a picture for kalk...

[Anonymous]

The ten by ten centimeter plume is the area in which coral tissue is harmed

this has been patently disproven, and the evidence has already been presented to you, it is a well established scientific fact the ANY exposure to cyanide will damage a coral considerably, if not beyond the point of no possible recovery-why do you ignore the proof, and the scientists data/observations? are you afraid that they are also part of some 'green conspiracy?

Really , any exposer? Cyanide is present in ALL seawater naturally.

to all the perusers of this forum-the info of which i speak is right here, buried under some tens of pages of this ridiculous never ending argument
which exists solely because of kalk misquoting, miscalculating, and misrepresenting hard data and evidence

er- the moment the cyanide exits the bottle it's already begun diluting
are you going to try in 6 months to whittle away your fictitious 'plume safe contact zone' to within .1mm of the squirt spout?

stand 20ft. (probably further) upcurrent from a coral, shoot a 'plume' of cyanide into the water, directly upcurrent from the coral

wait, and watch it die

Actually it is impossible to dilute enough cyanide in one quart bottle to raise the cyanide level in sea water [A twenty foot swath] That would require a giant squirt bottle. there are 1800 cubic feet [3x3x20] or so in a twenty foot by three foot swath or plume. Thats a thirty- thousand to one volume ratio.[one squirt bottle to 1800 square feet] You can only dilute so many cyanide tablets in one bottle.

..cite the reference for the ld50/ld100 figures for damsels and coral that prove your contention

you can't because you've just invented these concentration proportions up out of thin air

right now that makes you a liar, 'till you prove otherwise w/a reference

The greater the water volume, the less concentrated the mixture. Im not sure what your disputing?

how do you then explain all those dead fish in the photo? if they were'nt squirted in the mouth, then the cyanide must have been powerful enough to kill them from a distance, yes? not stun, but KILL.

That photo is more then likely a set shot. Not to say that fish dont die from cyanide. Over doses do happen ,but when they do the collector learns quickly that he had better ease up on the level of cyanide ....or he will never have any fish to sell. Do you really think collectors dont care if their blue tangs or blueface angels die ? Not ony do the fish collected with cyanide have to survive the initial exposer......but the exposer has to be so lite that the fish survive for another week or two! Thats how tiny and presice the cyanide level must be!

Really? I thought fish like surgeons school, it's one of the reasons yellow tangs can be chased into a net


damsels don't school, but rather cohabitat in a group they are not, for the most part, open water schoolers ('schoolers' implies an open space of water, doesn't it? even to you?)

the fact that damsels will 'ball' together among a shelter item, like a coral, is partly what drives these divers to use cyanide- a damsel can run circles around the quickest hand that isn't trained to catch it w/out poison, or wedge into a crevice-as even hobbyists who have lifted one or 100 out of a tank w/a piece of lr can attest to

Correct......the damsels more the often stay in the coral head even when its lifted out of the water and over a bucket! The damsels fall out after a few seconds . There is no need to use poison. Thats why these fish are so cheap.

here's a clue or three:

your average hobbyist who's starting out looks foremost at his wallet-it's obvious that the cheaper priced fish will be purchased more often

just because it's bought more, doesn't mean it's necessarily more 'popular'
people may be buying it because it is what is 'most available' in the price ranges they prefer to buy

if the divers don't want to go after cheap fish (your '.03 center's'), why would they even bother with damsels at all?.

Because they are so easy to collect. and dont require a boat or poison to collect

if they upped the amounts of other species, in volume caught, the price would go down, and those new substitutions would then become the 'most popular'

Not really , of the two hundred types of damsels collectors could collect.....only ten types or collected in large numbers. Do you know why that is?

i've seen damsels double in price, or more over the past 6 yrs or so.

they also are coming in in smaller sizes than were more commonly available circa '95, in this country

actually the price increase at the "pump" [tank] has to do with increased Airfrieght not what the collectors are charging. Also the devalue of the US dollar as of late is making your buck have less bang in overseas economies

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


kalk you're just too much :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Really , any exposer? Cyanide is present in ALL seawater naturally.

