Fuzzy numbers?

[Kalkbreath]

.{so ninty five percent of the twenty percent is 19 percent}....

Anyone have a clue what he is talking about? I'm having a hard time following his logic.

Twenty percent of the fish in Peters test came up positive....{2000] His notion that 95 % of fish die before being sold can only be applied to cyanide collected fish . {so 95% of the 20% is about 19%} But now I understand he thinks 95% of all hobby fish die before being sold. :roll:

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Mike Kirda is right in stating you are not using any real data.

Lets examine some of your claims. You stated that 70% of all marines exported (from PI I assume) were damsels, chromis (another damselfish genus), mandarins, and clownfish. You did not cite the source of this information.

Cristina Balboa of the World Resources Instititute analyzed one month of USFWS import data to the USA (October 2000). The IMA assisted by computerizing the packing slips listing the numbers and species. Normally these data are not computerized and hence not available. Her paper was presented at the 2nd MO Conference held in Florida two years ago (and published in the book I cited earlier).

There were 1038 marine fish species representing 95 families imported during October 2000 from 38 countries. 69% of the value ($) came from SE Asia. The top ten families in quantity (numbers) represented 85% of all marine fish traded. The top families in order of quantity traded were Pomacentridae (damselfish), Pomacanthidae (angelfish), Labridae (wrasses, Acanthuridae (surgeonfish, tangs), Gobiidae (gobies), Chaetodontidae (butterflyfish), Callionmyidae (dragonets including mandarins), Ariidae (sea catfish) Scorpaenidae (scorpionfish), and Apogonidae (cardinalfish). Pomacentridae (damselfish) were the most numerous (53% of fish imported that month). The next most traded family Pomacanthidae (angelfish) made up only 6% of the the total number traded.

Chromis, clownfish, and other damselfish are all in the family Pomacentridae. Even with the Callionmyidae thrown in, I doubt that they comprise 70% of the total exports from the Philippines.

My paper on CDT presented data summarized by Family. There were 625 species tested which I considered to be aquarium fish, and 348 species which I considered to be food fish. If one assumes that the sampling of aquarium fish is proportional to the numbers of individual fish being exported, one can get some idea of the proportion of damselfish in relation to the total numbers of all fish species being exported from the Philippines. Out of 625 aquarium fishes tested there were 111 species of damselfish tested (17.8% of the the total). Out of 7,703 individual fish tested there were 1807 damselfish tested (23.5% of the total aquarium fish sampled). This does not indicate that 70% of the fishes being exported were damselfish.
Based on the CDT testing of the 1807 damselfish 345 (19%) were found to have cyanide present.

I have no idea where you came up with a figure that "The percent of damsels and clownfish with cyanide present in 1998, 1999, and 2000 was around 6%." It looks like idle speculation rather than hard facts. I told you to refer to the numbers on the IMA web site.

 

[Anonymous]

Seamainden,

For the purpose of knowing how widely cyanide is being used by cyanide fishermen, a test for Presence or Absence of cyanide makes good sense. Any level of cyanide indicates that the fish was exposed to cyanide.

For the purpose of prosecution and to be sure that the cyanide was used in a purposeful manner (blitz the fish to capture it with cyanide) a higher level makes for a strong case in court. Hence, a cut-off level (0.2 ppm) was adopted for prosecution purposes (mostly in ignorance of what level would be most appropriate from a scientific point of view).

The last question. Any level of cyanide is harmful to the fish. There is no safe level. Cyanide is BAD at any concentration.

The questions about levels of cyanide is damsels, chromis, and mandarins will have to wait.

Peter

And wait they shall, you have answered my question(s) succinctly and quite clearly. Thank you.

Seamaiden, The argumentation about mandarins took place 3-4 months ago. Kalk quoted Steve Robinson as the authority that stated "all" mandarins are captured by impaling them through the fins (spear with pin). I disagreed stating that according to the CDT database 18% of mandarines tested by IMA were found to have cyanide present. To me that indicates that cyanide fishermen were capturing some mandarins using cyanide. Others disagreed and felt that it might be due to the reef being blitzed with cyanide while collectors were targeting other species. I have to admit it might have happened, but I doubt it. It is just wishful thinking by Kalk and others trying to twist the truth (its not us its someone else type of argument).

