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

[Charlie]

How is your battle going down there Charlie?

Actually what battle are you referring? Rather than looking at some old stuff "Panfish" (Marine Harvest left the U.S. in favor of Canada - 2005)) let's look at todays news concerning one of YOUR owners operations?

Fish company investigated after salmon farm polluted Scottish loch
Marine Harvest, one of the largest fish-farming companies, is under investigation after polluting loch with pesticide

Marine Harvest, one of the world's largest fish-farming companies, is under investigation after its salmon farms polluted a Scottish loch with toxic pesticide residues hundreds of times above environmental limits.

Sampling tests around salmon cages on Loch Shell in the Outer Hebrides by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) found that levels of Teflubenzuron, used to kill sea lice parasites which affect hundreds of thousands of caged fish each year, were up to 450 times higher than recommended levels.

The agency could now cut back Marine Harvest's operations on Loch Shell where the firm has three fish farms, including one which was already under Sepa investigation, after it launched a review of its operations there.

Sepa's tests, carried out in 2012, found that Teflubenzuron levels were well above the recommended limits at 20 of the 21 sediment sampling sites on the loch, suggesting long-term problems with its treatment regime there.

There were Teflubenzuron samples showing readings 150, 200 and 250 times above the 2 microgram per kilogramme limit, at least 100m from the edge of the salmon cages. Residue levels for two other anti-sea lice chemicals, Emamectin and Deltamethrin, were also breaching limits on Loch Shell, which on the east coast of Lewis south of Stornoway.

Sepa said its tests in several areas heavily used for fish farming, including Shetland, Orkney, Loch Fyne and Firth of Lorne in Argyll, and sites in Wester Ross, found chemical levels breaching its recommended limits at 72 sampling sites, nearly a tenth of the 792 sites it tested.

These results have again raised anxieties among environment and anti-fish farm campaigners that the farms can have a major impact on sea life and marine habitats as operators take aggressive steps to cope with sea lice infestation and infectious diseases.

The pesticides are designed to attack the nervous systems and outer shells of the sea lice. But they are also lethal or toxic to other marine species, chiefly prawns and lobsters, and other crustaceans, but also other bird, fish and mammal species.

Lang Banks, director of WWF Scotland, said: "The fact that the limits have been breached so spectacularly at some locations is deeply worrying and suggests something has gone badly wrong. It's simply unacceptable that entire lochs be put at risk in this way. It also begins to raise questions over the industries approach to tackling sea lice problems."

Don Staniford, the anti-fish farming campaigner who has investigated Sepa's monitoring data, tabling a series of detailed FoI requests, was more blunt. He said salmon farming was a "malignant cancer".

"Sepa's statutory duty is to stop companies such as Marine Harvest using Scottish waters as a toxic toilet and dumping ground for chemical contaminants," he said. "Yet Sepa has shamefully opened the floodgates to the use of a cocktail of chemicals. Shame on Scottish salmon farming and shame on Sepa."

Steve Bracken, business support manager for Marine Harvest Scotland, said the findings at Loch Shell were "unusual" and suggested their modelling for tides and currents on Loch Shell, which normally disperse and dilute
chemicals, was inaccurate.

He confirmed the pesticides were used to tackle a sea lice infestation, and admitted its efforts were not very successful: it had to harvest the fish early and close the site down for nine months to tackle the sea lice. He insisted that Marine Harvest took its environmental duties seriously, and were trying to find more natural techniques for tackling sea lice, including using the fish wrasse, which eat sea lice, in salmon cages.

"We are deeply disappointed by the results in Loch Shell as we take our commitment to the environment very seriously," he said.
"We are in discussions with Sepa to try and understand the reason for these results, which are very much outside the norm, in order to ensure they don't happen again."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/10/marine-harvest-salmon-farm-scottish-loch

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Actually what battle are you referring? Rather than looking at some old stuff "Panfish" (Marine Harvest left the U.S. in favor of Canada - 2005)) let's look at todays news concerning one of YOUR owners operations?

Fish company investigated after salmon farm polluted Scottish loch
Marine Harvest, one of the largest fish-farming companies, is under investigation after polluting loch with pesticide

Marine Harvest, one of the world's largest fish-farming companies, is under investigation after its salmon farms polluted a Scottish loch with toxic pesticide residues hundreds of times above environmental limits.

Sampling tests around salmon cages on Loch Shell in the Outer Hebrides by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) found that levels of Teflubenzuron, used to kill sea lice parasites which affect hundreds of thousands of caged fish each year, were up to 450 times higher than recommended levels.

The agency could now cut back Marine Harvest's operations on Loch Shell where the firm has three fish farms, including one which was already under Sepa investigation, after it launched a review of its operations there.

Sepa's tests, carried out in 2012, found that Teflubenzuron levels were well above the recommended limits at 20 of the 21 sediment sampling sites on the loch, suggesting long-term problems with its treatment regime there.

There were Teflubenzuron samples showing readings 150, 200 and 250 times above the 2 microgram per kilogramme limit, at least 100m from the edge of the salmon cages. Residue levels for two other anti-sea lice chemicals, Emamectin and Deltamethrin, were also breaching limits on Loch Shell, which on the east coast of Lewis south of Stornoway.

Sepa said its tests in several areas heavily used for fish farming, including Shetland, Orkney, Loch Fyne and Firth of Lorne in Argyll, and sites in Wester Ross, found chemical levels breaching its recommended limits at 72 sampling sites, nearly a tenth of the 792 sites it tested.

These results have again raised anxieties among environment and anti-fish farm campaigners that the farms can have a major impact on sea life and marine habitats as operators take aggressive steps to cope with sea lice infestation and infectious diseases.

The pesticides are designed to attack the nervous systems and outer shells of the sea lice. But they are also lethal or toxic to other marine species, chiefly prawns and lobsters, and other crustaceans, but also other bird, fish and mammal species.

Lang Banks, director of WWF Scotland, said: "The fact that the limits have been breached so spectacularly at some locations is deeply worrying and suggests something has gone badly wrong. It's simply unacceptable that entire lochs be put at risk in this way. It also begins to raise questions over the industries approach to tackling sea lice problems."

Don Staniford, the anti-fish farming campaigner who has investigated Sepa's monitoring data, tabling a series of detailed FoI requests, was more blunt. He said salmon farming was a "malignant cancer".

"Sepa's statutory duty is to stop companies such as Marine Harvest using Scottish waters as a toxic toilet and dumping ground for chemical contaminants," he said. "Yet Sepa has shamefully opened the floodgates to the use of a cocktail of chemicals. Shame on Scottish salmon farming and shame on Sepa."

Steve Bracken, business support manager for Marine Harvest Scotland, said the findings at Loch Shell were "unusual" and suggested their modelling for tides and currents on Loch Shell, which normally disperse and dilute
chemicals, was inaccurate.

He confirmed the pesticides were used to tackle a sea lice infestation, and admitted its efforts were not very successful: it had to harvest the fish early and close the site down for nine months to tackle the sea lice. He insisted that Marine Harvest took its environmental duties seriously, and were trying to find more natural techniques for tackling sea lice, including using the fish wrasse, which eat sea lice, in salmon cages.

"We are deeply disappointed by the results in Loch Shell as we take our commitment to the environment very seriously," he said.
"We are in discussions with Sepa to try and understand the reason for these results, which are very much outside the norm, in order to ensure they don't happen again."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/10/marine-harvest-salmon-farm-scottish-loch

Now THERE is a deflection.

Wow, Puget Sound to Scotland?

Seriously Charlie, is there really so much cognitive dissonance happening here you can't see that Washington salmon farms do exactly what BC farms do, and that Washington has been one of the worlds biggest producers of salmon and trout eggs for export for many decades?

Washington started farming Atlantics in the early 80's when the independents in BC were still trying to raise local Chinook and Coho - once they had some luck at it the Atlantics were taken up by most all farms in BC.

The vast majority of those eggs came from YOUR local hatcheries - then BC companies started their own breeding programs and now almost every single fish raised comes from multiple generations of BC stock.

Check out this tour, it's great to see how much infrastructure you guys have down there cranking out Atlantics: http://www.wfga.net/tour.php

 

[Charlie]

Now THERE is a deflection.

Wow, Puget Sound to Scotland?

Seriously Charlie, is there really so much cognitive dissonance happening here you can't see that Washington salmon farms do exactly what BC farms do, and that Washington has been one of the worlds biggest producers of salmon and trout eggs for export for many decades?

Why don’t you start reading all that crap before you post it? No offense meant, but sorry you and your BS are really actually NOT worth my time to respond!

For example, it is against both federal and state laws, it is actually illegal for Washington salmon farms to do exactly what BC farms do!

Yep, one of the world’s biggest producers of salmon and trout eggs for export for many decades; AND, – NOT A ONE OF THOSE EGSS have ever came from any European country, especially NORWAY!

Washington started farming Atlantics in the early 80's when the independents in BC were still trying to raise local Chinook and Coho - once they had some luck at it the Atlantics were taken up by most all farms in BC.

Nope, again check your facts! Washington also grew Chinook and Coho in open net pens, just like BC. If you do check your facts, you will find that is actually more harmful to wild stocks than Atlantic salmon. Specifically concerning the Atlantics, it was a NORWAY company that started farming them in Washington. Facts will also show, it is against U.S. laws to import Atlantic eggs. More specifically checking those facts, Marine Harvest (Norway) bought Panfish (Norway) and Marine Harvest losing money, on the verge of bankruptcy had to consolidate. Because their Washington farms had to abide by U.S. laws and their BC farms had the less stringent Canada laws, they sold their Washington farms in favor of those less governmental controls and the lower costs associated. At the end of 2005 they had moved ALL their “open net pen” operations from both Washington and Maine, to Canada. Were they were free to import all their eggs and diseases, at their own will. Also, Canada is allowing them to pour all their pesticides and ****, directly into your Canadian waters..

The vast majority of those eggs came from YOUR local hatcheries - then BC companies started their own breeding programs and now almost every single fish raised comes from multiple generations of BC stock.

Well maybe not all “now almost every single fish raised comes from multiple generations of BC stock.” You have imported Atlantic salmon eggs from Washington State since 2001. IF, you really want to find the source of YOUR ISAv, just start looking at those Atlantic eggs imported from Scotland during 1985 through 1988: 1985 - 130,000; 1986 - 1,144,000. The following are a combination from Scotland and Washington: 1987 - 1,281,000; 1988 - 2,700,000. YOU also seem to be forgetting about those Iceland imported Atlantic salmon eggs? As in 2007 - 1,750,000; 2008 - 800,000: 2009 - 600,000.

