only 5% of sold fish are cyanide collected.

[Kalkbreath]

Do I need to start quoting ? Shall I start with this month or back in 2002?

 

[mkirda]

You forgot to exclude the fact that 20 % of the cyanide fish die during export each of the three stages of transport. {A notion you have continually supported }20% less 20% less20% ...................... So about fifty percent of your twenty percent nver reach the consumers........would leave ten percent remaining to be sold .

If you add that theory on, it still does not support your claim of 5%!

As far as 'a notion you have continually supported' - Show me where I have come out and stated that I believe 100% in what Frank Lallo had to say. I never said any such thing. All I did say was to let Frank post the numbers before jumping to any conclusions.

At this point, you've not only made another mathematical error, but you have lied about what I supposedly said as well.

I also only used the last three years of Peters study 8% 18% and 29% inpart because Peter left off the most current data off his findings {2000, 2001} SO I left off the years 1997 AND 1996. So the most current three years of testing availible 1997 1998 2000 are what combine to average 19 percent cyanide testings. All 19 percent. dont reach the USA.

In other words, you manipulated the numbers to minimize the impact, just like any good cyanide apologist is wont to do. It is called "Intellectual dishonesty".

As far as the lastest round of numbers, I know I've pointed this out to you twice before, as Peter himself has pointed out to you... Getting the last two years of numbers does not mean that you can publish the results the next day. The raw data has to be organized, counted and analysed. This takes time. Peter estimated that it would take him two solid weeks to do so, and that he had enough on his plate that it would not happen until late spring or early summer. Yet you falsely accuse him of leaving the data off- Data he only got after the last paper was published!

It boggles the mind that this point has to be hammered home to you so often. No doubt you will find some way to 'conveniently forget' it again sometime later on.

Rehash, reheat, repeat. We got Kalk's vote.

I want what is behind Door #2, please.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

You forgot to exclude the fact that 20 % of the cyanide fish die during export each of the three stages of transport. {A notion you have continually supported }20% less 20% less20% ...................... So about fifty percent of your twenty percent nver reach the consumers........would leave ten percent remaining to be sold .

If you add that theory on, it still does not support your claim of 5%!

As far as 'a notion you have continually supported' - Show me where I have come out and stated that I believe 100% in what Frank Lallo had to say. I never said any such thing. All I did say was to let Frank post the numbers before jumping to any conclusions.

Its been five years , if Frank had any data that backed up his conclusions he would have made them public.......

I also only used the last three years of Peters study 8% 18% and 29% inpart because Peter left off the most current data off his findings {2000, 2001} SO I left off the years 1997 AND 1996. So the most current three years of testing availible 1997 1998 2000 are what combine to average 19 percent cyanide testings. All 19 percent. dont reach the USA.

In other words, you manipulated the numbers to minimize the impact, just like any good cyanide apologist is wont to do. It is called "Intellectual dishonesty".

If there were thirty years of data would it not be proper to omit the oldest data?only the most current data is relative

As far as the lastest round of numbers, I know I've pointed this out to you twice before, as Peter himself has pointed out to you... Getting the last two years of numbers does not mean that you can publish the results the next day. The raw data has to be organized, counted and analysed. This takes time. Peter estimated that it would take him two solid weeks to do so, and that he had enough on his plate that it would not happen until late spring or early summer. Yet you falsely accuse him of leaving the data off- Data he only got after the last paper was published!

Its 2004 , if he has not the time to compile the data for the most important numbers {THE MOST CURRENT!}Then perhaps he should let someone else do it?

It boggles the mind that this point has to be hammered home to you so often. No doubt you will find some way to 'conveniently forget' it again sometime later on.

Rehash, reheat, repeat. We got Kalk's vote.

I want what is behind Door #2, please.Regards.
Mike Kirda

Behind door number two is the truth, the door is right now only beginning to open and shed some light on the faces of those looking out ..........better get your sunglasses out !

:wink:

 

[mkirda]

Behind door number two is the truth, the door is right now only beginning to open and shed some light on the faces of those looking out ..........better get your sunglasses out !

:wink:

If it includes your basic math errors, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty as above, I'm need my hip waders, not sunglasses.

R, R and R.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Behind door number two is the truth, the door is right now only beginning to open and shed some light on the faces of those looking out ..........better get your sunglasses out !

:wink:

If it includes your basic math errors, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty as above, I'm need my hip waders, not sunglasses.

R, R and R.

Why is it you are having such difficulty naming which foreign leaders you have been speaking to ?............or are you again Senator. Kerry making up nonsense and looking silly and dishonest? I backed up my conclusions............you justify yours.

 

[mkirda]

I backed up my conclusions............you justify yours.

Kalk,

The three R's again? C'mon.

Every single argument you've put forth, I have already picked apart.
Mathematical errors.
Improper and incorrect assumptions.
Conclusions based on refuted numbers.

When you build an argument based on flawed premises, If I can show that one portion of it is flawed, the entire thing is flawed, Kalk.

In other words, your conclusions have been publicly enviscerated.
Multiple times.
You have yet to correct any of the errors in any of your arguments-
Just the opposite. You often continue down the same line of thought, even when it has been shown to be completely and utterly wrong.

Goodness knows, I have done my part to educate you.
No one can fault me for trying.
But when you don't listen, refuse to listen, or don't understand, education becomes impossible.

What this is due to- Why you cannot learn from your mistakes- is difficult to say. You display incredible adherence to cyanide apologist dogma.
My question to you is: Are you a 'true believer' or do you just like to troll?