Ah.. again, thank you. So, if I am to understand you correctly, the ratio of mandarins demonstrating exposure to cyanide is rather close to that of damsels (just under 1 in 5), yes? I am, at this point, understanding that this is the result of the testing means you described earlier (meaning that even if an animal does test at detectable levels, it is null if below that 0.2ppm or 0.2mg/kg), yes?

Again, thank you for very patiently answering questions it seems you've ultimately answered (I must admit I haven't gotten through much, my apologies).

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Mike Kirda is right in stating you are not using any real data.

Lets examine some of your claims. You stated that 70% of all marines exported (from PI I assume) were damsels, chromis (another damselfish genus), mandarins, and clownfish. You did not cite the source of this information.

Cristina Balboa of the World Resources Instititute analyzed one month of USFWS import data to the USA (October 2000). The IMA assisted by computerizing the packing slips listing the numbers and species. Normally these data are not computerized and hence not available. Her paper was presented at the 2nd MO Conference held in Florida two years ago (and published in the book I cited earlier).

There were 1038 marine fish species representing 95 families imported during October 2000 from 38 countries. 69% of the value ($) came from SE Asia. The top ten families in quantity (numbers) represented 85% of all marine fish traded. The top families in order of quantity traded were Pomacentridae (damselfish), Pomacanthidae (angelfish), Labridae (wrasses, Acanthuridae (surgeonfish, tangs), Gobiidae (gobies), Chaetodontidae (butterflyfish), Callionmyidae (dragonets including mandarins), Ariidae (sea catfish) Scorpaenidae (scorpionfish), and Apogonidae (cardinalfish). Pomacentridae (damselfish) were the most numerous (53% of fish imported that month). The next most traded family Pomacanthidae (angelfish) made up only 6% of the the total number traded.

Chromis, clownfish, and other damselfish are all in the family Pomacentridae. Even with the Callionmyidae thrown in, I doubt that they comprise 70% of the total exports from the Philippines.

My paper on CDT presented data summarized by Family. There were 625 species tested which I considered to be aquarium fish, and 348 species which I considered to be food fish. If one assumes that the sampling of aquarium fish is proportional to the numbers of individual fish being exported, one can get some idea of the proportion of damselfish in relation to the total numbers of all fish species being exported from the Philippines. Out of 625 aquarium fishes tested there were 111 species of damselfish tested (17.8% of the the total). Out of 7,703 individual fish tested there were 1807 damselfish tested (23.5% of the total aquarium fish sampled). This does not indicate that 70% of the fishes being exported were damselfish.
Based on the CDT testing of the 1807 damselfish 345 (19%) were found to have cyanide present.

I have no idea where you came up with a figure that "The percent of damsels and clownfish with cyanide present in 1998, 1999, and 2000 was around 6%." It looks like idle speculation rather than hard facts. I told you to refer to the numbers on the IMA web site.

You must consider that PI ships TINY fish like no other SE Asian country. The number of damsels and clownfish and Chromis coming out of PI, is Greater then any other location. So to lump all of SE Asia together to find out what PI exports is flawed. I included loin fish , mandarins , chromis and clownfish to reach the 70% I have found no where on the site " IMA" that lists the test results for those species during 1998 1999 2000. If the total for all species was 8% during 1998 and 1999.....the surely damsels were even lower as well ?.............................................................................................................. I

 

[Kalkbreath]

I stand by the statement that 70% of EACH of the three million fish exported during the most current testing {1998, 1999 and 2000 } had a lower then ten percent rate of cyanide present. Using your data! Show me how you concluded otherwise?

 

[PeterIMA]

During the last year that cyanide testing occurred (2000) the level rose to 29%. I don't believe that indicates that cyanide levels should be lower in more recent years. Indeed, testing by the PCSD indicated that 49% of the fishes tested last fall (over about a three month period) by the BFAR laboratory in Puerto Precesa were Positive for cyanide. Assuming they did not count fishes less than 0.2 ppm in this number, then the % Present must be much higher. Indeed, several people close to this have informed me that it is higher than 49%.


