House Bill HR 4928
- Thread starter PeterIMA
- Start date
cortez marine":1isc61d2 said:
A thousand dollars from an industry that has been making millions of dollards exploiting and contributing to destroy the coral reefs? Once again you are demonstraiting that you are strong in rhetoric but weak in what counts!
What I have been doing? Well, I have been working with local stores getting them more interested in identifying the good fish suppliers and also making an extra effort to better inform the aquarium hobbyists about the coral reefs, their complexity and fragility. Marine aquarium hobbyists in the Region of the National Capital of Canada are much better than they were 10 years ago. This has been possible thanks to 1) better technology 2) more educated dealers and hobbyists 3) better quality from suppliers. Mortality rates at hobbyists level have decreased considerably in the last years. That is good news, meaning that somehow those hobbyists are contributing to release the pressure on coral reefs. Less fish are required at this end, fish do not die, to the contrary they last long time. Aquarium hobbyist are trading frags, some of the stores are offering corals that are produced locally. That means less pressure on coral reefs.
Education to these two levels is extremelly important, lowering mortality at dealers facilities and hobbyists tanks has an important value. I am happy knowing that I am doing something positive.
This bill saddens me ... as it will either make me a criminal for propagating corals ... or make me stop doing it.
Sure, if there's a $50 license fee and that's it - I might comply. But `certification' of my home aquaria won't be that cheap ... and for the 50 $10 frags I pass to locals - not worth it to me.
--
One big question I've seen raised elsewhere on this bill ... it doesn't seem like it has a `grandfather clause' ... meaning if it's a restricted species, then it's illegal for you to have it.
Ain't that sweet ... I guess we'll just have to kill all the forbidden livestock we already have. Wonderful reform :lol:
Sure, if there's a $50 license fee and that's it - I might comply. But `certification' of my home aquaria won't be that cheap ... and for the 50 $10 frags I pass to locals - not worth it to me.
--
One big question I've seen raised elsewhere on this bill ... it doesn't seem like it has a `grandfather clause' ... meaning if it's a restricted species, then it's illegal for you to have it.
Ain't that sweet ... I guess we'll just have to kill all the forbidden livestock we already have. Wonderful reform :lol:
Kalkbreath":2razi6kv said:
Jeff,
Apparently you didn't read Peter's first post which told us about the bill. I can't understand how you even found the bill. Must have been the blue color. :lol: Yes this is pretty much the same bill that was to be introduced in 2000 when/if Gore was elected president. A few things like the aquaculture exceptions were added after the groundwork for certifiying aquaculture facilites was began at MO 04. The biodiversity aspect and establishing some type of a royality for countries of origin are a big part of this, but more work is needed to determine how it can be applied.
It is really hard to say how much of a hand MAC has in this. The push for this legislation obviously comes from the conservation community. According to its bylaws the majority of the MAC BOD must come from conservation groups. The conservation community is a large group and surely there is some difference of opinions among this group. Some in the group would like to see the selling of wild caught fish as pets stopped. PERIOD. Others realize the marine industry is a viable source of income for third world countries if managed correctly. If Peter is correct aout Paul Holthus, Marshall Meyers, and Bruce Bunting going to congress to lobby against the bill in 2000, then it seems strange there would be a change of heart now. Unless the new version has wording they find more favorable. We now know the World Bank has funded the GEF Council Work Program Submission or the Marine Aquarium Market Transformation Initative. (Thanks to vitz)
In short the goal is to transform the marine industry from a destructive force into an industry that actually benefits the conservations of the reefs. A very worthy goal to be sure. The problem is that the the transition will likely destroy the industry as we know it. From what I can determine a vertically integrated system will be eastablished that owns the collecting sites on through retail. Basically all the certified fish supply will go through companies that CCIF chooses. If Petco or Petsmart gets certified they will control fish supply. Foster $ Smith are also seeking to be certifed. My guess is that the rest will be SOL. The new law will pretty much make this group the only legal game in town. Most of the LA wholesalers will be out of business. Free trade and competition will be destroyed. Most retail stores will not be able to get hardly any of the extremely limited certified fish supply, even if they are certifed. There are currently almost no certified fish available. To properly prove that collection of marine species are truly sustainable will take years of research like Jessica M. explained some time back. Things like migration patterns must be factored in. The industry will come to a standstill until the studies can be completed unless they are faked, as some have suggested they currently are. A few choosen companies will probably get rich if this flies, and the rest will be run out of business.. Somehow this does NOT seem like the way free trade was supposed to work in this country. Frankly I'm surprised the United States government is allowing themselves to be used in this manner. I have contacted PIJAC to get their interpretation of this bill. The people who make their living off this trade need to unite to challenge this bill and make sure it does not destroy of livelyhoods. If they want to take the industry and hand it over to a few rich Packard investors I'd just as soon they shut it down now.