Check out this tour, it's great to see how much infrastructure you guys have down there cranking out Atlantics: http://www.wfga.net/tour.php

Seems you are confusing egg production from confined rearing ponds, closed containment and YOUR Norwegian owned Atlantic open net pens that are dumping all those pesticides and their **** directly into your ocean environment! That tour you keep referring actually highlights why OUR open net pens have different sitting requirement and why they don’t have to dump all those pesticides into the environment!

BTW... just for clarification YOUR NORWEGIAN fish farm industry - SUCKS!

All that hype you are spouting off about Canada and the U.S. transporting ISAv from the east coast to the west coast during those stocking attempts - is pure BS! ISAv was NOT even in North America during that timeframe! ISA is a Norwegian imported virus originating in Norway and imported by YOUR company(s) to the Canadian east coast of North America (which spread to the state of Maine) and BC. Both the now so-called North American and Chile strains are just a mutation of the original Norway ISAv strain found in 1984 imported by YOUR Norwegian company(s). Which is exactly why it is now against U.S. Federal law to import or export any live fish or eggs to and from either of our coasts.

The PRV in BC is also Norwegian. PRV was tested for in 2010 and not found in BC. In 2012, Dr Marty has already stated is being found in 70% of “farmed Atlantic salmon.” Not a bad job there! YOUR Norwegian company(s) has taken a non-existent very viral virus and managed to infect up to 70% of your Atlantic stock - not bad for TWO YEARS. Yep, I’m proud of you, and I’d be proud to be an “open net pen” fish farmer, too!

Just keep using that ‘SLICE,’ at least until the sealice build up immunity to it, as they are around the rest of the world. Of forgot to mention, SLICE also kills any and all crustaceans it comes in contact with. But hey... the hell with the environment, it is good for YOUR company’s bottom-line, so it must be good for you! Yep, so proud to be an “open net pen” fish farmer. Back to the your Washington farms comment, you do realize it is still illegal for Washington farmers to use ‘SLICE’ right?

THERE IS NOTHING PROUD OF BEING A BC “OPEN NET PEN” FISHFARMER!

 

[Rockfish]

Charlie, it looks like our net pen trolls are starting to come after you just like they do Morton. Now there’s a badge of honor. You can almost smell the acrid stench of fear on them through the computer screen.

 

[GLG]

Charlie, it looks like our net pen trolls are starting to come after you just like they do Morton. Now there’s a badge of honor. You can almost smell the acrid stench of fear on them through the computer screen.

X2

It's a sign of a weak argument when they attack the messenger rather then the message.
It shows they are grasping for anything to convince us their right and we are wrong.

 

[GLG]

Just keep using that ‘SLICE,’ at least until the sealice build up immunity to it, as they are around the rest of the world. Of forgot to mention, SLICE also kills any and all crustaceans it comes in contact with. But hey... the hell with the environment, it is good for YOUR company’s bottom-line, so it must be good for you! Yep, so proud to be an “open net pen” fish farmer. Back to the your Washington farms comment, you do realize it is still illegal for Washington farmers to use ‘SLICE’ right?

Didn't a Gold River fish feedlot report this problem last year or the year before?
See's to me someone reported that the "Slice" treatment didn't work and their lice to salmon ration was still above 3. That would indicate that a resistance to "Slice" has been built up here in BC just like the rest of the world.

 

[Englishman]

Didn't a Gold River fish feedlot report this problem last year or the year before?
See's to me someone reported that the "Slice" treatment didn't work and their lice to salmon ration was still above 3. That would indicate that a resistance to "Slice" has been built up here in BC just like the rest of the world.

And even if the jury is still out on the immunity/resistance to SLICE in BC, the fact remains it INEVITABLE that resistance will be built up here. The fish feed lot proponents simply do not understand and refuse to acknowledge evolution 101!

All organisms evolve through mutation, under selective pressure. Simple organisms mutate/evolve very fast due to high generation turnover. All we do with our pesticides and insecticides is generate pest resistance. Despite the arsenal of chemical weapons thrown at them (with all the consequent collateral damage to the rest of the ecosystem) not one single insect pest has ever been eliminated from the planet.
The only way forward is farming without the use of pesticides and insecticides....which means salmon feed lots have to go as they cannot work without these drugs, or ever more powerful chemicals in a vain attempt to beat resistance. An idiotic race which can NEVER be won!!

 

[Dave]

“CHARLIE” DOES “NOT” SUPPORT ANY TYPE OF “OPEN NET PEN” ATLANTIC SALMON FARMING, AND ESPECIALLY IN “PUGET SOUND” – PERIOD, END OF SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what are you doing to stop salmon farming in Washington State?

 

[agentaqua]

Some insights into some politician's minds (e.g. Joe Oliver, Stephen Harper, etc.) here on this article. Pipelines, fishfarms - good or bad? Let me check my stock portfolio first before I answer that one....

Do Markets Erode Moral Values? People Ignore Their Own Moral Standards When Acting as Market Participants, Researchers Say


May 10, 2013 — Many people express objections against child labor, exploitation of the workforce or meat production involving cruelty against animals. At the same time, however, people ignore their own moral standards when acting as market participants, searching for the cheapest electronics, fashion or food. Thus, markets reduce moral concerns. This is the main result of an experiment conducted by economists from the Universities of Bonn and Bamberg.