The idea that food fishermen collect mandarins (about 1.5 inches long) is absurd. There is some overlap in the species being caught in the two trades, and some exporters sell both. But, I have never heard that food fishermen capture mandarins for sale. They may collect dead fish and eat them while in the field or to feed their families (personal consumption).

Kalk, If you view the CDT results on the IMA web site, you can see how the percentages by Family were derived. They are based on the numbers with cyanide present or absent "within" each family. You seem to be assuming that damselfish must have a low percentage because the overall percentage "Across" all species averaged 25% from 1996 to 2000 (for aquarium fish). The percentages by Family are not additive to give the percentage across all specimens tested. Your logic is flawed (or designed confuse other readers).

PS to Seamaiden, Whoever told you that the fishermen use slurp guns is most probably wrong.

 

[clarionreef]

Right Peter,
Jenn, slurp guns are for sale to 'white wannabie fish collectors' in US dive shops.
Modified and heavy duty custom made ones have been used for Catalina gobys in California, but thats about it.
No one uses them for mandarins or anything else in the Philippines. The power required to actually suck up all but the most docile and inert fish also sucks up sand and gravel creating a stone-washing that ruins a great many.
Small mesh nets in experienced hands are far, far superior.
In fact so much so that one can saturate a market when collecting Mexican red head gobies or barnacle blennies for example if not careful.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

During the last year that cyanide testing occurred (2000) the level rose to 29%. I don't believe that indicates that cyanide levels should be lower in more recent years. Indeed, testing by the PCSD indicated that 49% of the fishes tested last fall (over about a three month period) by the BFAR laboratory in Puerto Precesa were Positive for cyanide. Assuming they did not count fishes less than 0.2 ppm in this number, then the % Present must be much higher. Indeed, several people close to this have informed me that it is higher than 49%.


The idea that food fishermen collect mandarins (about 1.5 inches long) is absurd. There is some overlap in the species being caught in the two trades, and some exporters sell both. But, I have never heard that food fishermen capture mandarins for sale. They may collect dead fish and eat them while in the field or to feed their families (personal consumption).

Kalk, If you view the CDT results on the IMA web s.ite, you can see how the percentages by Family were derived. They are based on the numbers with cyanide present or absent "within" each family. You seem to be assuming that damselfish must have a low percentage because the overall percentage "Across" all species averaged 25% from 1996 to 2000 (for aquarium fish). The percentages by Family are not additive to give the percentage across all specimens tested. Your logic is flawed (or designed confuse other readers).

PS to Seamaiden, Whoever told you that the fishermen use slurp guns is most probably wrong.

Only include the last three years in your study and use the word FISH instead of FISHES...and an intirely different result is obtained. Seventy percent of the three million fish each of those years had only a less then ten percent rate of testing for cyanide. Furthermore most of the collectors collect Both seafood and trade fish ......they are self employed they do what they want.....Is like a pawn shop in the US .....they hardly even know the collectors

 

[Kalkbreath]

During the last year that cyanide testing occurred (2000) the level rose to 29%. I don't believe that indicates that cyanide levels should be lower in more recent years.

You stated it rose because pressure from anti cyanide groups decreased. The pressures from anti cyanide groups like MAC are at an all time high. Even greater theh in 1998, with greater pressure ......it would seem to reason that onc again cyanide use is around 8% just like in 1998 and 1999.

Indeed, testing by the PCSD indicated that 49% of the fishes tested last fall (over about a three month period) by the BFAR laboratory in Puerto Precesa were Positive for cyanide. Assuming they did not count fishes less than 0.2 ppm in this number, then the % Present must be much higher. Indeed, several people close to this have informed me that it is higher than 49%.

those were food fish if I remember.....

The idea that food fishermen collect mandarins (about 1.5 inches long) is absurd. There is some overlap in the species being caught in the two trades, and some exporters sell both. But, I have never heard that food fishermen capture mandarins for sale. They may collect dead fish and eat them while in the field or to feed their families (personal consumption).[/qoute]They collect groupers while collecting pet fish , The collector sees a grouper dash inside a rock pile. The collector reaches for his his squirt bottle that contains the higher concentration of cyanide {the level that stunns bigger fish} and squirts into the hiding place. A few more squirts and not only the grouper floats out...... but about twenty other fish as well. The collector ties the bigger grouper off to his pants with a cord and the begins to net some of the remaining still dazed fish . Several fish of which happen to be hobby fish like tangs and mandarins .......even a lion fish!