Mitch Gibbs
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Friends, Romans, countryman,
This was bogus reform from the beginning with few true believers.
Even the MAC BOD and administrators don't really believe the stuff they put out...as it came from interviews with others.
Oddly enough, a lot of the bogus input came from the least of our brethren...a couple of service guys needing to 'belong' and become 'bigger shots' then they were.
The service guy connection came about as real dealers didn't take MAC as seriously and had stores to run. The service guys had much more flexible schedules and lots more time on their hands.. Problem is they didn't know beans about the field but imagined themselves to be good at "handling" issues.
They egotistically imagined that they could produce 1 % DOAs for example so the countries on the other side of the earth should be able to do it as well.
MAC, lacking the discriminating wisdom and experience to tell when Jaime or John for example, were blowing smoke up their rear...took way too much as gospel and concocted the absurd rules that even they could never comply with.
The chronic train of field failures in certified fish 'non-production' attest to this as well.
Listening to incompetents and wannabies has doomed this mission to an adversarial position now in the trade and few will want to own up to their complicity in selling us all out.
Kudus to Jaime and John for revealing themselves as some of the original true believers of MAC.
Thats two...anyone else want to fess up?
Steve
This was bogus reform from the beginning with few true believers.
Even the MAC BOD and administrators don't really believe the stuff they put out...as it came from interviews with others.
Oddly enough, a lot of the bogus input came from the least of our brethren...a couple of service guys needing to 'belong' and become 'bigger shots' then they were.
The service guy connection came about as real dealers didn't take MAC as seriously and had stores to run. The service guys had much more flexible schedules and lots more time on their hands.. Problem is they didn't know beans about the field but imagined themselves to be good at "handling" issues.
They egotistically imagined that they could produce 1 % DOAs for example so the countries on the other side of the earth should be able to do it as well.
MAC, lacking the discriminating wisdom and experience to tell when Jaime or John for example, were blowing smoke up their rear...took way too much as gospel and concocted the absurd rules that even they could never comply with.
The chronic train of field failures in certified fish 'non-production' attest to this as well.
Listening to incompetents and wannabies has doomed this mission to an adversarial position now in the trade and few will want to own up to their complicity in selling us all out.
Kudus to Jaime and John for revealing themselves as some of the original true believers of MAC.
Thats two...anyone else want to fess up?
Steve
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
PS.
A senate bill is being prepared as we speak.
The Senator is the honorable Akaka.
Where is he from? ....Hawaii of course as is Congressman Ed Case.
But surely its just a coincidence...pure coincidence that these two and MACs offices are in Honolulu.
Steve
A senate bill is being prepared as we speak.
The Senator is the honorable Akaka.
Where is he from? ....Hawaii of course as is Congressman Ed Case.
But surely its just a coincidence...pure coincidence that these two and MACs offices are in Honolulu.
Steve
I think there are many unanswered question about HR 4928. It may be unfair to blame this on some deep insider plot by the MAC. We need more information concerning how the Draft Legislation got modified and got from the USCRTF to Congressmen (and Senators?).
