wildmanyeah
Crew Member
was it similar to the leaded gasoline, smoking and climate change?
Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson ignores the courts decision on the threat the PRV virus!
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
was it similar to the leaded gasoline, smoking and climate change?
Haha! At least you didn't ask his identity again... if the agent was to reveal his name it would be too easy to see who he really represents. Don't think he would like that to be known.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
There is no evidence that PRV causes jaundice in chinook. If it did prv would not be listed as an orphan virus as I stated earlier.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
associated?
"Medical Definition of associate. (Entry 1 of 3) transitive verb. 1 : to join or connect (things) together. 2 : to bring together in a relationship infectious disease associated with a rise in body temperature."
"In British Columbia, Canada, the dominant farmed species is Atlantic salmon, whereas chinook ((Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1792)) and coho salmon, both endemic species, currently make up approximately 3% of farmed biomass. A disease characterized by jaundice and anemia, also called jaundice syndrome, has caused low level mortality of farmed chinook salmon for several years (Garver et al. 2016), and as observed in Japan, Chile, and Norway, the disease is associated with PRV (Miller et al. 2017). In BC, however, only a single strain of PRV, PRV-1, has been observed. This is the same strain that causes HSMI in Atlantic salmon."
"Medical Definition of associate. (Entry 1 of 3) transitive verb. 1 : to join or connect (things) together. 2 : to bring together in a relationship infectious disease associated with a rise in body temperature."
"In British Columbia, Canada, the dominant farmed species is Atlantic salmon, whereas chinook ((Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1792)) and coho salmon, both endemic species, currently make up approximately 3% of farmed biomass. A disease characterized by jaundice and anemia, also called jaundice syndrome, has caused low level mortality of farmed chinook salmon for several years (Garver et al. 2016), and as observed in Japan, Chile, and Norway, the disease is associated with PRV (Miller et al. 2017). In BC, however, only a single strain of PRV, PRV-1, has been observed. This is the same strain that causes HSMI in Atlantic salmon."
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
Thank you Darren for being a stand up guy here.
I to0 believe any industry should be monitored to ensure they are not creating extensive environmental damage. In this case of collapsed coastal salmon populations I believe there is a far greater force restricting salmon productivity than any ff, logging or mines. It is the environmental chemistry. This is why even in areas of the coast where non of the said industries are present the salmon have collapsed too. If you cross reference salmon productivity information with pristine areas or watersheds without industries there is a lot of enlightening information to acknowledge. I have posted information and videos over the last few years to share the reality of acidified streams where algae species has changed, dead salmon do not decompose and invertebrates have been wiped out but nobody cares. It seems that there just has to be blame directed at someone or some industry. Just the Canadian way I guess!
It am a person who has spent a lifetime in the field watching the ecology get washed out of the streams during high acidic input events. I too once believed logging, mining, ff's and overfishing had been the culprit in reduced fish populations because that is what all the other people believed. As I grew older and accumulated more field experience to cross reference with I started to realize something far different going on. Something that continues to be ignored is the changing chemistry water source which falls from the sky. In the mid 1990's the rain pH was averaging in the mid "4's" and often dipped into the mid "3's". Now anyone who puts the effort to learn about aquatic ecology and how pH effects life there in will learn how damaging that acidic water was. It IS a match to everything I have watched change within B.C. streams. To conclude ff's are having such a damaging effect on natural salmon productivity without assuring that the streams ecology has been in place is a bling assumption and incomplete science. This "precautionary" approach which is now also used to regulate sport fishing is unjustly applied and lacks true integrity. So to see this continued solicited attack on ff's while the basics of water chemistry and ecology in the natural setting are ignored is annoying.
I am speaking out so that others who might be influenced by this repetitive display of anti ff propaganda have a chance to learn of the ignored science that is truly happening in the real world.
Darren, give me a call anytime 250-720-5118. If you have an open mind and like to learn new stuff I would be happy to share some of the enlightening info with you. It might even give you some positive feelings for the future like it has me!!
Ha! Well-plated!
or maybe like SNC Lavalin?https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/snc-lavalin-ceo-neil-bruce-retires-1.5170371
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Association and Causation
PLEASE NOTE:
We are currently in the process of updating this chapter and we appreciate your patience whilst this is being completed.
A principal aim of epidemiology is to assess the causes of disease. However, since most epidemiological studies are by nature observational rather than experimental, a number of possible explanations for an observed association need to be considered before we can infer that a cause-effect relationship exists. Specifically, causation needs to be distinguished from mere association – the link between two variables (often an exposure and an outcome). An observed association may in fact be due to the effects of one or more of the following:
Reverse causality describes the event where an association between an exposure and an outcome is not due to direct causality from exposure to outcome, but rather because the defined “outcome” actually results in a change in the defined “exposure”. For example, a study may find an association between using recreational drugs (exposure) and poor mental wellbeing (outcome) and thus conclude that using drugs is likely to impair wellbeing. A reverse causation explanation could be that people with poor mental wellbeing are more likely to use recreational drugs as, say, a means of escapism.
