"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> 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!

How many of them use Food Grade Propane?

BOB

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> 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....

Just don't pretend the facts are other than they are.
I post links to two articles from reliable sources.
When I was asked for numbers, I posted the abstract
of a scientific paper that had numbers. When I was
asked for a direct comparison between farmed and wild,
I posted an abstract for two scientific papers that
compared farmed and wild.

Some people just will not change their beliefs,
no matter how large a body of scientific data is
presented. Farmed (even organically farmed) salmon
are much more contaminated than wild-caught.
Go ahead and eat the farmed salmon, just don't
pretend that there's no difference. There's a huge
difference, and it is significant. The levels of
contamination are high.

On 2008-07-20, BOB > wrote:

> How many of them use Food Grade Propane?

As many as use hooker grade condoms

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Jean B." wrote:
>> 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....
>
> Just don't pretend the facts are other than they are.
> I post links to two articles from reliable sources.
> When I was asked for numbers, I posted the abstract
> of a scientific paper that had numbers. When I was
> asked for a direct comparison between farmed and wild,
> I posted an abstract for two scientific papers that
> compared farmed and wild.
>
> Some people just will not change their beliefs,
> no matter how large a body of scientific data is
> presented. Farmed (even organically farmed) salmon
> are much more contaminated than wild-caught.
> Go ahead and eat the farmed salmon, just don't
> pretend that there's no difference. There's a huge
> difference, and it is significant. The levels of
> contamination are high.

*I* am not disputing that.... AYR, I avoid farm-raised fish....
I think it's wise to do so. But if people think it's fine, then
they can feel free to eat it....

--
Jean B.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Jean B." wrote:
> >
> > 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....
>
> Just don't pretend the facts are other than they are.
> I post links to two articles from reliable sources.
> When I was asked for numbers, I posted the abstract
> of a scientific paper that had numbers. When I was
> asked for a direct comparison between farmed and wild,
> I posted an abstract for two scientific papers that
> compared farmed and wild.
>
> Some people just will not change their beliefs,
> no matter how large a body of scientific data is
> presented.

Incomplete data doesn't count as scientific data. I clearly pointed out
the missing data that makes drawing a valid conclusion impossible.

> Farmed (even organically farmed) salmon
> are much more contaminated than wild-caught.
> Go ahead and eat the farmed salmon, just don't
> pretend that there's no difference.

> There's a huge
> difference, and it is significant. The levels of
> contamination are high.

Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?

It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
of farmed vs. wild.

For example, I would not be surprised if the highest IQ
people with Down's syndrome had higher intelligence than
the lowest IQ normal people. If that were true, it would
not be evidence that Down's syndrome has no impact in
reducing IQ. It would only indicate non-overlap between
the ranges of IQ for people with Down's syndrome and
normal people.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
>
> It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> of farmed vs. wild.

And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> > >
> > > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
> >
> > It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> > found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> > levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> > these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> > tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> > of farmed vs. wild.
>
> And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
> your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.



Unless you eat the catfish or salmon more often than other foods, by the
time you factor in contamination across the foods you eat, the farmed/wild
consideration becomes even less meaningful than the aesthetic characters of
the fish -- unless the farmed fish come from the sewers of S.E. Asia. So
always read the labels for "Raised in Sewage", avoid that, and you will be
OK.

pflu

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> > >
> > > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
> >
> > It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> > found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> > levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> > these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> > tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> > of farmed vs. wild.
>
> And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
> your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.

That's wrong. I base my statements on the conclusions
of the authors of abstracts of papers published in
scientific journals. I have no doubt that their
conclusions are backed up by the data in the full
papers. The full papers are not available on-line.

The full papers are available at university research
libraries, but you are using their lack of availability
on the net to deny the authors' conclusions, namely
that the levels of contamination in farmed salmon are
high, and they are much higher than the levels in
wild salmon.

To accept your logic, one would also have to accept
that different research groups in different countries
adhere to the same practice of stating unsupported
conclusions in their abstracts -- conclusions which
are always damning to farmed salmon.

Unless there's a worldwide environmentalist conspiracy
against farmed salmon, this seems rather unlikely
to me, although not apparently to you.

Phluge wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Pete C." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > > > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
> > >
> > > It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> > > found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> > > levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> > > these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> > > tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> > > of farmed vs. wild.
> >
> > And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
> > your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.
>
> Unless you eat the catfish or salmon more often than other foods, by the
> time you factor in contamination across the foods you eat, the farmed/wild
> consideration becomes even less meaningful than the aesthetic characters of
> the fish -- unless the farmed fish come from the sewers of S.E. Asia. So
> always read the labels for "Raised in Sewage", avoid that, and you will be
> OK.
>
> pflu

Precisely. If you eat a proper balanced diet it's simply a non-issue.
Only the irrationally paranoid and the "I'm too good to eat commoner's
food" types would give a damn.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Pete C." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > > > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
> > >
> > > It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> > > found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> > > levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> > > these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> > > tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> > > of farmed vs. wild.
> >
> > And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
> > your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.
>
> That's wrong. I base my statements on the conclusions
> of the authors of abstracts of papers published in
> scientific journals. I have no doubt that their
> conclusions are backed up by the data in the full
> papers. The full papers are not available on-line.
>
> The full papers are available at university research
> libraries, but you are using their lack of availability
> on the net to deny the authors' conclusions, namely
> that the levels of contamination in farmed salmon are
> high, and they are much higher than the levels in
> wild salmon.

I'm not denying anything, that's your claim. I'm stating that I won't
accept *any* opinion / conclusion without seeing the substantiating
data.

>
> To accept your logic, one would also have to accept
> that different research groups in different countries
> adhere to the same practice of stating unsupported
> conclusions in their abstracts -- conclusions which
> are always damning to farmed salmon.

I'm still waiting to see *complete* data. You abstract argument lacks
credability given the fact that providing such critical details as
median values would add barely a sentence to the abstract. One must
therefore be suspicious that this small but critical data was left out
because it doesn't support the conclusion they wanted to reach.

>
> Unless there's a worldwide environmentalist conspiracy
> against farmed salmon, this seems rather unlikely
> to me, although not apparently to you.

There are certainly various interest groups with financial and / or
emotional stakes in it that are touting whatever supports their
position.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:10:18 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
>> > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
>>
>> It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
>> found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
>> levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
>> these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
>> tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
>> of farmed vs. wild.
>
>And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
>your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.

you could always donate your liver for an autopsy to make the data
more complete.

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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:31:05 -0500, "Phluge" >
wrote:
>
>Unless you eat the catfish or salmon more often than other foods, by the
>time you factor in contamination across the foods you eat, the farmed/wild
>consideration becomes even less meaningful than the aesthetic characters of
>the fish -- unless the farmed fish come from the sewers of S.E. Asia. So
>always read the labels for "Raised in Sewage", avoid that, and you will be
>OK.
>
>pflu
>

i cut out my consumption of sewer rats for that very reason.
free-range for me, baby!

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