The results are presented in the latest issue of the journal Science.

Prof. Dr. Armin Falk from the University of Bonn and Prof. Dr. Nora Szech from the University of Bamberg, both economists, have shown in an experiment that markets erode moral concerns. In comparison to non-market decisions, moral standards are significantly lower if people participate in markets.

In markets, people ignore their individual moral standards

"Our results show that market participants violate their own moral standards," says Prof. Falk. In a number of different experiments, several hundred subjects were confronted with the moral decision between receiving a monetary amount and killing a mouse versus saving the life of a mouse and foregoing the monetary amount. "It is important to understand what role markets and other institutions play in moral decision making. This is a question economists have to deal with," says Prof. Szech.

"To study immoral outcomes, we studied whether people are willing to harm a third party in exchange to receiving money. Harming others in an intentional and unjustified way is typically considered unethical," says Prof. Falk. The animals involved in the study were so-called "surplus mice," raised in laboratories outside Germany. These mice are no longer needed for research purposes. Without the experiment, they would have all been killed. As a consequence of the study many hundreds of young mice that would otherwise all have died were saved. If a subject decided to save a mouse, the experimenters bought the animal. The saved mice are perfectly healthy and live under best possible lab conditions and medical care.

Simple bilateral markets affect moral decisions

A subgroup of subjects decided between life and money in a non-market decision context (individual condition). This condition allows for eliciting moral standards held by individuals. The condition was compared to two market conditions in which either only one buyer and one seller (bilateral market) or a larger number of buyers and sellers (multilateral market) could trade with each other. If a market offer was accepted a trade was completed, resulting in the death of a mouse. Compared to the individual condition, a significantly higher number of subjects were willing to accept the killing of a mouse in both market conditions. This is the main result of the study. Thus markets result in an erosion of moral values. "In markets, people face several mechanisms that may lower their feelings of guilt and responsibility," explains Nora Szech. In market situations, people focus on competition and profits rather than on moral concerns. Guilt can be shared with other traders. In addition, people see that others violate moral norms as well.

"If I don't buy or sell, someone else will."

In addition, in markets with many buyers and sellers, subjects may justify their behavior by stressing that their impact on outcomes is negligible. "This logic is a general characteristic of markets," says Prof. Falk. Excuses or justifications appeal to the saying, "If I don't buy or sell now, someone else will." For morally neutral goods, however, such effects are of minor importance. Nora Szech explains: "For goods without moral relevance, differences in decisions between the individual and the market conditions are small. The reason is simply that in such cases the need to share guilt or excuse behavior is absent."

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Universität Bonn.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal Reference:
1.A. Falk, N. Szech. Morals and Markets. Science, 2013; 340 (6133): 707 DOI: 10.1126/science.1231566

 

[agentaqua]

Sound familar?

from: http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science/

Blinding Us From Science

May 18, 2013

by Theresa Riley

Science is under attack. With corporations manufacturing uncertainty to undermine studies that hurt their bottom lines and the sequester cutting billions in funding for scientific research, you’d think the American science community would be hunkered down in their labs avoiding outside interference at all costs.

A new project of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Center for Science and Democracy, is encouraging scientists to do just the opposite. The center encourages scientists to speak out and help others to better understand scientific information and to distinguish evidence from political positioning. We spoke with the Center’s director Dr. Andrew Rosenberg by phone this week. This is an edited version of our conversation.

Theresa Riley: In Bill’s conversation with public health historians David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, they talk about a “war on science” that is being waged by industries to prevent and weaken regulations. In Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, a report released last year, UCS investigators showed how widespread the practice is. What tactics do they use?

Andrew Rosenberg: In the political arena, there are lots of avenues where corporate influence comes in. Sometimes it’s directly lobbying elected officials. For example, on fracking, Common Cause found that the industry has spent almost $750 million over the last decade lobbying to try to ensure that regulation isn’t increased, that the federal government stays out of fracking — even, to some extent, in the monitoring and evaluation of impacts of fracking. And that’s unfortunately a pretty common picture. On medical devices it’s a similar sum, $700 million, to lobby on behalf of medical devices and pharmaceuticals to try to keep the rules as business friendly as possible. People understand that there’s lobbying. I’m not sure they understand the magnitude.

A second way is creating a false and parallel science. Of course, that’s quite dramatic on climate change, where there’s been very extensive funding, particularly from the energy industry, of so-called climate change skeptics. I think it’s less well known that that occurs in many other fields, particularly the testing of chemicals, such as toxic contaminants, formaldehyde and silica, where the industry is creating a body of science, ostensibly of science that says, “Well, really this isn’t such a problem.”

One of their tactics is to create groups that are labeled things like Safer Chemicals for a Healthy World — I’m making that one up, but there are actual groups like this. You find out they’re funded by The American Chemistry Council (and they’re funded by the chemical industry). They cast doubt and continually challenge scientific results. Formaldehyde is a good example. The formaldehyde industry is continually challenging evidence that shows that formaldehyde is a carcinogen in the crafting of EPA regulations and product safety regulations.

Riley: In some cases, they go as far as suing scientists. For instance, Markowitz and Rosner tell Bill that in the 1970s and ’80s, the lead industry went after researchers like Herbert Needleman who had uncovered the fact that even low levels of lead were damaging children. They accused him of scientific misconduct and filed charges against him. It took several years for him to prevail.