Dr. Bruckner mentioned to me that there will be a USCRTF meeting (not sure exactly when) in the next few months in Miami. I suggest that those who care attend the USCRTF meeting with their questions prepared for the task force. I also suggest that you write to Representative Case with your concerns about the legislation.
Peter Rubec
Dr. Bruckner mentioned to me that there will be a USCRTF meeting (not sure exactly when) in the next few months in Miami. I suggest that those who care attend the USCRTF meeting with their questions prepared for the task force. I also suggest that you write to Representative Case with your concerns about the legislation.
Peter Rubec
Since, I had some questions about H.R. 4928, I called Dr. Barbara Best of USAID today. She is one of the key people on the USCRTF.
I first mentioned that people on Reefs.org were concerned that the legislation could act to ban the trade. She corrected me by stating that the intent of the legislation (and of the task force) is the need to regulate the aquarium trade. It is not an all encompassing ban.
I also asked Dr. Best how the legislation got from the task force to the House. My understanding was that the task force had considered that the Coral Reef Act of 2000 be submitted to Congress. The task force decided against this last fall. Dr. Best pointed out that the task force could only recommend to the politicians whether or not the trade be regulated. It is up to the politicians to draft legislation. Representative Case apparently obtained the Coral Reef Act of 2000 and modified it (to a rather large extent) without consultation with members of the USCRTF. So, the present Draft legislation (H.R. 4928) was not something that the Task Force was recently involved with.
We discussed what I considered to be ambiguities in the draft legislation. Dr. Best explained that first it was necessary for Congress to declare that all trade in reef organisms was illegal; so that they had a legal basis to regulate it (by allowing exceptions). She did not see an ambiguity with declaring a) that trade in all corals and fish from coral reefs was illegal, and b) declaring that trade in species listed in Appendix II of CITES (most corals, seahorses and pipefish, and some mollusks like Queen Conch) was illegal. Appendix II species will continue to be banned from trade (if the countries of origin do not issue export permits). The fish and corals not on Appendix II also can be traded provided they meet the exceptions listed in the draft legislation.
I brought up the concern that the exporters or importers will be required to declare (in writing) that the fish being traded were not caught using destructive fishing methods (like cyanide). We agreed this does not specifically refer to the MAC Certification program or prove that the fish in question were taken by non-destructive means. What it does do is provide the U.S. government with a legal tool to prosecute the importer if it can be demonstrated that the declarations made were false.
We discussed the need for cyanide testing (both in the U.S. and in other countries) to help verify whether fish being traded had cyanide or other chemicals (and their metabolites) that would indicate the fish were taken by illegal means. Dr. Best agreed that testing was needed.
So, while MAC Certification may be helpful, it does not prove that the fish were not taken by destructive means. The U.S. importers (who may also be exporters) will find themselves the target of legal actions if they accept fish that are certified as not being taken by illegal means, if it can be demonstrated that the declarations are false.
It is not clear how the U.S. government might prosecute an exporter from another country making false declarations. Presumably this will be determined after consultations between representatives of the US government agencies and agencies in foreign countries.
For me there are many ambiguities in the Draft legislation. It is not clear to me, whether the legislation will be effective or not. I want it to succeed so as to protect coral reefs in the United States and in other countries.
Write your congressman for answers to your questions and concerns.
Peter Rubec
I first mentioned that people on Reefs.org were concerned that the legislation could act to ban the trade. She corrected me by stating that the intent of the legislation (and of the task force) is the need to regulate the aquarium trade. It is not an all encompassing ban.
I also asked Dr. Best how the legislation got from the task force to the House. My understanding was that the task force had considered that the Coral Reef Act of 2000 be submitted to Congress. The task force decided against this last fall. Dr. Best pointed out that the task force could only recommend to the politicians whether or not the trade be regulated. It is up to the politicians to draft legislation. Representative Case apparently obtained the Coral Reef Act of 2000 and modified it (to a rather large extent) without consultation with members of the USCRTF. So, the present Draft legislation (H.R. 4928) was not something that the Task Force was recently involved with.
