Practicing what he preaches

[mkirda]

4.528 million fish per year and I used your numbers ....... :wink:

And made a boatload of false assumptions...

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, You are the one that used the 3 million fish that lived to be exported and my mortality figures to estimate the potential numbers exposed to cyanide on the reef. The first assumption is that about 30% of the fish that were collected and were brought back to the villages died. So, multiply the 3 million by 10/7 (1.43) = 4,290,000 to estimate the number that were initially collected and brought back to the villages. I also assumed that the 4,290,000 represent 10% of the fish that survived the cyanide exposure and were of interest to the trade (e.g., not all fish dosed with cyanide are collected because many are of no commercial value). So, 4.29 million multiplied by 10 represents the number that lived on the reef = 42.9 million. Assuming that 50% of the fish exposed to cyanide died then the number of fish that were dosed with cyanide becomes 42.9 million times 2 = 85.8 million. Your extrapolation using my assumptions posted several months ago was 80 million. So our extrapolations were similar, but you still underestimated the number exposed to cyanide on the reef.

 

[Anonymous]

Until you or someone like Elwyn Seagrest (he claimed that I must be wrong at MO 04) provides hard numbers to refute my claims, I continue to assert that the cumulative mortality from reefs to retailers is over 90%

MO '04, Elwyn was there?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, You are the one that used the 3 million fish that lived to be exported and my mortality figures to estimate the potential numbers exposed to cyanide on the reef. The first assumption is that about 30% of the fish that were collected and were brought back to the villages died. So, multiply the 3 million by 10/7 (1.43) = 4,290,000 to estimate the number that were initially collected and brought back to the villages. I also assumed that the 4,290,000 represent 10% of the fish that survived the cyanide exposure and were of interest to the trade (e.g., not all fish dosed with cyanide are collected because many are of no commercial value). So, 4.29 million multiplied by 10 represents the number that lived on the reef = 42.9 million. Assuming that 50% of the fish exposed to cyanide died then the number of fish that were dosed with cyanide becomes 42.9 million times 2 = 85.8 million. Your extrapolation using my assumptions posted several months ago was 80 million. So our extrapolations were similar, but you still underestimated the number exposed to cyanide on the reef.

Once again your running away from the issue,The question is what effect does our industries cyanide use have on the reefs? To understand that we must first have some idea how many squirts does it take to collect the 780,000 cyanided fish? You stated that you are confident that , many fish are effected each time a collector squirts.lots of times non targeted fish are effected. Fine! Then you are also admitting that many trade fish can be collected with one squirt! So if fifty fish are within the cyanide plume, and all the fish within the plume are hobby fish .....then it only took one squirt to collect fifty of the 780,000 ! Your example of 41.9M to collect 780,000 is an average of ten fish per squirt. so its quite possible that only 78,000 squirts are all that is needed to collect our hobbies fish for the year. Thats using your numbers. 78,000 over the entire collection area of 25,000 square kilometers is quite small , THREE SQUIRTS PER KILOMETER PER YEAR! Thank you for backing up my position.

 

[mkirda]

Kalk, You are the one that used the 3 million fish that lived to be exported and my mortality figures to estimate the potential numbers exposed to cyanide on the reef. The first assumption is that about 30% of the fish that were collected and were brought back to the villages died. So, multiply the 3 million by 10/7 (1.43) = 4,290,000 to estimate the number that were initially collected and brought back to the villages. I also assumed that the 4,290,000 represent 10% of the fish that survived the cyanide exposure and were of interest to the trade (e.g., not all fish dosed with cyanide are collected because many are of no commercial value). So, 4.29 million multiplied by 10 represents the number that lived on the reef = 42.9 million. Assuming that 50% of the fish exposed to cyanide died then the number of fish that were dosed with cyanide becomes 42.9 million times 2 = 85.8 million. Your extrapolation using my assumptions posted several months ago was 80 million. So our extrapolations were similar, but you still underestimated the number exposed to cyanide on the reef.

Once again your running away from the issue,The question is what effect does our industries cyanide use have on the reefs? To understand that we must first have some idea how many squirts does it take to collect the 780,000 cyanided fish? You stated that you are confident that , many fish are effected each time a collector squirts.lots of times non targeted fish are effected. Fine! Then you are also admitting that many trade fish can be collected with one squirt! So if fifty fish are within the cyanide plume, and all the fish within the plume are hobby fish .....then it only took one squirt to collect fifty of the 780,000 ! Your example of 41.9M to collect 780,000 is an average of ten fish per squirt. so its quite possible that only 78,000 squirts are all that is needed to collect our hobbies fish for the year. Thats using your numbers. 78,000 over the entire collection area of 25,000 square kilometers is quite small , THREE SQUIRTS PER KILOMETER PER YEAR! Thank you for backing up my position.