(i'm assuming you meant to type 'exposure')

so is copper, you nitwit

are you trying to say that copper is harmless to inverts,or fish, because seawater contains copper, as well? :lol: :lol:

i won't even deal with the rest of you gobbledygook, it's just as ridiculous, and just further shows all how you can't grasp simple facts, and try to lie to further an argument that is baseless from the get go

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalk wrote:

Really , any exposer? Cyanide is present in ALL seawater naturally.

(i'm assuming you meant to type 'exposure')

so is copper, you nitwit

are you trying to say that copper is harmless to inverts,or fish, because seawater contains copper, as well? :lol: :lol:

i won't even deal with the rest of you gobbledygook, it's just as ridiculous, and just further shows all how you can't grasp simple facts, and try to lie to further an argument that is baseless from the get go

So you agree that coral can with stand a very low concentration of cyanide? Even long term exposure? Short term exposure of slightly higher concentrations are also tolerated....Actually a ten-second exposure to copper {the same level we use to rid fish of ick} will not harm corals. Neither will low doses of cyanide. The question is how low of an exposure to cyanide can coral take? Its odd that there are no real test results for short duration low cyanide exposure and corals? Or low level short term exposure on fish ? Im sure that test have been done.......its just that the results were not something the researchers wanted to release............Hey , spineless scientists, conduct a test on exposure rates of cyanide that stun fish .......place the fish in a cyanided tank for six seconds , If the fish dies ....Lower the concentration. Then when you have determined what the lowest concentration of cyanide which still stuns the fish the fish for collection ......Dip some live corals in the low level cyanide tank for six seconds. Then return the coral to their original tank. AND Lets sea what we get?

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Really , any exposer? Cyanide is present in ALL seawater naturally.

(i'm assuming you meant to type 'exposure')

so is copper, you nitwit

are you trying to say that copper is harmless to inverts,or fish, because seawater contains copper, as well? :lol: :lol:

i won't even deal with the rest of you gobbledygook, it's just as ridiculous, and just further shows all how you can't grasp simple facts, and try to lie to further an argument that is baseless from the get go

So you agree that coral can with stand a very low concentration of cyanide? Even long term exposure? Short term exposure of slightly higher concentrations are also tolerated....Actually a ten-second exposure to copper {the same level we use to rid fish of ick} will not harm corals.

cite the proof
Neither will low doses of cyanide.
cite the proof
The question is how low of an exposure to cyanide can coral take?
that is not, nor has that ever been, the question

i thought you just said low doses won't hurt corals?doesn't that mean you have a study to back it up?are you saying now that there was a study done that shows coral can tolerate low doses of cyanide,but never gave the amounts used in the study? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Its odd that there are no real test results for short duration low cyanide exposure and corals? Or low level short term exposure on fish ? Im sure that test have been done.......its just that the results were not something the researchers wanted to release

see above
that sentence,makes no sense at all-how do you know they are done if the results have, as YOU claim, never been published?

............Hey , spineless scientists, conduct a test on exposure rates of cyanide that stun fish .......place the fish in a cyanided tank for six seconds , If the fish dies ....Lower the concentration. Then when you have determined what the lowest concentration of cyanide which still stuns the fish the fish for collection ......Dip some live corals in the low level cyanide tank for six seconds. Then return the coral to their original tank. AND Lets sea what we get?

i value livestock far too much to sentence them to death for a ridiculous 'experiment' such as you propose.but i'll tell you what, kalk...
since you're so sure of the results-why don't YOU do the test, w/your own corals, and let us know what happens to your store's corals, after placing them in a tank containing cyanide

kalk- you really are a fool, in my own opinion.you are also a spreader of lies.

i have so many more important things to deal with, that are actually worth my time, so from now on, i'll just challenge you to back up everything you say w/cold hard facts and evidence,so everyone who reads your posts will see just what kind of character you are (assuming it isn't painfully obvious to them already).have fun killing the reefs w/your nonsense and drivel.some of us have valuable things to contribute and do, besides lining our pockets at the expense of long term environmental destruction.

i feel very sorry for your children, if you have any-for you are helping to doom their future, and i'm done w/your moronic dance.

 

[mkirda]

Also the devalue of the US dollar as of late is making your buck have less bang in overseas economies

That might even make sense if the peso were not pegged to the dollar, and have devalued against it more and more since '95.