We discussed what I considered to be ambiguities in the draft legislation. Dr. Best explained that first it was necessary for Congress to declare that all trade in reef organisms was illegal; so that they had a legal basis to regulate it (by allowing exceptions). She did not see an ambiguity with declaring a) that trade in all corals and fish from coral reefs was illegal, and b) declaring that trade in species listed in Appendix II of CITES (most corals, seahorses and pipefish, and some mollusks like Queen Conch) was illegal. Appendix II species will continue to be banned from trade (if the countries of origin do not issue export permits). The fish and corals not on Appendix II also can be traded provided they meet the exceptions listed in the draft legislation.
I brought up the concern that the exporters or importers will be required to declare (in writing) that the fish being traded were not caught using destructive fishing methods (like cyanide). We agreed this does not specifically refer to the MAC Certification program or prove that the fish in question were taken by non-destructive means. What it does do is provide the U.S. government with a legal tool to prosecute the importer if it can be demonstrated that the declarations made were false.
We discussed the need for cyanide testing (both in the U.S. and in other countries) to help verify whether fish being traded had cyanide or other chemicals (and their metabolites) that would indicate the fish were taken by illegal means. Dr. Best agreed that testing was needed.
So, while MAC Certification may be helpful, it does not prove that the fish were not taken by destructive means. The U.S. importers (who may also be exporters) will find themselves the target of legal actions if they accept fish that are certified as not being taken by illegal means, if it can be demonstrated that the declarations are false.
It is not clear how the U.S. government might prosecute an exporter from another country making false declarations. Presumably this will be determined after consultations between representatives of the US government agencies and agencies in foreign countries.
For me there are many ambiguities in the Draft legislation. It is not clear to me, whether the legislation will be effective or not. I want it to succeed so as to protect coral reefs in the United States and in other countries.
Write your congressman for answers to your questions and concerns.
Peter Rubec
Peter,
You forgot to question the part about sustainability issues.
page 4.
(A) EXCEPTION-Section 3 shall not apply with respect to a covered coral reef species if such species was taken in accordance with a qualified scientifically-based management plan.
Absent this plan I believe all the species of wild coral and fish remain illegal. This puts everything going through MAMTI. No? These plans can take years to be done properly.
Mitch
BTW if USCRTF wasn't helping Ed Case draft the bill, I wonder who was?
You forgot to question the part about sustainability issues.
page 4.
(A) EXCEPTION-Section 3 shall not apply with respect to a covered coral reef species if such species was taken in accordance with a qualified scientifically-based management plan.
Absent this plan I believe all the species of wild coral and fish remain illegal. This puts everything going through MAMTI. No? These plans can take years to be done properly.
Mitch
BTW if USCRTF wasn't helping Ed Case draft the bill, I wonder who was?
Ok here is how it works folks. In order for any of the local communities to be able to get the MAMTI loans or funding to become compliant they have to sign an agreement to sell exclusively to MAMTI. Sort of an interesting form of legal blackmail IMO. Collectors who do not choose to work with MAMTI and agree to give them these exclusive rights will not have the recognized scientifically based management plan. Not unless a new NGO is started that is competition to the MAMTI. How likely is that really?
I really should have included this part.
(ii) provides that a covered coral reef species taken in such a manner so as not to threaten the biological sustainability of that species or its role in the ecosystem and so as to minimize the adverse impact of the take on the coral reef;
While that sounds good, how do you prove it?
Mitch
(ii) provides that a covered coral reef species taken in such a manner so as not to threaten the biological sustainability of that species or its role in the ecosystem and so as to minimize the adverse impact of the take on the coral reef;
While that sounds good, how do you prove it?
Mitch
Mitch, Good points about sustainability. I think that you are too close to the truth (without my actually knowing what the truth is).