You really are something, Kalk.

Before, it was a boatload of bad assumption.

Now it took a whole fleet of boats to carry those bad assumptions.
None of these numbers bear any semblance to reality, just as the 40,000 squirts per bottle you previously claimed didn't.

It is truly a shame that you cannot do simple math.
If you are indicative, the Georgian legistlature needs to tackle their problems with school funding...

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, You are the one that used the 3 million fish that lived to be exported and my mortality figures to estimate the potential numbers exposed to cyanide on the reef. The first assumption is that about 30% of the fish that were collected and were brought back to the villages died. So, multiply the 3 million by 10/7 (1.43) = 4,290,000 to estimate the number that were initially collected and brought back to the villages. I also assumed that the 4,290,000 represent 10% of the fish that survived the cyanide exposure and were of interest to the trade (e.g., not all fish dosed with cyanide are collected because many are of no commercial value). So, 4.29 million multiplied by 10 represents the number that lived on the reef = 42.9 million. Assuming that 50% of the fish exposed to cyanide died then the number of fish that were dosed with cyanide becomes 42.9 million times 2 = 85.8 million. Your extrapolation using my assumptions posted several months ago was 80 million. So our extrapolations were similar, but you still underestimated the number exposed to cyanide on the reef.

Once again your running away from the issue,The question is what effect does our industries cyanide use have on the reefs? To understand that we must first have some idea how many squirts does it take to collect the 780,000 cyanided fish? You stated that you are confident that , many fish are effected each time a collector squirts.lots of times non targeted fish are effected. Fine! Then you are also admitting that many trade fish can be collected with one squirt! So if fifty fish are within the cyanide plume, and all the fish within the plume are hobby fish .....then it only took one squirt to collect fifty of the 780,000 ! Your example of 41.9M to collect 780,000 is an average of ten fish per squirt. so its quite possible that only 78,000 squirts are all that is needed to collect our hobbies fish for the year. Thats using your numbers. 78,000 over the entire collection area of 25,000 square kilometers is quite small , THREE SQUIRTS PER KILOMETER PER YEAR! Thank you for backing up my position.

You really are something, Kalk.

Before, it was a boatload of bad assumption.

Now it took a whole fleet of boats to carry those bad assumptions.
None of these numbers bear any semblance to reality, just as the 40,000 squirts per bottle you previously claimed didn't.

It is truly a shame that you cannot do simple math.
If you are indicative, the Georgian legistlature needs to tackle their problems with school funding...

IM sorry which math did you disagree with? Peters 25% or 3 million landed fish in the USA? Or Peters Multiple fish per squirt. ?.........................Actually I went to school with Lisa Kudrow at Taft High school in Woodland hills, Calif. Then College in Fla. What they did teach me , is logic and math always trump emotion and fear. .

 

[mkirda]

What they did teach me , is logic and math always trump emotion and fear. .

Pity you get the math wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME then...

Is Lisa Kudrow a math teacher?

 

[Anonymous]

What they did teach me , is logic and math always trump emotion and fear. .

Pity you get the math wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME then...

Is Lisa Kudrow a math teacher?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

what, you never heard her hit 'smelly cat, smelly cat...' ?
8O

 

[Kalkbreath]

Please do tell me how my math is wrong? Peter stated that multiple fish are stunned when using cyanide to collect MO fish. Are you saying he is lying? There is no reason why the multiples cant sometimes be all from the same species? Tangs, Damsels, Chromis,Clownfish ......many of the most collected species are in groups or schools in the wild and especially when they all dart into a coral head to escape the diver ! Kind like when a rainstorm hits in Disney land......there seems to be a lot more people crowded into the gift shops when its dangerous outside} even in my store, when the net goes in the tank all fish dart for the cover {plastic coral} I can remove the coral and find ten triggers or blue tangs in the ornament. ........So this means that the 18 percent of cyanide fish tested in Peters data for the most current three years...{.98 99 2000}....were not all collected one by one. Can you explain why this would not be true?