 

[Kalkbreath]

What is it again your basing your position on?I have yet to see you list your sources? I am using industry numbers..........Now your claiming that every ounce of data the industry spouts is wrong.......... What is it again that your using to base your silly notions on ........some secrete personal communications Senator Kerry? :wink:

 

[mkirda]

What is it again your basing your position on?I have yet to see you list your sources? I am using industry numbers..........Now your claiming that every ounce of data the industry spouts is wrong.......... What is it again that your using to base your silly notions on

1) You have made numerous mathematical errors, previously pointed out to you. I refuse to cut and paste them here. Use the search function.
2) Your use of numbers has been frequently uncited and unverifiable. When asked for citations, you have never responded. When you have cited numbers, the author of the study has had to correct you repeatedly for misquoting the study and misstating the numbers themselves. Need I point out more?

Again, Kalk, when you build your argument out of fallacies, the argument is useless. I will not resurrect dead and buried threads just to prove you wrong again. I have already done so. Show me why I should do it again?

Besides, your arguments make too easy of a target. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

You want to resurrect one of your dead threads to respond to one of my points, be my guest. But don't be so rude as to ask me to repeat myself in thread after thread, just so you can blow more smoke up the forum's rear. It has gotten to the point of being impolite.

The funniest thing is that my 'silly notions' are backed by numerous papers already referenced in this forum. And nada one of yours is. Shouldn't that tell you something, Kalk?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Your one of many on this board that thinks he can substantiate his claims without ever quoting one number? Numbers and data get in the way of the reeform!............How many cyanide fish are sold in the USA each year? .........still too scared to attempt the math.........I did the math with your numbers .......data you have argued in support of for the last six months. Let me offer some other the results from J.M Cervino.........he states as well as Peter in his testing and research of the effects of cyanide on corals that .........get this...........>80% of cyanide collected fish reach dont reach the hobbyist. {read his report} This again supports my data and notion that less the 5% of the retail fish supply has cyanide present. What was it you claim? :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Self-deleted.

Driver, Para!

Bayad po.

 

[Anonymous]

kalk


your agenda is showing :wink:

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, You quoted my data (cited in the Cervino et al. 2004 paper) that more than 80% of MO fish die through the chain-of-custody (cumulative mortality) from reef-to-retailer (if one excludes the acute mortality on the reef). Let's not blame this on James Cervino but on myself (who was a co-author). You have not addressed my earlier posting that asserted that I believe that the percentage with cyanide present does not decline to the retail level. If you have a large population and you remove a portion (say 30%) at each step of chain, the proportion of fish with cyanide present in the remaining population of live fish stays constant (probably 25% based on IMA CDT results). Without testing at the USA level, (preferably at the retail level) it is difficult to verify whether your 5% or my 25% is the more accurate. I did cite the case where a retailer in Gainesville had University of Florida scientists conduct histology on the liver of imported Indonesian MO fish. They found that 80% of the fish examined had necrosis (cells damaged and contracted) of the liver similar to what was documented with the livers of fish exposed to cyanide by Dempster and Donaldson (1974), Dixon and Leduc (1991), and Hanawa et al. (1998).

I disagree with your theory that the proportion of fishes containing cyanide declines through the chain and that it becomes as low as 5%. How about the LA importers supporting some research on these questions? Whether the trade funds anything or not; we will have a US-based CDT soon to look into these questions.

Peter

 

[horge]

Sumakay ka pa kasi, Mike, e... :roll:



Never wrestle with a pig in its pen.
You'll both wind up filthy and smelling horrible,
....except the pig likes it.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Wrong.....your study in PI showed that 25% of the fish collected had cyanide present. That means twenty-five is the starting point. You did not test the fish after they arrived into the USA.....Twenty five percent is the amount of fish "destine for the US" You stated such on the AMDA website....!! Twenty-five percent......Then from there on the percentage decreases......because cyanide fish die at a higher percentage then net caught. There fore each step the percentage of fish remaining from the cyanide batch dwindles.......from 25% to 19% during the over forty hour seas transport.........From 19% to 11% during their few day stay at the importers in LAX {or other.}.......then from11% to 8% or less ......During the trip to the retailer.......finally the first few days at the retailer........the remaining 8% decreases again during the first few days being offered to the public! The remaining percentage of 5% or so of PI fish is even less then 5% of the total fish stock,due to the fact that not all fish the retailer displays Originated with the group of Philippine fish and many fish are NOT collected from countries like PI and Indo.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I also like to point out that the last three years of your testing showed only 19% of the fish from PI had cyanide present ........So that 19% actually would be a more accurate starting percentage!

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Like I said, we disagree. I have data and scientific experience to guide me. You don't. Let's see what the new (much more sensitive) test will produce.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[Anonymous]

Kalk, Like I said, we disagree. I have data and scientific experience to guide me. You don't. Let's see what the new (much more sensitive) test will produce.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

Peter

any chance you can elaborate on this? specifically on who will be implementing the test?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Like I said, we disagree. I have data and scientific experience to guide me. You don't. Let's see what the new (much more sensitive) test will produce.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

What do you disagree with? Your study claimed 25% of the fish stockand that 20% to thirty percent of fish die during the three of for sections of transport.......Do you disagree that cyanide fish die at a higher percentage during transport? How can you now claim to disagree with YOURSELF?

 

[mkirda]

What do you disagree with? Your study claimed 25% of the fish stockand that 20% to thirty percent of fish die during the three of for sections of transport.......Do you disagree that cyanide fish die at a higher percentage during transport? How can you now claim to disagree with YOURSELF?

This is what happens when you don't understand what you read.

 

[mkirda]

Sumakay ka pa kasi, Mike, e... :roll: [\quote]

:lol:

Totoo iyan, Horge. Talaga.
Ang diyipni ay inatawag na Super Macho Sodyum Driver...

After that, you'll have to wait until I get a little better in Tagalog. :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda