BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Warming seas could smother seafood

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Warming seas could smother seafood
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
Seafood could be going off a lot of menus as the world warms. More than half of a group of fish crucial for the marine food web might die if, as predicted, global warming reduces the amount of oxygen dissolved in some critical areas of the ocean – including some of our richest fisheries.

The prediction is based on a unique set of records that goes back to 1951. California has regularly surveyed its marine plankton and baby fish to support the sardine fishery. "There is almost no other dataset going back so far that includes every kind of fish," says Tony Koslow of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, who heads the survey. The survey records also include information on water temperature, salinity and the dissolved oxygen content.

Koslow's team studied records of 86 fish species found consistently in the samples and discovered that the abundance of 27 of them correlated strongly with the amount of oxygen 200 to 400 metres down: a 20 per cent drop in oxygen meant a 63 per cent drop in the fish. There have been several episodes of low oxygen during the period in question, mainly in the 1950s and since 1984.

Global climate models predict that 20 to 40 per cent of the oxygen at these depths will disappear over the next century due to warming, says Koslow – mainly because these waters get oxygen by mixing with surface waters. Warmer, lighter surface waters are less likely to mix with the colder, denser waters beneath.

Of the 27 species most affected by low oxygen, says Koslow, 24 were "mesopelagic": fish that spend the daytime in deep, dark waters below 200 metres to avoid predators such as squid that hunt by sight. There are 10 billion tonnes of mesopelagic fish globally – 10 times the annual global commercial catch – and they are a vital food for other fish and marine birds and mammals.
 
Registered: September 19, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
There are a lot of "If's" in this article...


IF the global climate models are accurate with regard to warming...
IF the global climate models are accurate with regard to oxygen solubility...
IF the fish don't just gradually move to areas with cooler waters and more oxygen solubility...
IF these new areas aren't larger than the old areas...
IF warmer, lighter surface waters actually ARE less likely to mix with the colder, denser waters beneath...
THEN there might be a decrease in some fish species that...
MIGHT decrease available species for human consumption...
IF those human-consumed species don't just switch to a different food source.

Yeah...that's REALLY going to keep me up at night worrying. Roll Eyes
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Warming sea are the least of anyone's worries.

Although the media is doing it's best to ignore it, The disaster at The Fukushima reactors is still unfolding and dumping so much radiation into the air and ocean the experts are now saying it will kill millions of people over time.

I wouldn't eat a thing that wasn't farmed seafood these days.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I wouldn't eat a thing that wasn't farmed seafood these days.

You might want to rethink that:

quote:
Farmed Salmon More Toxic Than Wild Salmon, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2004) — BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A study of more than two metric tons of North American, South American and European salmon has shown that PCBs and other environmental toxins are present at higher levels in farm-raised salmon than in their wild counterparts. Researchers at Indiana University and five other research centers say increased toxin levels in farm-raised salmon may pose health risks to people who eat the economically important fish. Their study, which appears in this week's (Jan. 9) Science, is the most comprehensive analysis to date of salmon toxin concentrations.

"We think it's important for people who eat salmon to know that farmed salmon have higher levels of toxins than wild salmon from the open ocean," said IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs Distinguished Professor Ronald Hites, who led the study.

The researchers applied U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fish consumption advisory methods to determine consumption recommendations. Farmed salmon purchased for the study from supermarkets in Frankfurt, Edinburgh, Paris, London, Oslo, Boston, San Francisco, and Toronto triggered consumption recommendations of one-half to one meal of salmon per month. (A meal is defined as 8 oz. of uncooked meat.) Farmed salmon from supermarkets in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Chicago, New York and Vancouver triggered a recommendation of no more than two salmon meals per month. Farmed salmon from Denver and New Orleans supermarkets both triggered a consumption recommendation of two meals of salmon per month. With very few exceptions, farmed salmon samples tested significantly exceeded the containment levels of wild salmon, which could be consumed at levels as high as eight meals per month.

The production of farmed salmon has increased 40-fold over the last two decades, thanks in large part to the world's salmon farms. Over half the salmon sold globally are raised in Northern Europe, Chile and North America.

While the health benefits of eating salmon have been established by numerous studies, concerns about the fish's tendency to accumulate toxins have gone largely unaddressed. As fish eaters themselves, salmon occupy fairly high positions in their food chains. As a general rule, carnivorous animals tend to have higher concentrations of toxins in their bodies than herbivores.

...
When samples from all over the world were grouped, the researchers found farm-raised Atlantic salmon had significantly higher levels of 13 toxins when compared with wild Pacific salmon. Breaking it down by region, the researchers found levels of all 14 toxins were significantly elevated in both European and North American farm-raised salmon when compared with wild Pacific salmon. Levels of only 6 toxins were significantly elevated in South American farm-raised salmon. Levels of two toxins (HCB and lindane) were actually significantly lower in farm-raised South American salmon than in wild salmon species.

Only PCBs, dioxins, dieldrin and toxaphene were used to calculate consumption safety guidelines, because the researchers deemed these four toxins to most strongly impact human health.

The researchers also found toxin levels in European farm-raised salmon were significantly higher than in North American or South American farm-raised salmon. Levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin were highest in farmed salmon from Scotland and the Faroe Islands (Denmark) and lowest in farmed salmon from Chile and Washington state, though Hites pointed out that even these comparatively uncontaminated South American salmon had high levels of other toxins.

Hites and his colleagues also measured toxin levels in "salmon chow," a mixture of ground-up fish and oil fed to farm-raised salmon. They found a strong correlation between the toxicities of chow and salmon, suggesting toxins are passed into the salmon from their feed.

Jeffrey Foran (University of Michigan), David Carpenter (University at Albany), M. Coreen Hamilton (AXYS Analytical Services Ltd.), Barbara Knuth and Steven Schwager (Cornell University), and Amy Matthews Amos (Turnstone Consulting, in West Virginia) also contributed to the study. It was funded by a grant to the University at Albany from the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environmental Division.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
The disaster at The Fukushima reactors is still unfolding and dumping so much radiation into the air and ocean the experts are now saying it will kill millions of people over time.


Provide some documented proof for your allegations.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I wouldn't eat a thing that wasn't farmed seafood these days.


Farmed salmon is disgusting. They have to feed them colours to make flesh look right- The "Halloween Fish" (3 eyes etc.) go to Air Canada in flight meals- It always made me nauseous-

Where else in the world do people farm carnivores? it don't make sense.
Oysters, clams good though-

There's no ifs about large scale anthropocentric disruption of the oceans- OA highly quantifiable and chemically repeatable/
Massive Draggers trashing oceanic seamounts as the old fishing holes go dry-

We pull more than 25 times more fish (and other creatures) out of the ocean now as 100 years ago-

Won't be long before the last sea mounts are dragged out/

Then we'll take the krill- staple of the biggest animal ever-

Tilapia and trout farming can make sense- and "salmon ranching"- Hatcheries and habitat restoration/protection
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Is algae farming the next frontier?
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Where else in the world do people farm carnivores?

China... they eat anything.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
quote:
The disaster at The Fukushima reactors is still unfolding and dumping so much radiation into the air and ocean the experts are now saying it will kill millions of people over time.


Provide some documented proof for your allegations.


What for?

You'll just deny, twist, change the point and otherwise refuse to believe anything that goes against the beliefs you want to hold like you have done so many times before. That's why your not allowed to edit your posts anymore. Would you like me to provide some documented evidence of that??
Your weasel like behaviour particularly on this subject is well demonstrated and here in evidence for all to see so don't try and start an argument you will just makie ridicilous statements to try and deny the facts and support your version of fantasy which you will be caught out at and then try and do a backflip and deny.

You do not have the credibility or honesty to start a debate with so I'm not going to try or waste my time with you.

Anyone else that dosen't have a completely closed mind can find plenty of evidence of what I said on the net. Even the authourities that were trying to play the whole thing down are now making admissions that the whole thing is shaping up to be the worst man made disaster in history.



http://www.teamliquid.net/foru....php?topic_id=266867
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Documented proof, not someone's weblog. If it's as bad as you claim then there will be some credible sources other than the conspiracy fringe.

Either you have some credible documented proof of actual measurements showing hazardous levels of radiation worldwide or it's just conspiratorial conjecture.

I question the judgement of anyone who eats a lot of farmed fish; dementia is one of the early signs of heavy metal poisoning, so is listening to a lot of Motley Crue, Def Lepard, Kiss...

The amount of worldwide radiation from Fukushima is insignificant as compared with what the Americans, Russians, Brits and French spewed into the atmosphere decades ago. ...and we're not all dead yet.

If people actually listened to the conspiracy theories, without a doubt more people would be killed in traffic accidents among the fleeing populace than will die from the radiation, and that's just Japan.

Some people will die, far more will be born. We'll have to do much better than Fukushima for any meaningful population control.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Credible scientific evidence was provided which shows that farmed fish is contaminated throughout the world. Can you provide equally credible scientific evidence that fish throughout the world is contaminated with radiation from the Fukushima nuclear incident. Until you can, I maintain that farmed fish is the greater hazard.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
quote:
The disaster at The Fukushima reactors is still unfolding and dumping so much radiation into the air and ocean the experts are now saying it will kill millions of people over time.


Provide some documented proof for your allegations.


What for?

You'll just deny, twist, change the point and otherwise refuse to believe anything that goes against the beliefs you want to hold like you have done so many times before.





quote:
Documented proof, not someone's weblog. If it's as bad as you claim then there will be some credible sources other than the conspiracy fringe.

Either you have some credible documented proof of actual measurements showing hazardous levels of radiation worldwide or it's just conspiratorial conjecture.

I question the judgement of anyone who eats a lot of farmed fish; dementia is one of the early signs of heavy metal poisoning, so is listening to a lot of Motley Crue, Def Lepard, Kiss...

The amount of worldwide radiation from Fukushima is insignificant as compared with what the Americans, Russians, Brits and French spewed into the atmosphere decades ago. ...and we're not all dead yet.

If people actually listened to the conspiracy theories, without a doubt more people would be killed in traffic accidents among the fleeing populace than will die from the radiation, and that's just Japan.

Some people will die, far more will be born. We'll have to do much better than Fukushima for any meaningful population control.




Hmm, wonder how I saw a reply like that coming?
The measurements are on the web my different people if you care to look... which obviously you don't because you prefer to stick to your beliefs no matter what.
it would not matter what evidence anyone put forward, youd dismiss it and ignore it based on nothing more than your own suppositions as you have done before and proven that even given the very thing you call for you'll still make excuses.

If you want to prove your point, how about you show documented creditable proof to prove your position?
No, that won't happen will it because you will duck and weave and make all sorts of excuses to avoid that at all cost.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince the close minded of anything. If you want to believe that the accident was just a beat up, you go on believeing that.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
how about you show documented creditable proof to prove your position?

I already did. Pay attention.

However you appear to be more interested in voicing your opinions of other forum members instead of discussing the issues like an adult.

I'm still waiting for your credible proof that the Fukushima radiation leakage poses more world-wide health hazard then farmed fish. You're the one doing all the "ducking and weaving".
So, stop dodging the issue, or simply admit that you have no credible proof.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
[QUOTE]


I'm still waiting for your credible proof that the Fukushima radiation leakage poses more world-wide health hazard then farmed fish.


As you are so pedantic on detail, how about YOU pay attention and stop being such a concieted twat when the "Proof " you present is completely and utterly flawed in it's context.

The article you posted as supposed scientific proof does not compare farmed fish with those from the waters around or since the Fukushima reactors melted down and released 15M tecaberels of radiation into the environment and thats just by tepcos's numbers which are gauranteed to be fraction of the true number given the amount of lies they have be proven to be guilty of telling in the last 6 months and beyond.

Your argument in it's typical contorted fashion is like saying Fukushima is a safe place to live and giving figures of radiation readings taken 12 months before the meltdown.
YOU show me proof of what we are talking about here which is the fish from the pacific and other oceans known to have radiation contamination from fukushima is lower in radiation contamination than farmed fish and show what comtinent the fish was farmed from.

THAT is the issue here, not your cowardly smoke and mirrors game of comparing apples to oranges and switching the evidence when you get shot down like you typicaly do when your charades are exposed.

I'm not going to be drawn into your games, you want proof of anything, YOU provide relevant and Factual proof of what is being discussed to support your argument and get off your own arse and do the work. We'll see how you play the denial and dismissal game then.

Untill you provide any evidence to support your holier than thou position, I'll just dismiss it as another load of your completely untrustworthy and flawed garbage that you are so well proved to spout when put on the spot to prove what you say.

I doubt you are game to say anything much at all now given you have lost the ability to go back and change your statements and later deny them.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract stupid people from the topic of the debate.

It's a clear admission that the person has insufficient knowledge to counter the argument and therefore strikes out personally. It's actually an admission that the premise is correct.

Further discussion with such people is usually pointless once they've descended to using the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

cheers...



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Best to conserve what we use! Whether Earth is just naturally warming or because of us is up for debate. Regardless, we must recognize that the temp is truly changing and take steps to deal with it for the sake of future generations.


Clean and Green Baby
 
Registered: August 22, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Warming seas could smother seafood

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014