Rosenberg: Attacking scientists unfortunately, directly and personally, has become part of the toolbox for industry and for political groups. We have instances of attacking scientists in court (as in the lead example), but in the digital age it’s become “let’s subpoena all the private emails of scientists and we’ll find something in there that will cast doubt on the results.”

For example in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP asked for help from some scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to try to estimate how much oil was leaking into the Gulf, because the government estimates seemed to be low. So these scientists came up with methods to figure out a better way to calculate how much was spilling before they capped the well and showed that the amount of oil was very much larger than had been initially estimated.

BP subsequently went to court to subpoena their private emails to cast doubt on their results. They needed to know the actual amount of oil to figure out how to cap it, but then after the fact it pertained directly to [their] liability. So they really went after these guys to cast doubt on their results by saying, “Well, gee, in the email traffic, one of the scientists said to the other, ‘I’m not sure I think that’s quite right. Maybe we ought to try it a different way,’ and ‘I’m not sure we can rely on this result’” — the usual process of science that goes on in any analysis now becomes a weapon in court, and, in addition, is not only demoralizing, but potentially expensive. It certainly dampens the enthusiasm for scientists to get involved in issues. We’ve seen that with climate change, too. It’s not a new phenomenon; it’s still going on.

Riley: What role does the media have in this, particularly in terms of facilitating the production of uncertainty and, ultimately, the undermining of the truth.

(continued)...

 

[agentaqua]

Rosenberg: We live in a very noisy media environment and there are huge changes in news and media, as you know better than I. If somebody wants to know something about fracking and they type it into Google or Bing they get a whole bunch of information and it’s really hard for someone who’s not working in the field to sort through that information and know what its provenance is. I think that’s true for many people in the media who are writing about this as well. All of this effort to undermine or misrepresent science affects the media too, because certain media outlets are spinning their own opinion pages and then cherry picking the science. We’ve done a report on News Corp reporting on climate science, for the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal and for Fox News. It becomes easier for people to hammer away at their position because they’re able to go to think tanks that are funded with a particular bent, Heartland being the classic case.

I also think the media still has a tendency to say, “We’ve got to have a balanced view, so let’s get one person who thinks climate change is occurring or thinks that there’s a problem with formaldehyde and we’ll find somebody who doesn’t, and disagrees,” as if it’s an adversarial system in court and these are expert witnesses. But that’s not what happens in the science community. Yes, people challenge each other, but then you ask, “what’s the weight of the evidence.” It’s not a courtroom where you present alternatives in that way. That’s problematic and it gets disseminated very broadly on digital media.

Riley: In 2009 when President Obama took office, he called for comprehensive scientific integrity reform in federal departments and agencies. How is he doing?

Rosenberg: There is good policy in many agencies. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — and this isn’t because I used to work at NOAA — did an outstanding job, as I think is noted in the report you mentioned earlier, in creating a scientific integrity policy. They enabled scientists to speak out.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House has said they stand behind scientific integrity policies. But the real challenge now is making sure that the implementation follows those policies. And there it’s a little harder to be quite so laudatory. I think they did a great job of putting the policies in place. We worked very intensively with many of the agencies to help provide guidance, since it was critically important in our scientific integrity program. But the implementation of those policies in some places, like USDA, FDA and others, has lagged. There are still concerns in Department of Interior and its many various departments. I think there’s an opportunity for improvement.

Riley: Last month, in a speech at an event marking the 150th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences, President Obama told scientists, engineers and doctors that his goal is to reach for a level of private and public research and development investment that we haven’t seen since the height of the space race. At the same time, the sequester is expected to take a significant toll on scientific research with numerous federal agencies and organizations now facing the possibility of huge cuts to their budgets. Some examples of that are the National Institutes of Health (NIH) expecting $1.6 billion in cuts, the National Science Foundation (NSF) possibly shrinking by $283 million, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimating a $9.3 billion cut across the board in R&D this year. How concerned should we be about these cuts?

Rosenberg: We should be very concerned. I’m not sure that outside the science community it’s well known that the competition for NIH and NSF grants is really intense, meaning that there’s intense scrutiny of every grant proposal. If you add to that now a reduced pool of money, then those success rates become really shockingly low, like less than 10 percent, I believe. That means that many scientists will have difficulty continuing their programs. Some people would say, “Oh well, maybe they should just be funded by private industry or private funding.” That’s all well and good but it’s totally different from a basic research enterprise of an NSF or an NIH, where people are doing the basic, fundamental, underlying research, not to immediately produce a product, but because it helps our understanding of the world. So that’s one area that is frightening.

But we also need to remember the applied science agencies like NOAA, NASA and USGS and others that are doing the basic daily scientific work for the country, everything from weather forecasts, climate forecasts, monitoring of water tables and the research that goes along with those things, understanding weather systems and understanding hydrologic systems, understanding fisheries — the area that I worked in for many years. You start to cut that research, which is also taking a very large hit, and that means our understanding gets weaker as the challenges are only increasing. It’s not as if the issues of trying to maintain the health of the oceans is diminishing, we need that applied scientific research for climate impacts and a whole range of other things.

