N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Byrne said the infection is naturally occurring, is not harmful to humans, and may have been spread from wild salmon in the area."

No mention from the provincial fisheries minister Gerry Byrne that the virus found in these pens may be spread to wild salmon in the area... WTF?
Typical, BD. IMMEDIATELY - Bryne went to "human health concerns" rather than effect's on wild salmon. I believe that was a carefully-crafted PR response to deflect the conversation away from this focus.

In addition to his claims that ISAv has been around hundreds of years - ya - but where? What "clade" does this virus belong to? Norwegian/European? Friggen crickets. Nothing to see here folks - look away...
 
Exactly, AA.

I'd also like to see the scientific data that claims that handling or eating these infected salmon is safe for humans. Sadly and unfortunately it's getting harder and harder to believe anything that these government mouthpieces spew out these days. Maybe the data is there and maybe it's not but I'd like to see it if it is.
Pretty sure the 2 to 10 times more concentration of toxic PCB's, DDT, dioxins, pesticides, mercury and other suspected carcinogens that build up in the flesh of the farmed salmon (compared to wild) from their oily fish feed isn't all that good for you.
http://www.eatingwell.com/article/9471/the-wild-salmon-debate/
 
Last edited:
Exactly, AA.

I'd also like to see the scientific data that claims that handling or eating these infected salmon is safe for humans. Sadly and unfortunately it's getting harder and harder to believe anything that these government mouthpieces spew out these days. Maybe the data is there and maybe it's not but I'd like to see it if it is.
Pretty sure the 2 to 10 times more concentration of toxic PCB's, DDT, dioxins, pesticides, mercury and other suspected carcinogens that build up in the flesh of the farmed salmon (compared to wild) from their oily fish feed isn't all that good for you.
http://www.eatingwell.com/article/9471/the-wild-salmon-debate/


wow - thought this was already debunked....

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/vivian-pcbs-16feb2010-7.pdf

or just we we can help you all out...

"Contaminants are found in trace amounts in all foods. The U.S. Food and Drug Agency sets limits at which concentrations of contaminants are considered tolerable. In both the U.S. and Canada, the tolerable level for PCBs in fish is 2.0 parts per million (ppm).10 For red meat, the tolerable level for PCBs is 3.0 ppm (fat basis).11 If the eight-fold difference in PCBs levels of “wild” and farmed salmon had been between 0.5 ppm and 4.0 ppm, or between 0.05 ppm and 0.4 ppm, the findings would have been consequential to human health. However, the eight-fold difference was between 0.0366 ppm and 0.0048 ppm. Since the levels of PCBs were so much lower than 2.0 ppm in both farmed and “wild” salmon, the eight-fold difference is inconsequential."

Geez guys, these threads are really out of touch
 
Nov through dec 2017 news - NOPE!

I am sorry I couldn't find in the news articles you posted that this is true:

"Pretty sure the 2 to 10 times more concentration of toxic PCB's, DDT, dioxins, pesticides, mercury and other suspected carcinogens that build up in the flesh of the farmed salmon (compared to wild) from their oily fish feed isn't all that good for you."

This is what I meant about being debunked - you realize even the Great David Suzuki was called out over these false claims - they even removed all there stuff on their Foundations website on this (even though they used the false information to fund raise!). This is what I was talking about - apparently it is the stuff of legends that the above statement has been proven scientifically false. OK though....
 
So - you are browsing the DSF as a reference now? hmmmm.. that's a turn around.
 
wow - thought this was already debunked....

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/vivian-pcbs-16feb2010-7.pdf

or just we we can help you all out...

"Contaminants are found in trace amounts in all foods. The U.S. Food and Drug Agency sets limits at which concentrations of contaminants are considered tolerable. In both the U.S. and Canada, the tolerable level for PCBs in fish is 2.0 parts per million (ppm).10 For red meat, the tolerable level for PCBs is 3.0 ppm (fat basis).11 If the eight-fold difference in PCBs levels of “wild” and farmed salmon had been between 0.5 ppm and 4.0 ppm, or between 0.05 ppm and 0.4 ppm, the findings would have been consequential to human health. However, the eight-fold difference was between 0.0366 ppm and 0.0048 ppm. Since the levels of PCBs were so much lower than 2.0 ppm in both farmed and “wild” salmon, the eight-fold difference is inconsequential."

Geez guys, these threads are really out of touch


No I think you may be out of touch.
Here are the responses I gave birdsnest (below) when he posted the responses by "Vivian Krause" to the peer reviewed Science of the contaminents article. Seeing you claim to be a "scientist" which many find hard to believe through your actions and words, I would have thought you would be advocating for a peer reviewed article in a journal over some rubbish by Vivian Krause. Maybe since your a scientist you could come up with something and have it published in a peer reviewed article to counter the claims? Or is Vivian Krause the best you have?

"hehe, I put out a link authored by a scientist to a study published in the prestigious Science magazine. I don't think there was any part of that study that had any notices or disclaimers or anything absolving him of any responsibility of what he published unlike vivian krauses report (which doesn't look like it's published anywhere... ) ... Hmm, wonder why? Maybe she should get something published in Science magazine showing how wonderful and healthy farmed salmon is? ... Just the first page of vivian krauses rebuttal has to make you wonder how accurate anything she is saying is....
Did you get prior written permission before distributing the link Birdsnest? lol,"


NOTICE
No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in any form or
by any means, without the prior written permission of the
author.

DISCLAIMER
This document presents the concerns, opinions and questions
of the author.

While the information herein is believed to be accurate and
reliable it is not guaranteed to be so. The information may
not be complete or correct
; it is provided in good faith but
without any legal responsibility or obligation to provide
future updates. The information contained herein is subject
to change without notice, and may become outdated and
may or may not be updated.
The author of this document makes the information in
this document available without warranty of any kind and
accepts no responsibility for any consequences of its use.
Users of this document should exercise due diligence to
ensure the accuracy and currency of all information.

The author reserves the right to amend this document on the
basis of information received after it was initially presented.
DISCLOSURE
Vivian Krause worked in the salmon farming industry
between 1 January 2002 and 13 October 2003.
In January of 2007, she served as a consultant to Millerd
Holdings Ltd., which has interests in processing farmed
salmon on Vancouver Island. In July of 2007, she served
briefly as a consultant to an international salmon farming
trade organization.
Vivian Krause has not worked for the salmon farming
industry since 31 July 2007.
 
Last edited:
wow - thought this was already debunked....

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/vivian-pcbs-16feb2010-7.pdf

or just we we can help you all out...

"Contaminants are found in trace amounts in all foods. The U.S. Food and Drug Agency sets limits at which concentrations of contaminants are considered tolerable. In both the U.S. and Canada, the tolerable level for PCBs in fish is 2.0 parts per million (ppm).10 For red meat, the tolerable level for PCBs is 3.0 ppm (fat basis).11 If the eight-fold difference in PCBs levels of “wild” and farmed salmon had been between 0.5 ppm and 4.0 ppm, or between 0.05 ppm and 0.4 ppm, the findings would have been consequential to human health. However, the eight-fold difference was between 0.0366 ppm and 0.0048 ppm. Since the levels of PCBs were so much lower than 2.0 ppm in both farmed and “wild” salmon, the eight-fold difference is inconsequential."

Geez guys, these threads are really out of touch
if your going to cut and paste my stuff (post #662) maybe you should cut and paste the responses I had also or is that a tactic now of yours also?...
wow, really "scientific" spopydyn... coming from a "scientist"

Here it is again so you can read it again...

"is this the same Vivian Krause, former fish farm consultant who is now an author for alberta oil magazine? Seems she has a hangup over environmentalists also...
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/10/opinion-time-energy-industry-ignore-vivian-krause/

seems even one of her oil industry co-workers says much of her data doesn't support her conclusions ... lol,"
 
Last edited:
if your going to cut and paste my stuff (post #662) maybe you should cut and paste the responses I had also or is that a tactic now of yours also?...
wow, really "scientific" spopydyn... coming from a "scientist"

Here it is again so you can read it again...

"is this the same Vivian Krause, former fish farm consultant who is now an author for alberta oil magazine? Seems she has a hangup over environmentalists also...
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/10/opinion-time-energy-industry-ignore-vivian-krause/

seems even one of her oil industry co-workers says much of her data doesn't support her conclusions ... lol,"
ok - so lets avoid Vivian Krause even though she was just pointing out the current science. Instead, how about this:

https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/Fish/FarmedSalmon

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/finding-omega-3-fats-in-fish-farmed-versus-wild-201512238909

Hopefully Harvard and Washington State aren't in big oils back pocket.
 
ok - so lets avoid Vivian Krause even though she was just pointing out the current science...
Really, spopsadyn? Is that what "Vivian does" Really?? Here's a quote from a right-wing news source (thanks, bigdogeh!): "Krause is a researcher, not a journalist, so she never interviews expert sources to back up her claims."
 
Exactly, AA.

I'd also like to see the scientific data that claims that handling or eating these infected salmon is safe for humans. Sadly and unfortunately it's getting harder and harder to believe anything that these government mouthpieces spew out these days. Maybe the data is there and maybe it's not but I'd like to see it if it is.
Pretty sure the 2 to 10 times more concentration of toxic PCB's, DDT, dioxins, pesticides, mercury and other suspected carcinogens that build up in the flesh of the farmed salmon (compared to wild) from their oily fish feed isn't all that good for you.
http://www.eatingwell.com/article/9471/the-wild-salmon-debate/
Also, let me help you out with the quote from the article in which you omitted an important part:

"Though I’m chemophobic, I’m ready to declare the health concerns about farmed salmon too insignificant to fret about, or at least too close to fight about. Farmed salmon hold about 2 to 10 times the levels of PCBs..."

Why misled people and not quote the whole thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top