In 2000, it was 40 pesos to USD1. In the two weeks I was there, it devalued to 45 pesos per dollar. Recently, it is trading at around 56 pesos per dollar.

Air freight rates have not gone up 30% in that time frame.

At least get your facts straight, Kalk.
You are entirely correct when talking about Europe, sure.
But we ain't talking about European fish here, are we? :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[naesco]

Also the devalue of the US dollar as of late is making your buck have less bang in overseas economies

That might even make sense if the peso were not pegged to the dollar, and have devalued against it more and more since '95.

In 2000, it was 40 pesos to USD1. In the two weeks I was there, it devalued to 45 pesos per dollar. Recently, it is trading at around 56 pesos per dollar.

Air freight rates have not gone up 30% in that time frame.

At least get your facts straight, Kalk.
You are entirely correct when talking about Europe, sure.
But we ain't talking about European fish here, are we? :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Typical of most industry people, you continue to be in denial.
One more time.
You are out of business unless industry takes immediate steps to implement a mandatory cyanide detection test (CDT), fund training programmmes and reef restoration programmes as well.It is really important that you understand how much I personally appreciate individual efforts from hobbyists to assist whereever they can.
Efforts apart from funding like buying net caught fish and even taking the time to post their concerns on these boards.
But industry is past piecemeal efforts. The citizens of both the Philippines and Indonesia are not going to allow you to continue with the destruction of their reefs.
Where I put my money my friend is no business of yours.

 

[Anonymous]

naesco wrote:

Typical of most industry people, you continue to be in denial.

well, there's the pot calling the kettle black
One more time.
You are out of business unless industry takes immediate steps to implement a mandatory cyanide detection test (CDT), fund training programmmes and reef restoration programmes as well.

who's out of business?

It is really important that you understand how much I personally appreciate individual efforts from hobbyists to assist whereever they can.

and yet you don't do anything concrete yourself, do you?

Efforts apart from funding like buying net caught fish and even taking the time to post their concerns on these boards.

could you clarify and be more specific as to just what these efforts are?

But industry is past piecemeal efforts. The citizens of both the Philippines and Indonesia are not going to allow you to continue with the destruction of their reefs.

you are the spokesperson for the fillipinos, and the indonesians, since when? what leads you to believe you know what the populace of those countries are even thinking, let alone doing?


Where I put my money my friend is no business of yours

it is once you berate and publicly demand that others use theirs, otherwise you're just a hypocrite blowing smoke up other's you-know-what

.


once again, naesco...

what have you done to contribute?

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for adding to the conversation GrehsamH

Do you know whether MO2004 is over?
Have you heard whether the most important issues raised in this forum have been dealth with?

The ending date of MO '04 isn't a secret, it's over at the end of today. What are the most important issues (according to you)?

 

[mkirda]

Typical of most industry people, you continue to be in denial.
One more time.
You are out of business unless industry takes immediate steps to implement a mandatory cyanide detection test (CDT), fund training programmmes and reef restoration programmes as well.It is really important that you understand how much I personally appreciate individual efforts from hobbyists to assist whereever they can.
Efforts apart from funding like buying net caught fish and even taking the time to post their concerns on these boards.
But industry is past piecemeal efforts. The citizens of both the Philippines and Indonesia are not going to allow you to continue with the destruction of their reefs.
Where I put my money my friend is no business of yours.

Naesco,

Why did you respond to my response to Kalk?
None of this is relevant to peso devaluation vis-a-vis the US dollar.

This post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[naesco]

Why did you respond to my response to Kalk?
None of this is relevant to peso devaluation vis-a-vis the US dollar.

This post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regards.
Mike Kirda[/quote]

naesco wrote:
monies must be provided by industry to fund the research into better handling methods both by industy here and abroad.
Thank you


Why not pony up some yourself, Naesco?

Instead of relying on other people to do what you keep proclaiming needs to be done, why not just do it?

It's funny to me that people do not realize that they could fund basic experiments for as little as a couple of hundred bucks.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

You are right. But, now it does. Right message, wrong post

 

[naesco]

Thanks for adding to the conversation GrehsamH

Do you know whether MO2004 is over?
Have you heard whether the most important issues raised in this forum have been dealth with?

The ending date of MO '04 isn't a secret, it's over at the end of today. What are the most important issues (according to you)?

Thanks. I am looking forward to reading a report.

IMO it is vital for industry to accomplish the following.
Appoint a leader amongst them that will advance the following to ensure the survival of their industry.
2. Endorse mandatory ramdom cyanide detection testing. (MRCDT)
3. Prepare a proposal to the Philippine government that in addition to MRCDT, provides for training, fair wages and establishes a fund to restore the damage done to the reefs

 

[mkirda]

Why did you respond to my response to Kalk?
None of this is relevant to peso devaluation vis-a-vis the US dollar.

This post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

naesco wrote:
monies must be provided by industry to fund the research into better handling methods both by industy here and abroad.
Thank you


Why not pony up some yourself, Naesco?

Instead of relying on other people to do what you keep proclaiming needs to be done, why not just do it?

It's funny to me that people do not realize that they could fund basic experiments for as little as a couple of hundred bucks.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

You are right. But, now it does. Right message, wrong post[/quote]

Wrong thread, you mean.

Why not just delete the post and put it in the right thread then, Naesco?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Gee its odd that with so little time to devote to reeform, you would be interested in if what you have believed all the years is true! Why dont we research to see if our hobby is really having an effect. Otherwise any effort on our end is wasted. As of now The reeformers cant explain how its possible...........for our collectors to have such a wide spread effect, given the very few number of hobby fish we collect in PI . Yet you all seem un effected? No studies, No photos, No math? Just hope .[or hype} It does not take a scientist to realize that the fish which are collected for our trade are collected alive. Its a live fish trade. Peter, whats the lowest concentration of cyanide that will stun a two inch blue tang or four inch copperband....? And second, do you Know of any tests on corals at that concentration? {the lowest level that can be used to collect fish}Next, If there are so few fish in PI like you all have been tricked into believing......then why would collectors risk killing most of the fish in a reef that they are working by over cyaniding the target fish ? They dont......at least not more then once. Then it seems to reason that any tests on cyanide and its effects on fish would have included corals.....but they didn't. Neither did the results on studies of the effects cyanide has on corals include fish? You all dont find that odd? You really think I am the first person to come up with the idea that corals and fish should both be included in the tests? Hell thats how it is in the oceans? I am sure tests have been done......but its odd that the results have never been made public. You should as well......

 

[Kalkbreath]

Also the devalue of the US dollar as of late is making your buck have less bang in overseas economies

That might even make sense if the peso were not pegged to the dollar, and have devalued against it more and more since '95.

In 2000, it was 40 pesos to USD1. In the two weeks I was there, it devalued to 45 pesos per dollar. Recently, it is trading at around 56 pesos per dollar.

Air freight rates have not gone up 30% in that time frame.

At least get your facts straight, Kalk.
You are entirely correct when talking about Europe, sure.
But we ain't talking about European fish here, are we? :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

The price of PI damsels themselves have not increased .[still twenty cents] The price of the airfreight has . The airfreight cost is five times more then the cost of the fish.So any movement in the frieght cost has a huge impact on the total. Also, Bali is a big player in the damsel business today . People are willing to pay more for fish from Bali. So there is a big incentive to sell PI fish as Bali fish. This has helped to raise the industry price on damsels. Also , the reef tank section of the hobby has driven up demand for damsels. As they are much more suitable for coral interaction then being cellmates with triggers or groupers .Next to Lastly, European buyers with stronger purchase power have influenced the market slightly in PI . And Dead lastly , The food fish industry has increased in demand ,while our industry continues to shrink in PI Giving some exporters less incentive to fool with such a picky industry as ours ........Fish eaters are less demanding about how fresh the catch of the day is then reef tank owners....