Several points:
a) There may indeed be competition to MAMTI. This is good. Lets hope it happens.
b) Cyanide testing will be necessary. The question becomes: Does the MAC plan to do this as well? If so, it sounds like the exporters both selling the cyanide, and buying cheap cyanide fish (they exploit the collectors by controlling both the cyanide supply and the prices paid to collectors for their fish). So, much for the idea that the MAC is just involved with creating standards, and leaves Certification to third parties.
3) As far as the underwater surveys to be conducted by Reef Check with funds from IFC MAMTI, you are right this could take years. In the mean time, what does the trade do?
Peter
Several points:
a) There may indeed be competition to MAMTI. This is good. Lets hope it happens.
b) Cyanide testing will be necessary. The question becomes: Does the MAC plan to do this as well? If so, it sounds like the exporters both selling the cyanide, and buying cheap cyanide fish (they exploit the collectors by controlling both the cyanide supply and the prices paid to collectors for their fish). So, much for the idea that the MAC is just involved with creating standards, and leaves Certification to third parties.
3) As far as the underwater surveys to be conducted by Reef Check with funds from IFC MAMTI, you are right this could take years. In the mean time, what does the trade do?
Peter
PeterIMA":3uchho52 said:
It lays its cards on the table and explains to the USCRTF and legislators in honest terms what it has, what it doesn't have, what it can do and what it can't. This is no time for huffing, puffing, name-calling, finger-pointing and personal insults as Steve is engaging in on this forum. MAC did not write this bill, nor did it coach the writing of it - no matter what AMDA people would like you to think!
Please don't mistake my objective attempts at explaining what this bill is about and what it might mean as being a tacit approval of it. It has problems. Initially, one sees that it does not clearly define what it asks for. The bill from 2000 asked for sustainability in the wild harvest of CITES Appendix II reef animals. The new bill asks for sustainability in the wild harvest of all reef animals. Neither bill outlines just what they mean by sustainability. But at the same time, nobody is saying that sustainability isn't important. Stripped of all of its fringes, the bill simply wants non-destructive collecting (no cyanide) and sustainability of reef ecosystems while allowing wild harvest. That is nothing different than the dialogue in this forum has ever talked about. But it's clear that simply handing out nets, showing how to use them and teaching good methods of handling/transport isn't enough. There is a need for some sort of protocol about how to go about harvesting animals non-destructively from reef ecosystems without exceeding sustainability. One can catch too many blue tangs and clown triggers with barrier nets and push the situation to the wrong side of sustainability. The same is true for the harvest of corals and other invertebrates.
It needs to be said that the trade has not traditionally been done this way. There is a new demand for scientifically-based reef surveys and employment of mathematically-based formulas for sustainability. For the most part, this has not been done. There is at least one NGO that is setting the stage for this to happen in designated collecting areas, along with the establishment of marine protected areas (MPA) in association with those areas. It is pioneering work and everyone should know that it won't be a matter of everything falling into place overnight. It's expensive, but the trade has not shouldered this cost. It has been funded by grants.
Despite what you have been told here the bulk of the MAC grant monies that is paid out to staff, contractors and other personnel goes to native peoples in the collecting countries. The MAC Philippines staff, contractors and trainers are Filipino. The MAC Indonesia people are Indonesian. MAC Fiji is Fijian. There are few exceptions to this. But it needs to be said that the statements here that all this money is going to "white city boys" is ridiculous, false and inflammatory. Over the course of this reform great quantities of grant funds are being and will be paid to "brown-skinned people" who are working towards this common goal.
Peter, there are problems with the ion selective electrode (ISE) cyanide detection test (CDT) as have been outlined in the MAC News. Merck (the mfg of the test) conducted a comprehensive battery of controlled tests in the Philippines. It was established that the ISE CDT will detect cyanide in the tissue of fishes. However, it was found that there are no consistent correlations between amount of cyanide exposure and amount found in the tissue. The same was true for time durations after exposure. Also false positives were found; that is fish had detectable amounts of cyanide in their tissues that weren't experimentally exposed to cyanide. The concern of course, is that the test may not serve as legitimate tool of law enforcement because of these problems. It has been turned over to an Asian university for further testing and evaluation.