 

[mkirda]

Please do tell me how my math is wrong? Are you saying he is lying? There is no reason why the multiples cant sometimes be all from the same species? Can you explain why this would not be true?

I have done so multiple times. You refuse to address those times when I have pointed out your errors, but always seem to hit back when I make a blanket statement, such as a fundamental underlying assumption on this calculation wrong (even when I elaborate.)

I say you are lying when you claim that fifty fish can be collected with one single squirt, and that this squirt's concentration can be controlled 'with a light touch', and that the coral the diver is hitting will not be effected. I've proved this point with references multiple times, yet you never get it. You refuse to see the evidence placed in front of you, just like any good cyanide apologist.
Multiples can be gotten, but not from some 'light-touch' dosing- It will take a good, strong squeeze to get out enough cyanide to hit a 3 foot diameter table coral and knock out all the damsels inside. You will not get 40,000 squirts like that out of a bottle, Kalk.

As for 'splainin'? There. You have it again, your Spagetti-Os.
Steve's right. Repeat argument until 2005.
Why not just unplug, Kalk?
You are wasting valuable time.

 

[mkirda]

What they did teach me , is logic and math always trump emotion and fear. .

Pity you get the math wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME then...

Is Lisa Kudrow a math teacher?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

what, you never heard her hit 'smelly cat, smelly cat...' ?
8O

Unless Lisa Kudrow was his Math teacher, someone in the Industry, or a cyanide supplier....

Then WHY DOES HE MENTION HER AT ALL?

I got an answer.

Just to blow more smoke up the forum's rear.

Why?

Because it is completely irrelevant.

My wife's friend works out at the same gym as Jean Claude Van Damme and Sly Stallone. Is that relevant?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

So you DO think the fish are collected one by one? I can pick up a braching coral head in a lagoon hold it over a bucket and twenty damsels will fall out.......why cant the same number of damsels be hiding in a coral branch if the branch is still attatched? If multiple fish cant be collected at at time then there cant be much by catch in the way of non targeted fish can there?.......... and More importantly the area of corals damaged cant be very large either........ :wink:

 

[mkirda]

So you DO think the fish are collected one by one? I can pick up a braching coral head in a lagoon hold it over a bucket and twenty damsels will fall out.......why cant the same number of damsels be hiding in a coral branch if the branch is still attatched? If multiple fish cant be collected at at time then there cant be much by catch in the way of non targeted fish can there?.......... and More importantly the area of corals damaged cant be very large either........ :wink:

To repeat myself:

I say you are lying when you claim that fifty fish can be collected with one single squirt, and that this squirt's concentration can be controlled 'with a light touch', and that the coral the diver is hitting will not be effected. I've proved this point with references multiple times, yet you never get it. You refuse to see the evidence placed in front of you, just like any good cyanide apologist.
Multiples can be gotten, but not from some 'light-touch' dosing- It will take a good, strong squeeze to get out enough cyanide to hit a 3 foot diameter table coral and knock out all the damsels inside. You will not get 40,000 squirts like that out of a bottle, Kalk.

I did answer your question- You have to read the response.

 

[Kalkbreath]

No, your avoiding the issue at hand.........The question of how large the plume is or hoe strong was last discussed during the fith and sith round..........its time for the BIG KNOCK OUT ......Of the 3mil fish collected for the hobbyin PI 500,000 to 780,000 fish are exposed to cyanide.{using Peters study } How many squirts does it take to collect those fish? Peter states that for every one fish collected .....nine other fish are poisoned. This means Peter thinks an average of ten fish are exposed per squirt. { one hobby fish and nine non targeted fish. } And fifty percent of the fish exported from PI are fish that group together on the reef when frightened..........answer the question "how many squirts does it take to collect 500,000 fish ? "

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Thats easy 10 million. Go figure it out. After all you went to school in Florida.

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

Pretty sad , that you give speaches and have no basis for what you preach ................can you explain your ten milllion ?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I am just applying your logic. There does not have to be any logic to anything you say. Right! Gotcha.

Peter

 

[mkirda]

:lol:

 

[JennM]

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin.... keep them numbers trollin....

CY-A-NIDE!!!!!!!!

(Sung to the tune of "Rawhide") It's late... I've been working too much lately to read this stuff, I'm getting punchy

Jenn

 

[hdtran]

Jenn,

You're not the only one up late... (I'm reading something for work which is deadly dull...) So, I came up with how Kalkbreath gets 32 fish with a single squirt!