Judging Causality
An observed statistical association between a risk factor and a disease does not necessarily lead us to infer a causal relationship; conversely, the absence of an association does not necessarily imply the absence of a causal relationship.
A judgment about whether an observed statistical association represents a cause-effect relationship between exposure and disease requires inferences far beyond the data from a single study.
The Bradford Hill criteria, listed below, are widely used in epidemiology as a framework with which to assess whether an observed association is likely to be causal.1
For example, the first criterion 'strength of association' does not take into account the fact that not every component cause will have a strong association with the disease it produces, or that strength of association also depends on the prevalence of other factors.2
In terms of the third criterion, 'specificity', which suggests that a relationship is more likely to be causal if the exposure is related to a single outcome, Rothman argues that this criterion is misleading as a cause may have many effects, for example smoking.2
The fifth criterion, ‘biological gradient’ suggests that the plausibility of a causal association is increased if a dose-response curve can be demonstated.3 However, such relationships may also result from confounding or other biases.2,3
According to Rothman, the only criterion that can be considered as a true causal criterion is 'temporality', that is that the cause precedes the effect. It may be difficult, however, to ascertain the time sequence for cause and effect.2
The process of causal inference is complex and arriving at a tentative inference of a causal or non-causal nature of an association is a subjective process. For a comprehensive discussion on causality, refer to Rothman.2
References
PLEASE NOTE:
We are currently in the process of updating this chapter and we appreciate your patience whilst this is being completed.
A principal aim of epidemiology is to assess the causes of disease. However, since most epidemiological studies are by nature observational rather than experimental, a number of possible explanations for an observed association need to be considered before we can infer that a cause-effect relationship exists. Specifically, causation needs to be distinguished from mere association – the link between two variables (often an exposure and an outcome). An observed association may in fact be due to the effects of one or more of the following:
- Chance (random error)
- Bias (systematic error)
- Confounding
- Reverse causality
- True causality
Reverse causality describes the event where an association between an exposure and an outcome is not due to direct causality from exposure to outcome, but rather because the defined “outcome” actually results in a change in the defined “exposure”. For example, a study may find an association between using recreational drugs (exposure) and poor mental wellbeing (outcome) and thus conclude that using drugs is likely to impair wellbeing. A reverse causation explanation could be that people with poor mental wellbeing are more likely to use recreational drugs as, say, a means of escapism.
Judging Causality
An observed statistical association between a risk factor and a disease does not necessarily lead us to infer a causal relationship; conversely, the absence of an association does not necessarily imply the absence of a causal relationship.
A judgment about whether an observed statistical association represents a cause-effect relationship between exposure and disease requires inferences far beyond the data from a single study.
The Bradford Hill criteria, listed below, are widely used in epidemiology as a framework with which to assess whether an observed association is likely to be causal.1
- Strength of association – The stronger the association, or magnitude of the risk, between a risk factor and outcome, the more likely the relationship is thought to be causal.
- Consistency – The same findings have been observed among different populations, using different study designs and at different times.
- Specificity – There is a one-to-one relationship between the exposure and outcome. Note that this is uncommon in reality.
- Temporal sequence – The exposure must precede outcome (to exclude reverse causation).
- Biological gradient – Changes in the intensity of the exposure results in a change in the severity or risk of the outcome (i.e. a dose-response relationship).
- Biological plausibility – There is a potential biological mechanism which explains the association.
- Coherence – The relationship found agrees with the current knowledge of the natural history/biology of the disease.
- Experiment – Removal of the exposure alters the frequency of the outcome.
- Analogy – The relationship is in line with (i.e. analogous to) other established cause-effect relationships. For example, knowing of the teratogenic effects of thalidomide, we may accept a cause-effect relationship for a similar agent based on slighter evidence.
For example, the first criterion 'strength of association' does not take into account the fact that not every component cause will have a strong association with the disease it produces, or that strength of association also depends on the prevalence of other factors.2
In terms of the third criterion, 'specificity', which suggests that a relationship is more likely to be causal if the exposure is related to a single outcome, Rothman argues that this criterion is misleading as a cause may have many effects, for example smoking.2
The fifth criterion, ‘biological gradient’ suggests that the plausibility of a causal association is increased if a dose-response curve can be demonstated.3 However, such relationships may also result from confounding or other biases.2,3
According to Rothman, the only criterion that can be considered as a true causal criterion is 'temporality', that is that the cause precedes the effect. It may be difficult, however, to ascertain the time sequence for cause and effect.2
The process of causal inference is complex and arriving at a tentative inference of a causal or non-causal nature of an association is a subjective process. For a comprehensive discussion on causality, refer to Rothman.2
References
- Hill AB. The environment and disease; association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965; 58:295-300.
- Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: An Introduction (2nd edition). Oxford University Press, 2012.