Middletonmark, as far as I can tell, HR 4928 will not affect "basement hobbyist fraggers". But explicit definitions need to be revealed about the full scope of the bill. You are not a commercial aquaculture operation any more than a person selling a litter of puppies in their local want ads is a commercial dog breeder or kennel. Even so, the provisions of the bill's concern seems primarily focused on you not releasing frags into native waterways. A legitimate concern. There seems to be no call for you to be certified in any way, and probably not even licensed. You can bet that this will be explicitly defined as lobbyists force this legislation to be fully clear on all fronts.
This is no time for the trade to be fighting with itself. A forum like this could be a good venue for constructive, honest and objective dialogue about these issues. Time will tell if it will. A bad precedent has already been set here.
John, I think that you and the MAC had better be able to defend your comments concerning Merck and CDT in court. I was asked to participate in a review of cyanide testing methods on a MAC committee at MO 04 by both Lino Alvarez and Peter Scott. Since then, the only news about CDT I have heard is in a MAC Newsletter and your posting on Reefs.org. Furthermore, my discussions with Mr. Alvarez were about the inconclusiveness of the Merck Test and the Merck apparatus.
I am aware of the research by the scientist in Hong Kong being paid by the MAC. Making false accusations on the web is not science.
I completely disagree with these accusations, and think the MAC had better present me with the data and testing protocols.
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
I am aware of the research by the scientist in Hong Kong being paid by the MAC. Making false accusations on the web is not science.
I completely disagree with these accusations, and think the MAC had better present me with the data and testing protocols.
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
PeterIMA":16jhte80 said:
I don't know what the hell you are talking about with this "defend yourself in court" stuff. I'm telling you what the findings were from the testing that was done in the Philippines by Merck at the BFAR lab. I have the report, Peter. I'm not making this stuff up for the fun of it. Nobody is accusing anyone of anything, except perhaps you. Are we supposed to yell at the fish in the blender to conform with the desires of the tester?
This is from the MAC News 1st Quarter 2004:
Initial tests were undertaken in July 2003 in the CDT laboratories of Philippines Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Quezon City, Manila. The tests revealed inconsistent correlations between cyanide exposure and quantity of cyanide detected in the fish samples following exposure. The use of CDT in relation to marine ornamental fisheries is complicated by numerous variables in the detection test, in the exposure parameters, in the fish characteristics and in the source of the chemical (click here to see Figure 1: Variables Relating to the Presence of Cyanide in the Marine Environment). Consequently, additional tests were conducted to evaluate the correlations in more controlled conditions that removed as many of the variables as possible.
The Phase 1a tests were again organized by BFAR and undertaken in their laboratory in Quezon City, Manila, by a team of their staff members and those from Merck & Co., Inc. Although the tests showed that all methods could detect presences of cyanide, no apparent correlation existed between a controlled level of cyanide exposure and the quantity of cyanide detected in fish samples following exposure. To ensure that the results are valid as a basis for further development of a CDT system, the MAC Board has agreed that the tests should be repeated and peer-reviewed by a third-party laboratory outside of the Philippines. This work is now being organized and will be conducted in a major university laboratory with experience in chemical detection and analysis.
Mr. Brandt,
I know what the MAC Newsletter claimed. I disagree. I have not seen the report that you have in your possession. I do have a flawed report that the MAC already produced in 1999. Please ask the MAC to send to me the present report for review.
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
I know what the MAC Newsletter claimed. I disagree. I have not seen the report that you have in your possession. I do have a flawed report that the MAC already produced in 1999. Please ask the MAC to send to me the present report for review.
