most of the farmed near 29 ng/g showing
> a huge difference.
>
> Again, it's incomplete data and subject to presentation in a manner that
> may be misleading. Either way we're talking about extremely low levels.

Well, you sure know how to screw up a nice bit of panic.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > This study gives numbers comparing farmed vs. wild,
> > and there's a huge difference, especially at the
> > high end of the range.
> >
> > Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Sep 1;40(17):5347-54.
> > PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and organochlorine pesticides in farmed
> > Atlantic salmon from Maine, eastern Canada, and Norway,
> > and wild salmon from Alaska.
> > Shaw SD, Brenner D, Berger ML, Carpenter DO, Hong CS,
> > Kannan K.
> > Marine Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 1652,
> > Blue Hill, Maine 04614, USA.
> >
> > Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from Maine and
> > eastern Canada, wild Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
> > tshawytscha), and organically farmed Norwegian salmon
> > samples were analyzed for the presence of polychlorinated
> > biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin-like PCBs, polychlorinated
> > dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and
> > chlorinated pesticides. PCDD and PCDF congeners were not
> > detected in > 80% of the samples analyzed. Total PCB
> > concentrations (7.2-29.5 ng/g, wet weight, ww) in the
> > farmed salmon were significantly higher than those in
> > the wild Alaskan Chinook samples (3.9-8.1 ng/g, ww).
> > Concentrations of PCBs, WHO PCB TEQs, and chlorinated
> > pesticides varied significantly by region. PCB and WHO
> > PCB TEQ concentrations in farmed salmon from eastern
> > Canada were lower than those reported in samples
> > collected two years earlier, possibly reflecting recent
> > industry efforts to lower contaminant concentrations in
> > feed. Organically farmed Norwegian salmon had the highest
> > concentrations of PCBs (mean: 27 ng/g, ww) and WHO PCB
> > TEQs (2.85 pg/g,ww); their TEQ values are in the higher
> > range of those reported in farmed salmon from around the
> > world. Removal of skin from salmon fillets resulted in
> > highly variable reductions of lipids and contaminants,
> > and in some skin-off samples, contaminant levels were
> > higher, suggesting that skin removal does not protect
> > the consumer from health risks associated with
> > consumption of farmed salmon.
>
> What I see from that data is that levels in both are quite variable, and
> indeed some of the farmed samples had lower levels (7.2 ng/g) than some
> of the wild samples (8.1 ng/g).
>
> Showing just the high and low of a group of samples is misleading since
> you don't know what the distribution is. Those extremes may represent
> only one sample, and make it very easy to distort the data to fit an
> agenda. The only mean value given was for the organic farmed Norwegian
> samples.
>
> It's entirely possible that most of the samples from both groups were in
> the 7-8 ng/g range showing no difference between farmed and wild, or
> most of the wild near 4 ng/g and most of the farmed near 29 ng/g showing
> a huge difference.
>
> Again, it's incomplete data and subject to presentation in a manner that
> may be misleading. Either way we're talking about extremely low levels.

It's an abstract. The authors' conclusions are given
in the abstract, but the detailed data is in the full
paper, which is not online.

But no competent scientist would make an assertion
in an abstract that wasn't backed up by their data.

Environ Sci Technol. 2005 Oct 1;39(19):7389-95.
Polychlorinated biphenyls in salmon and salmon feed:
global differences and bioaccumulation.
Carlson DL, Hites RA.
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA.

Concentrations of 160 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
congeners or congener groups were determined in approximately
600 farmed Atlantic salmon from around the world and wild
(ocean-caught) Pacific salmon from the Northeast Pacific.
Concentrations and PCB congener profiles were analyzed
to provide insight into the sources and uptake of PCBs in
salmon as well as regional differences. Although total PCB
concentrations in wild salmon appeared to be correlated to
total lipid content, the increased proportion of total lipids
in the farmed salmon could not account for the much greater
PCB concentrations. We investigated the PCB congener patterns
of hundreds of salmon samples using principal component analysis
to further illuminate regional and species differences. Three
major PCB patterns were observed, in most wild fish (except
British Columbia and Oregon chinook), in farmed fish from the
Atlantic, and in most farmed fish from the Pacific. The PCB
congener profiles of farmed salmon often closely corresponded
to a sample of commercial feed purchased in the same region,
indicating that the feed is likely to be the major source of
PCBs for farmed salmon. In such cases where PCB profiles in fish
and feed were similar, a comparison of congener concentrations
in fish and the feed showed that the majority of congeners, with
some notable exceptions, were bioaccumulative to the same extent,
irrespective of physical properties.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:32:41 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:44:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
>> >> > the wild? BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
>> >> > etc. are all quite right.
>> >>
>> >> Farmed salmon is much higher in PCB's and toxic chemicals
>> >> than wild salmon.
>> >>
>> >> http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1225.html
>> >>
>> >> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63
>> >
>> >Neither of your cites quantify the difference, only claim vague "much
>> >higher" levels. The only useable piece of information in those articles
>> >is the note of the direct correlation of levels in the feed and levels
>> >in the fish, which is a no-brainer anyway.
>> >
>>
>> what levels of added p.c.b.'s and toxic chemicals do you need before
>> the farmed fish aren't 'quite right'?
>
>Ones that are quantified and significant. As an example, the difference
>between 1 ppb and 3 ppb is "huge", "3X", "300%", but bloody irrelevent
>in the real world.