One of the great things about the U.S. science enterprise and why it was so powerful is because it was valued not just with dollars but in the way that scientists were allowed to operate with much less hierarchy and with much greater freedom than many other places. We’re going to lose that if we continue not only with the sequester but also with this scrutiny of grants, restrictions on travel and attacks on scientists.

 

[agentaqua]

Another related article. Betcha Alex could understand Carson....
From: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0302orlando.html

Industry Attacks on Dissent: From Rachel Carson to Oprah

 

[agentaqua]

GREAT REPORT!!

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html

free download:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

Report looks at methods of corporate abuse, suggests steps toward reform

Download: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Full Report | Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Executive Summary

Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment.

Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years.

This problem has sparked much debate, but few have identified the key driver of political interference in federal science: the inappropriate influence of companies with a financial stake in the outcome.

A new UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, shows how corporations influence the use of science in federal decision making to serve their own interests.

Methods of Abuse

The report describes five basic methods that corporations use to influence the scientific and policy-making processes:


How Do They Game the System?
Let Us Recount the Ways

Heads They Win, Tails We Lose is full of real-world examples of the ways corporations interfere with science. Here are just a few of the highlights:

Suppressing Research:
Hog Farm Emissions

After pork producers contacted his supervisors, a USDA microbiologist was prevented from publishing research showing that emissions from industrial hog farms contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Corrupting Advisory Panels:
Childhood Lead Poisoning

A few weeks before a CDC advisory panel met to discuss revising federal lead standards, two scientists with ties to the lead industry were added to the panel. The committee voted against tightening the standards.

Ghostwriting Articles:
The Pharmaceutical Industry

A 2011 analysis found evidence of corporate authorship in research articles on a variety of drugs, including Avandia, Paxil, Tylenol, and Vioxx.

For more examples, visit our A-to-Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the "revolving door" between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.

Influencing Congress. By spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, corporate interests gain undue access to members of Congress, encouraging them to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical problems, and shape the use of science in policy making.

Exploiting Judicial Pathways. Corporate interests have expanded their influence on the judicial system, used the courts to undermine science, and exploited judicial processes to bully and silence scientists.

Progress Made (and Still To Be Made)

In his 2009 inaugural address, President Obama promised to "restore science to its rightful place." His administration has made progress toward that goal on several important fronts—elevating the role of science in government, ordering agencies to develop scientific integrity policies, improving transparency, and strengthening conflict-of-interest policies.

Despite these positive steps, much remains to be done. The report identifies five key areas where further federal commitments to protect science from undue corporate influence are needed: protecting government scientists from retaliation and intimidation; making government more transparent and accountable; reforming the regulatory process; strengthening scientific advice to government; and strengthening monitoring and enforcement.

Beyond Government

Corporations, nonprofits, academic institutions, scientific societies, and the media also have critical roles to play in reducing abuses of science in federal decision making. These institutions should:
promote honest scientific investigation and open discussion of research results;
refrain from actual or perceived acts of scientific misconduct;
embrace transparency and avoid conflicts of interest.

Inappropriate corporate interference in science extends its tentacles into every aspect of federal science-based policy-making. Addressing this interference will require overcoming high hurdles, but they are not insurmountable. With strong leadership and a sustained commitment, both the federal government and the private sector can rise to the challenge.


Last Revised: 02/16/12

 

[cuttlefish]

Same song book, different coast.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2013/05/16/nl-salmon-escaped-dfo-516.html

Escaped farmed salmon could cause problems, council warns
DFO says unlikely the fish had any disease or illness
CBC News Posted: May 16, 2013 3:28 PM NT Last Updated: May 17, 2013 6:43 AM NT
Most of the salmon farms in Newfoundland are based around the Connaigre Peninsula. Escaped salmon have been found in the Garnish River. (Google Maps)

The Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador warns a recent escape of farmed salmon could cause problems with the wild Atlantic salmon population.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials confirmed this week that farmed salmon escaped from an aquaculture site in the Fortune Bay area, and have turned up in the Garnish River.

Council president Don Hutchens said it poses multiple threats to the wild salmon, such as potential interbreeding between wild and farmed salmon, and spreading of the infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus.

He said the DFO is playing down the issue.

"We told them it was going to happen, they told us that we shouldn't fear about it, but there is no signs to say that we shouldn't fear," Hutchens said.

"In fact, what we do know is everywhere there's been a finfish farm agricultural site, wild Atlantic salmon populations have drastically declined," he added.

Hutchens said part of the problem is that the DFO does not report on escapes that it calls trickle escapes.

"We think that trickle escapes are quite significant — almost to the point that they're almost major escapes when they're done collectively. You could have up to a hundred salmon a day trickling out through the nets and escaping over the sides," Hutchens said.

"You add those up for the year, and you have quite a significant number of farmed salmon escaping into the wild."

No cause for concern, DFO says
Geoff Perry, with the regional aquaculture management of DFO, said there are no indicators to cause concern about spreading infection or disease to the wild population of the fish.

"The animals we sampled last week, we're running them through a full sweep of pathogen screening so we'll have some information on that in the next couple weeks," Perry said.

"But from what we visually looked at, these fish, there's no sea lice on them, and they're not exhibiting any signs of disease or external signs of disease," he added.

He said the fish likely got out during an increase in water levels during the fall or winter season.

"What's probably happened here is these fish got out some time over the winter during a storm, and eventually just poked their nose into a place where the environmental conditions were a little more favourable than the open ocean," Perry said.

However, Perry said there is concern that interbreeding will lead to a weaker generation of salmon in the wild.

"There's concern that if wild and farmed fish interbreed — that the resulting hybrids, farm-wild fish hybrids — will be less fit for the wild environment because farm salmon had been domesticated for traits that make them a very good food fish, but those same traits don't make for good survival in the wild, whereas wild fish have traits that make them very good to survive in the wild," Perry said.

Perry said they did not receive a report from any of the farms in the area, so they do not know which farm the fish escaped from.

Rare occurrence, association says
Cyr Couturier, the executive director of the Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association, repeats sentiments that the likelihood of ISA spreading is low.

"These are naturally occurring diseases that come from wild fish that are passed on to salmon in cages," Couturier said. "There's regular inspection and testing for that almost on a continuous basis by the government agencies and [Canadian Food Inspection Agency]."

Couturier also said that concern about interbreeding between wild and farmed salmon is low.

"This is one escape. It's not a huge escape, from what we can tell yet, and we don't think that there's going to be much interbreeding," he said. "We haven't seen it in 30 years in Newfoundland and Labrador."

Couturier said the association is doing an investigation to find out where exactly the fish escaped from.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-can-salmon-farming-be-sustainable-maybe-if-you-head-inland/

Can Salmon Farming Be Sustainable? Maybe, If You Head Inland

NPR | May 02, 2013 3:43 p.m.

Contributed By: Alastair Bland

Is salmon farming ever sustainable?

For years, the answer to that question has been clear for marine biologists, many of whom agree that the floating, open-ocean net pens that produce billions of pounds of artificially colored salmon per year also generate inevitable pollution, disease and parasites. In some places in western Canada, the open-ocean salmon farming industry has even been named as the culprit in the collapse of wild salmon populations.

But now, a few salmon farms have moved inland, producing fish in land-locked cement basins separated from river and sea. One inland fish farm in Virginia has been commended as a sustainable alternative to conventionally produced salmon. On Vancouver Island, there is at least one such facility. And just last month, Willowfield Enterprises, based in Langley, British Columbia, harvested its first inland-farmed sockeye salmon, to be marketed under the brand name West Creek. Sockeye is a Pacific species that has rarely been cultivated before.

"In terms of environmental sustainability, I think [these closed-system farms are] a huge step forward," says Martin Krkosek, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto who has been among the leading critics of ocean net pen salmon production. "Waste material, disease, pollution, parasites — all these things aren't a concern with most closed-system aquaculture."

Some forms of aquaculture may have the potential to help ecosystems by taking fishing pressure off of wild fish stocks. But this hasn't been the case with the salmon farming industry, according to notable experts like Daniel Pauly, a professor of fisheries at the University of British Columbia. One reason why, Pauly tells The Salt, is that the food that salmon farmers feed to their fish is usually fishmeal made from wild—sometimes overfished—species. He points out that humans could be eating these species instead of farmed salmon.

Open-ocean salmon farms also generate high densities of organic and inorganic waste material—essentially, untreated raw sewage that can cause toxic marine algae blooms and create low-oxygen "dead zones." Residues from antibiotics and other chemical treatments can also drift from the pens.

But salmon farming's most infamous flaw is its incidental production of sea lice. These pea-sized copepods cling to free-moving fish, and under natural circumstances, they aren't usually a threat to salmon. But when many thousands of adult salmon swarm together in crowded net pens, sea lice populations often boom. When juvenile salmon exiting the rivers of their birth pass near such infested pens, the smolts may be swarmed by the parasites and quickly killed. By this process, salmon farms have caused entire runs of wild fish to nearly disappear from streams in the Vancouver Island area, Krkosek's research has shown.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program advises consumers to avoid farmed salmon in general, but it makes a specific exception for farmed salmon from contained systems, which the aquarium recommends, according to spokesperson Alison Barratt

Likewise, the Vancouver Aquarium's seafood rating program, called Ocean Wise, has not approved as "sustainable" a single open-ocean salmon farm, says Teddie Geach, an Ocean Wise representative in Vancouver. However, Ocean Wise has given West Creek's sockeye salmon a top sustainability grade, based on assessments of several criteria. These include the risk of diseases and parasites spreading from farmed fish to wild, and the risk that farmed fish will escape, which can negatively affect the gene pool of wild fish. And then there's something called the "feed conversion ratio," a measure of resource efficiency that considers how much food a given fish species requires to produce each pound of marketable product.

"The closer that ratio is to one to one, the better," Geach says. "You don't want a ten-to-one ratio."

Krkosek says the feed conversion ratio of farmed salmon "is improving" and several years ago was about five to one. Wild salmon, he says, are probably less efficient at converting food into flesh since they are not eating an engineered, optimized nutrition formula, and because they expend great amounts of energy that farmed salmon do not.

Inland aquaculture facilities may be a more environmentally sound way to farm salmon than their open ocean-counterparts. But Krkosek says it's not yet clear whether it would be feasible for the entire salmon farming industry — which produced 5 billion pounds of fish in 2012 – to make the move. He says "new environmental problems" would likely arise — "probably mostly associated with energy and water consumption."

Krkosek also notes that right now, the economics favor cheaper, conventionally farmed salmon.

"In the open-ocean pens, they get clean water and waste disposal for free," Krkosek says, adding, "Everyone's waiting to see if the economics work out. But currently, the common refrain in the salmon farming industry [about inland farms] is, 'It's too expensive.' "

Willowfield Enterprises President Don Read, who is farming the West Creek sockeye with partner Lawrence Albright, says his fish — which, like virtually all farmed salmon, is artificially colored — sells for about double the price of conventionally farmed salmon and for about 20 percent more than wild sockeye.

"We can't compete with open ocean aquaculture, but that's today, and maybe we'll get there," Read says. "For now, our fish will be a niche player in the salmon industry."

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/

 

[tincan]

Haven't read the full report yet but the exec summary is pretty much bang on with my sentiments regarding gov't policy/science and why I will refuse to vote for a political party that does not make changing the status quo a top priority. The republicans down south and the cons up here seem to be trying their best to keep the status quo...and they are unfortunately doing a pretty damn good job at it.

GREAT REPORT!!

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html

free download:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

Report looks at methods of corporate abuse, suggests steps toward reform

Download: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Full Report | Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Executive Summary

Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment.

Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years.

This problem has sparked much debate, but few have identified the key driver of political interference in federal science: the inappropriate influence of companies with a financial stake in the outcome.

A new UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, shows how corporations influence the use of science in federal decision making to serve their own interests.

Methods of Abuse

The report describes five basic methods that corporations use to influence the scientific and policy-making processes:


How Do They Game the System?
Let Us Recount the Ways

Heads They Win, Tails We Lose is full of real-world examples of the ways corporations interfere with science. Here are just a few of the highlights:

Suppressing Research:
Hog Farm Emissions

After pork producers contacted his supervisors, a USDA microbiologist was prevented from publishing research showing that emissions from industrial hog farms contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Corrupting Advisory Panels:
Childhood Lead Poisoning

A few weeks before a CDC advisory panel met to discuss revising federal lead standards, two scientists with ties to the lead industry were added to the panel. The committee voted against tightening the standards.

Ghostwriting Articles:
The Pharmaceutical Industry

A 2011 analysis found evidence of corporate authorship in research articles on a variety of drugs, including Avandia, Paxil, Tylenol, and Vioxx.

For more examples, visit our A-to-Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the "revolving door" between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.

Influencing Congress. By spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, corporate interests gain undue access to members of Congress, encouraging them to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical problems, and shape the use of science in policy making.

Exploiting Judicial Pathways. Corporate interests have expanded their influence on the judicial system, used the courts to undermine science, and exploited judicial processes to bully and silence scientists.

Progress Made (and Still To Be Made)

In his 2009 inaugural address, President Obama promised to "restore science to its rightful place." His administration has made progress toward that goal on several important fronts—elevating the role of science in government, ordering agencies to develop scientific integrity policies, improving transparency, and strengthening conflict-of-interest policies.

Despite these positive steps, much remains to be done. The report identifies five key areas where further federal commitments to protect science from undue corporate influence are needed: protecting government scientists from retaliation and intimidation; making government more transparent and accountable; reforming the regulatory process; strengthening scientific advice to government; and strengthening monitoring and enforcement.

Beyond Government

Corporations, nonprofits, academic institutions, scientific societies, and the media also have critical roles to play in reducing abuses of science in federal decision making. These institutions should:
promote honest scientific investigation and open discussion of research results;
refrain from actual or perceived acts of scientific misconduct;
embrace transparency and avoid conflicts of interest.

Inappropriate corporate interference in science extends its tentacles into every aspect of federal science-based policy-making. Addressing this interference will require overcoming high hurdles, but they are not insurmountable. With strong leadership and a sustained commitment, both the federal government and the private sector can rise to the challenge.


Last Revised: 02/16/12

 

[agentaqua]

What happened to all the fish farms hacks? Been pretty damn quiet over the past few days...

Was there a carnival in town; an aquaculture conference somewhere; and/or are they just sleeping-off a hangover from hanging at Mary-Ellen's place over the last weekend?

 

[Andrew P]

Hey Dave,

So I assume that you are involved in some of this....http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news...d+with+deadly+salmon+virus/5797701/story.html

 

[sockeyefry2]

Nah just letting the wave of inconsequential drivel pass over.

Do you know what the ultimate issue for "heading inland" is? it ain't that you can't make money with them, which you can't, it ain't that they have a greater environmental impact which they do, it ain't the myth that CC fish can't get sick which they can, or the inability to find sufficient land. No the ultimate final nail in the coffin of CC, which no supporter ever mentions is the huge amount of freshwater which would be necessary. According to ASF's own report, one farm producing 3300 mt would require 7600 lpm of new freshwater (That's 7600 liters of water every minute of every day). This can't be from surface water, which may contain diseased wild salmon, which could infect the farm. It has to be water from drilled wells. At current industry production of somewhere in the order of 60,000 mt a year, that would require finding a minimum of 138,000 lpm. of feshwater from ground water aquifers. That's 198,720,000 liters of freshwater a day every day. So for pundits to espouse CC as a replacement for the entire industry, I would suggest you ask them where's the water going to come from, and what's the impact on other users and watersheds when all that water is sucked from the ground?

 

[agentaqua]

That's assuming all CC is a flow-through facility, SF - rather than recirc. I thought you could get-by with a 10% make-up feed - enough to get rid of nitrates. Am I wrong in this assumption?