Kalk, If you view the CDT results on the IMA web site, you can see how the percentages by Family were derived. They are based on the numbers with cyanide present or absent "within" each family. You seem to be assuming that damselfish must have a low percentage because the overall percentage "Across" all species averaged 25% from 1996 to 2000 (for aquarium fish). The percentages by Family are not additive to give the percentage across all specimens tested. Your logic is flawed (or designed confuse other readers).

I would love to be able to view the data for each year independently. Was the percent of cyanide present for each fish type constant for each year? What was the level for damsels each year. One large batch of tainted damsels in 1996 could have a huge impact on the average for all years. Did you test 1500 of the total 1800 damsels in 1996? if so a 60 percent result in 1996 would obfuscate the fact that only 3% of damsels tested in 1999 showed cyanide present.

 

[Kalkbreath]

During the last year that cyanide testing occurred (2000) the level rose to 29%. I don't believe that indicates that cyanide levels should be lower in more recent years.

You stated it rose because pressure from anti cyanide groups decreased. The pressures from anti cyanide groups like MAC are at an all time high. Even greater theh in 1998, with greater pressure ......it would seem to reason that onc again cyanide use is around 8% just like in 1998 and 1999.

Indeed, testing by the PCSD indicated that 49% of the fishes tested last fall (over about a three month period) by the BFAR laboratory in Puerto Precesa were Positive for cyanide. Assuming they did not count fishes less than 0.2 ppm in this number, then the % Present must be much higher. Indeed, several people close to this have informed me that it is higher than 49%.

those were food fish if I remember.....

The idea that food fishermen collect mandarins (about 1.5 inches long) is absurd. There is some overlap in the species being caught in the two trades, and some exporters sell both. But, I have never heard that food fishermen capture mandarins for sale. They may collect dead fish and eat them while in the field or to feed their families (personal consumption)

They also collect groupers while collecting pet fish , The collector sees a grouper dash inside a rock pile. The collector reaches for his his squirt bottle that contains the higher concentration of cyanide {the level that stunns bigger fish} and squirts into the hiding place. A few more squirts and not only the grouper floats out...... but about twenty other fish as well. The collector ties the bigger grouper off to his pants with a cord and the begins to net some of the remaining still dazed fish . Several fish of which happen to be hobby fish like tangs and mandarins .......even a lion fish!

Kalk, If you view the CDT results on the IMA web site, you can see how the percentages by Family were derived. They are based on the numbers with cyanide present or absent "within" each family. You seem to be assuming that damselfish must have a low percentage because the overall percentage "Across" all species averaged 25% from 1996 to 2000 (for aquarium fish). The percentages by Family are not additive to give the percentage across all specimens tested. Your logic is flawed (or designed confuse other readers)

I would love to be able to view the data for each year independently. Was the percent of cyanide present for each fish type constant for each year? What was the level for damsels each year. One large batch of tainted damsels in 1996 could have a huge impact on the average for all years. Did you test 1500 of the total 1800 damsels in 1996? if so a 60 percent result in 1996 would obfuscate the fact that only 3% of damsels tested in 1999 showed cyanide present.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, You will have to wait until I have finished analyses on the entire CDT database (about 48,000 specimens tested from 1996 to 2001). I will break the data down by year in that analysis. The previous analysis only included about 22,000 specimens. I wish to use the complete CDT database to provide accurate information to answer your questions. That will take some time to complete.

I am surprised that you have not been quoting from the report issued by the World Conservation Monitoring Center titled "From Oceans To Aquarium". It could shed light on some of your concerns.

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, You will have to wait until I have finished analyses on the entire CDT database (about 48,000 specimens tested from 1996 to 2001). I will break the data down by year in that analysis. The previous analysis only included about 22,000 specimens. I wish to use the complete CDT database to provide accurate information to answer your questions. That will take some time to complete.

I am surprised that you have not been quoting from the report issued by the World Conservation Monitoring Center titled "From Oceans To Aquarium". It could shed light on some of your concerns.