knock yourself out, then.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:52:44 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:09 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Environmentalists are the new communists?
>> >
>> >Uneducated environmentalists *are* dangerous.
>>
>> and now you've launched your own cold war. sturdy lad.
>
>I have a list of 200 environmentalists in the USDA,
>EPA, and Department of Energy, many of whom occupy
>key decision-making roles!

are any of them homosexuals?

your pal,
roy
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> This study gives numbers comparing farmed vs. wild,
>>> and there's a huge difference, especially at the
>>> high end of the range.
>>>
>>> Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Sep 1;40(17):5347-54.
>>> PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and organochlorine pesticides in farmed
>>> Atlantic salmon from Maine, eastern Canada, and Norway,
>>> and wild salmon from Alaska.
>>> Shaw SD, Brenner D, Berger ML, Carpenter DO, Hong CS,
>>> Kannan K.
>>> Marine Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 1652,
>>> Blue Hill, Maine 04614, USA.
>>>
>>> Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from Maine and
>>> eastern Canada, wild Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
>>> tshawytscha), and organically farmed Norwegian salmon
>>> samples were analyzed for the presence of polychlorinated
>>> biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin-like PCBs, polychlorinated
>>> dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and
>>> chlorinated pesticides. PCDD and PCDF congeners were not
>>> detected in > 80% of the samples analyzed. Total PCB
>>> concentrations (7.2-29.5 ng/g, wet weight, ww) in the
>>> farmed salmon were significantly higher than those in
>>> the wild Alaskan Chinook samples (3.9-8.1 ng/g, ww).
>>> Concentrations of PCBs, WHO PCB TEQs, and chlorinated
>>> pesticides varied significantly by region. PCB and WHO
>>> PCB TEQ concentrations in farmed salmon from eastern
>>> Canada were lower than those reported in samples
>>> collected two years earlier, possibly reflecting recent
>>> industry efforts to lower contaminant concentrations in
>>> feed. Organically farmed Norwegian salmon had the highest
>>> concentrations of PCBs (mean: 27 ng/g, ww) and WHO PCB
>>> TEQs (2.85 pg/g,ww); their TEQ values are in the higher
>>> range of those reported in farmed salmon from around the
>>> world. Removal of skin from salmon fillets resulted in
>>> highly variable reductions of lipids and contaminants,
>>> and in some skin-off samples, contaminant levels were
>>> higher, suggesting that skin removal does not protect
>>> the consumer from health risks associated with
>>> consumption of farmed salmon.
>> What I see from that data is that levels in both are quite variable, and
>> indeed some of the farmed samples had lower levels (7.2 ng/g) than some
>> of the wild samples (8.1 ng/g).
>>
>> Showing just the high and low of a group of samples is misleading since
>> you don't know what the distribution is. Those extremes may represent
>> only one sample, and make it very easy to distort the data to fit an
>> agenda. The only mean value given was for the organic farmed Norwegian
>> samples.
>>
>> It's entirely possible that most of the samples from both groups were in
>> the 7-8 ng/g range showing no difference between farmed and wild, or
>> most of the wild near 4 ng/g and most of the farmed near 29 ng/g showing
>> a huge difference.
>>
>> Again, it's incomplete data and subject to presentation in a manner that
>> may be misleading. Either way we're talking about extremely low levels.
>
> It's an abstract. The authors' conclusions are given
> in the abstract, but the detailed data is in the full
> paper, which is not online.
>
> But no competent scientist would make an assertion
> in an abstract that wasn't backed up by their data.
>
> Environ Sci Technol. 2005 Oct 1;39(19):7389-95.
> Polychlorinated biphenyls in salmon and salmon feed:
> global differences and bioaccumulation.
> Carlson DL, Hites RA.
> School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
> University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA.
>
> Concentrations of 160 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
> congeners or congener groups were determined in approximately
> 600 farmed Atlantic salmon from around the world and wild
> (ocean-caught) Pacific salmon from the Northeast Pacific.
> Concentrations and PCB congener profiles were analyzed
> to provide insight into the sources and uptake of PCBs in
> salmon as well as regional differences. Although total PCB
> concentrations in wild salmon appeared to be correlated to
> total lipid content, the increased proportion of total lipids
> in the farmed salmon could not account for the much greater
> PCB concentrations. We investigated the PCB congener patterns
> of hundreds of salmon samples using principal component analysis
> to further illuminate regional and species differences. Three
> major PCB patterns were observed, in most wild fish (except
> British Columbia and Oregon chinook), in farmed fish from the
> Atlantic, and in most farmed fish from the Pacific. The PCB
> congener profiles of farmed salmon often closely corresponded
> to a sample of commercial feed purchased in the same region,
> indicating that the feed is likely to be the major source of
> PCBs for farmed salmon. In such cases where PCB profiles in fish
> and feed were similar, a comparison of congener concentrations
> in fish and the feed showed that the majority of congeners, with
> some notable exceptions, were bioaccumulative to the same extent,
> irrespective of physical properties.

Here's the solution to all of this. Those who don't care may
continue to eat farm-raised fish, and those of us who do care will
not eat it.... Other than environmental ramifications,
cross-breeding, escapes, etc., that seems appropriate....

--
Jean B.