- Lucas RM, McMichael A. Association or Causation: evaluating links between 'environment and disease'. Bull World Health Org 2005; 83(10): 792-795.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
yes there is an association however researchers do not know if the jaundice salmon have elevated levels of PRV because of the jaundice or not. mortality from jaundice is very low in salmon farms as well. Researchers have injected high levels of PRV into chinook could not duplicate a jaundice reaction in any study. This makes it difficult to state that PRV causes jaundice.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
you clearly can't refute the information I have put forth in regards to rockfish having prv, PRV being an orphan virus and prv causing jaundice. I see that you are unwilling to admit your blatant misuse of the terms disease and virus.
Thanks for your indirect sheepish response but its a response non the less from mr/miss transparency. lol
Last edited:
My understanding of the dip in pH in the ocean is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere which ends up being dissolved in the Ocean. If that is the case and the true cause of the Salmon population decline should we not be focused on reducing our CO2 output then?
I personally think there are lots of factors that have caused the decline. Overfishing, habitat destruction, Climate Change/Global Warming, Fish Farming, Ecosystem imbalances (Seal populations etc) and some have more of a significant impact than others. It is very difficult to isolate and quantify the impacts of each factor.
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
It is rain pH and freshwater that I am talking about. Starting in the mid 1980's and continuing thru into the 2000's that has caused global ecology destruction. Acidic precipitation strips calcium and magnesium from surface waters and dissolves heavy metals. The effects are varied in different waterways due to many influences like alkalinity, existing elements, organic carbon natural buffering ability. All the dissolved heavy metals are carried to the ocean where they kill ecology along the way to reach the ocean precipitate when the water mixes with higher pH water. This was going on for a couple decades. There is a world of science documenting the effects and proof of condition. Unfortunately it has all been showed under the rug many years back. So here we are nowadays with enviro's attacking every resource based industry and selling the blame to the public without credible proof. They should be ashamed of them selves!!
The whole co2 gig is a hoax. I personally test rain ph and co2. Despite the co2 rise that has been happening the rain pH has been on the rise the last few years. I have not seen the rain pH below 5 in three years now. It would be impossible for an ocean to be reduced in pH by atmospheric co2 and yet the precipitation pH is not! An ocean has far more buffering ability than water vapor. The difference is where sulfate is a much stronger acid than carbonic acid and the levels of atmospheric sulfate has gone down considerably. If anything it would have been the sulfate lowering ocean pH not co2. What I have learned lots in my research is that there is a whole world out there that only knows what the media reveals and just believe it. Nobody will just look for themselves. You will also never hear about from engo's because this truth would interfere with their objectives.
Yes there are lots of factors which have been effecting salmon productivity but in my experience all of it is just a fart in the wind compared to the acidification causing the poisoning of waters. IMHO
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
Well that advertisement doesn't explain **** it is designed to sell the idea of man caused co2 acidifying the oceans. It is false information and the proof is in front of anybody who tests the water and co2 levels themselves. AA do you test the co2 or water your self???
It would be impossible for the co2 in the air acidify the ocean and not the precipitation or lakes where pH and alkalinity is on the rise. So just another hoax everyone. Attractive advertisement though!
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
Can you please share with me a scientific report rather than just an advertisement.
I do not have the resources to conduce an ocean acidifying study nor does anyone else. This is why the engo's use this excuse to push the anti co2 agenda. Nobody else has the resources check up on it either.
I was just at the outlet of Great Central lake to test for pH and alkalinity. pH7.1 alk 21ppm. I have ems reports that won't load onto this site but have records of the same site 1993-2001. In that time the pH and alkalinity varied from the lowest in oct31 1995 pH5.6 alk12.6 with the highest being pH7.2 alk18.6 on june 31 1994. The average alkalinity in that time was about 15ppm. It would rise slightly in the summer to then drop in the fall when heavy acidic rains prevailed. In the last four years at the same site the alkalinity has hung around 20 ppm and pH7 and the pH/alkalinity doesn't dive during fall and winter rains anymore. The rain pH since I have been testing in the fall of 2015 was averaging about 5.1 back then to average 5.6 in 2017 to average about 6 this spring. Interestingly many times I tested the rain for pH it would be lower at the start of a precipitation event then rise thru the event. My co2 tester does confirm the co2 has been rising but the pH and alkalinity test of rain, stream and lake waters everywhere I have been testing are on the rise.
I do have some supporting files and data but all the files are too large to upload here on sfbc. I guess I am in a loosing battle here because engo's have far more computer skills, marketing ability and desire to manipulate the public than I do!
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
Fishmyster
Well-Known Member
I did just supply you with data. The data of lake alkalinity on the rise. I gave you data of rain pH on the rise. Why don't you explain how the ocean could be acidifying but not the freshwaters? Does that information only become credible if presented by Watershed watch, Suzuki foundation or some other engo organization that has their hands out for donations???.
It is quite telling that you are not a person who will have an intellectual discussion on the mysteries of water chemistry and just here to market the ENGO's propaganda. Hope everyone else is able to understand this.
I thought ff threads were banned here on sfbc? Looks like the kkk of the working class is alive and strong still with new ff threads popping up.
You will be happy to hear I head back to work tomorrow so wont be around to respond. You will still be at work here at work when I can get back, right!!
Similar threads