Peter

I suspected such.{ Could it be that you and Frank went to the same college? As a respected scientist, Why would you release findings to the study before you finished the data? Why not stop at the first fish and release the findings? I mean if the first fish you tested came up positive for cyanide, then you could Publicly State that 100% of the fish in your test had cyanide present!!$......................48,000 fish ? How can you have any idea what the results are if you have yet to complete it.? What fish did you leave out of your PRE analysis? You only tested One seashores? Why? Is it because the testing of more seahorses might have found thirty percent with cyanide present? That would place into question the validity of the test method itself?No? then you have to show more then one seahorse! Were more fish included in the data from the 1996 year or the 2000 year? The more we learn bout what we as a hobby think are facts about the hobby ......the more we learn that the facts are still in someone's note pad! It sure seems "fishy" that the complete facts and data are being withheld from the view of the public on every level? Perhaps the anti hobby movement is more empowered by keeping the truth sealed? Peter, who do you think will complete their report first ...........YOU or FRANK ?

 

[mkirda]

but we import so few of these fish that the impact on the reefs is tiny. Ending the little bit of cyanide fishing that remains by the hobby is fine and needed. But lets be fair about whats eally happening out there....... :wink:

Wink, wink, wink... So explain to us folks challenged by your math claims:

What exactly *is* happening out there?

What exactly do you base this opinion on?

 

[mkirda]

there is little separation between the two trades

And what do you base this statement on?

MO collectors *do* catch food fish, yes.
Guess for whom they typically do it?

If you guessed "Their children", then you guessed right.

MO fish collection is a specialized trade.
Few people specialize in it.

 

[mkirda]

Your logic is flawed (or designed confuse other readers).

Or just plain "Fuzzy". :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Furthermore most of the collectors collect Both seafood and trade fish ......they are self employed they do what they want.....Is like a pawn shop in the US .....they hardly even know the collectors

Again, what do you base this claim on?
It does not seem to reflect reality for "most of the collectors".
Surely you have something to back this statement up?

 

[mkirda]

They also collect groupers while collecting pet fish , The collector sees a grouper dash inside a rock pile. The collector reaches for his his squirt bottle that contains the higher concentration of cyanide {the level that stunns bigger fish} and squirts into the hiding place. A few more squirts and not only the grouper floats out...... but about twenty other fish as well. The collector ties the bigger grouper off to his pants with a cord and the begins to net some of the remaining still dazed fish . Several fish of which happen to be hobby fish like tangs and mandarins .......even a lion fish!

Does not reflect reality... Who do you think is doing the collecting, Shiva?
How many arms would one need to handle two squirt bottles? (one for MO, other for Food fish)

Besides, this scenario already goes against your earlier claims.
You must remember that you argued that the cyanide levels used by Food fisherman would kill MOs outright, and that MO cyanide collectors used much smaller amounts in order to be able to collect the MO alive.
Explain now why, in this scenario, you have tangs, mandarins, lionfish, and groupers all living in some reef hole, getting blasted by Food fish levels of concentrated cyanide, and they are all living?

Trying to keep track of all the lies to keep them straight is far more difficult than just telling the truth to begin with.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

The dead food fish industry is the one whom kill fish out right. The live food fish collectors use a lower dose , one that stunns the fish but does not kill it ....The outer edges of the killer plume dead food fish collectors squirt ......will have concentrations low enough to only stunn fish {like hobby collectors}

 

[Kalkbreath]

"FUZZY MATH " Is the new name for the CDT cyanide study of 1996 to 2001!!............Seems you missed the fact that I totally dismantled Peter Rubics little study! ........not only has he kept certain data private.......like each years data...........but seems to have left out over half the fish in the study?Wonder why? Lets sea ......that makes me five for five ........Next study please!

 

[mkirda]

Lets sea ......that makes me five for five

Omigod... That is truly the funniest thing I have ever seen you write, Kalk...

Five for five of what? Making claims that cannot be backed up with data?
Making logic errors that a five year old wouldn't make?
Or is it five for five of just being flat out wrong?

I vote for... All of the above!

Regards.
Mike Kirda