 

[saltnmyeye]

IMHO it is absolutely non-humanly to kill any sort of coral, anywhere, anytime, period. if it were not for coral, the sea, and fish, non of us would be able to enjoy such a gratifying hobby. the words "kill" and "coral" do not belong in the same sentence.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Welcome to the discussion...........I dont think anyone is stating that we like to harm coral in order to collect fish to be our pets.[Im not] But there are circumstances where slight damage by our industry is far better the the tremendous damage that other industries might inflict if industries like dynamite food fishermen or cement manufacturers were to replace aquarium fish collectors There have been people in the past concerned about cutting down otherwise healthy trees in our Nations forests to prevent Forrest fires. Years and years of placating the tree huggers actually harmed the forests much more then the thinning could have. Look at California and Yosemite or Yellow stone The natives that live on the islands of the world will farm the limited resources they have.......the question is which action will have the least impact? The only way we can access the impact our hobby is having is to fully investigate what the truths are? I dont believe we as a hobby have even begun to do so........

 

[mkirda]

Gee its odd that with so little time to devote to reeform, you would be interested in if what you have believed all the years is true! Why dont we research to see if our hobby is really having an effect. Otherwise any effort on our end is wasted. As of now The reeformers cant explain how its possible...........for our collectors to have such a wide spread effect, given the very few number of hobby fish we collect in PI . Yet you all seem un effected? No studies, No photos, No math? Just hope .[or hype} It does not take a scientist to realize that the fish which are collected for our trade are collected alive. Its a live fish trade. Peter, whats the lowest concentration of cyanide that will stun a two inch blue tang or four inch copperband....? And second, do you Know of any tests on corals at that concentration? {the lowest level that can be used to collect fish}Next, If there are so few fish in PI like you all have been tricked into believing......then why would collectors risk killing most of the fish in a reef that they are working by over cyaniding the target fish ? They dont......at least not more then once. Then it seems to reason that any tests on cyanide and its effects on fish would have included corals.....but they didn't. Neither did the results on studies of the effects cyanide has on corals include fish? You all dont find that odd? You really think I am the first person to come up with the idea that corals and fish should both be included in the tests? Hell thats how it is in the oceans? I am sure tests have been done......but its odd that the results have never been made public. You should as well......

C'mon, Kalk.

I personally have disproven every assertion you just made, some of them multiple times. I cannot help it that you, faced with the facts, backed up with photographic, mathematical, and scientific proof, refuse to understand. You are like the women claiming that the world rests on the back of a turtle, when asked, "Well, what is the turtle standing on?", replies "Oh, you cannot fool me... It is turtles all the way down!"

You seek to win the argument by repetition alone.

 

[mkirda]

So you agree that coral can with stand a very low concentration of cyanide? Even long term exposure? Short term exposure of slightly higher concentrations are also tolerated....Actually a ten-second exposure to copper {the same level we use to rid fish of ick} will not harm corals. Neither will low doses of cyanide. The question is how low of an exposure to cyanide can coral take? Its odd that there are no real test results for short duration low cyanide exposure and corals? Or low level short term exposure on fish ? Im sure that test have been done.......its just that the results were not something the researchers wanted to release............Hey , spineless scientists, conduct a test on exposure rates of cyanide that stun fish .......place the fish in a cyanided tank for six seconds , If the fish dies ....Lower the concentration. Then when you have determined what the lowest concentration of cyanide which still stuns the fish the fish for collection ......Dip some live corals in the low level cyanide tank for six seconds. Then return the coral to their original tank. AND Lets sea what we get?

Pony up the money for the research then, Kalk. Ask James Cervino what it would cost, then pay for it and let him disseminate the results.

That is the only way you can prove your point once and for all.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

C'mon, Kalk.

I personally have disproven every assertion you just made, some of them multiple times.

Sure you have .......lets go through them again one by one .............Question....: 1.) Only 100 fish or less are collected and exported each year for every square mile of reef in the Philippines. Even fewer fish if you exclude damsels which for the most part are not collected within the reefs.Damsels make up about half of the total . So only fifty or so fish are exported to the trade per square mile each year . Thats less then one fish per week for the average reef. Next, only 25 percent of those fifty fish have been shown to be collected with cyanide.{Peter}. Explain how ONE cyanide squirt per month per square mile can have much of an effect? .

 

[mkirda]

Sure you have .......lets go through them again one by one .............Question....:

Use the search function, Kalk, and read what I wrote the last few times you asked this and I refuted it.
I refuse to waste my time repeating myself. Again.