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
John_Brandt":1aksbgoc said:
John I don't approve of Steve saying mean things about you and Jaime. I can't stop him, but I don't think it acomplishes very much. We really should all be on the same side, but I fear faith has been broken. I didn't make that quote up. "The only possibility to to transform the marine aquarium industry is an approach that harnesses private sector incentives to compliment government policy and regulation." That came from someone within the MAMTI triad. I must admit it is a little bit to Big Brotherish for my liking. At least this thread got you to finally admit MAMTI really does exist. :wink: Strange how it got left out of the Newsletter.
Mitch
PS What the heck are you talking about laying cards on the table? I must have gotten dealt out of that one. I think the trade needs to unify and begin a letter writting campaign to their congressmen explaining how this legislation will put them out of business. Even PIJAC is trying to figure out what this all means. I do appreciate you giving us your take on things. Who is that mystery group coaching the congressman? I love the industry forum.
dizzy":t822woo2 said:
Like I was hiding it from you on purpose. Why do you give things a conspiratorial spin? What is the function of that?
It's not strange at all that it wasn't in the MAC newsletter. Proposed funding isn't listed in the newsletter. Why do you put a conspiratorial spin on things?
At any given time there are over 10 existing grants and over 10 proposed grants. GEF-IFC-MAMTI is just one on the list.
I'm talking about when the government tells the trade it has to have science-based sustainability plans. You say that you don't have that yet. That's putting your cards on the table. When the government says you have to invest in something that you can't afford, you tell them you can't afford it. That's putting your cards on the table. When the government says you have to stop all cyanide use, you tell them that it's widespread and you don't have direct control over it but you'd like to work towards stopping it. That's putting your cards on the table. The USCRTF is not an ogre. They don't want to "shut down" the trade. They want to try to help the trade fix itself. You negotiate and lay your cards on the table.
Who knows? Much of the information about the trade could have been taken from previous USCRTF reports and the UNEP-WCMC Report "From Ocean to Aquarium": http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/WCMC_Aquarium.pdf
John, Just for clarification.
The MAC Newsletter mentions that tests were done by Merck in the BFAR laboratory. What is not explained is exactly what test methods were evaluated and/or compared. I assume that when you mention ISE that you are referring to the method previously used by the IMA and presently used by BFAR (that is published in Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis by the American Publice Health Association, and in other manuals by the American Society of Testing and Materials and the U.S EPA). However, I could be wrong.
Merck has its own colorimetric test procedures. My discussions with Mr. Alvarez indicated that there were problems with the Merck test. The MAC Newsletter may be talking about them.
You failed to mention that Dr. Renneberg in Hong Kong also has a test procedure for measuring thiocyanate in blood samples and has been working under contract to the MAC. He has evaluated several methods.
None of these evaluations have been provided to me. My understanding is that they were confidential until after the MAC CDT committee (of which I am part) has had time to review them. However, it is the MAC itself that then broke that understanding when it published its statements (quoted by you) in its Newsletter. The Newseletter is ambiguous and does not allow one to make judgements, since it does not clearly indicate what test procedures were used or were being compared.
Peter Rubec
The MAC Newsletter mentions that tests were done by Merck in the BFAR laboratory. What is not explained is exactly what test methods were evaluated and/or compared. I assume that when you mention ISE that you are referring to the method previously used by the IMA and presently used by BFAR (that is published in Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis by the American Publice Health Association, and in other manuals by the American Society of Testing and Materials and the U.S EPA). However, I could be wrong.
Merck has its own colorimetric test procedures. My discussions with Mr. Alvarez indicated that there were problems with the Merck test. The MAC Newsletter may be talking about them.
You failed to mention that Dr. Renneberg in Hong Kong also has a test procedure for measuring thiocyanate in blood samples and has been working under contract to the MAC. He has evaluated several methods.
None of these evaluations have been provided to me. My understanding is that they were confidential until after the MAC CDT committee (of which I am part) has had time to review them. However, it is the MAC itself that then broke that understanding when it published its statements (quoted by you) in its Newsletter. The Newseletter is ambiguous and does not allow one to make judgements, since it does not clearly indicate what test procedures were used or were being compared.
Peter Rubec
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
