Peter Rubic and the study?

[hdtran]

PeterIMA writes:

No offense was intended by using your last name

No offense taken; you didn't know. I prefer being addressed as "Hy" unless you are introducing me for a seminar, or other formal occassion. On the internet, the use of the "handle" (e.g. PeterIMA, Kalkbreath, hdtran, etc.) is also perfectly acceptable. May I address you by first name?

The fact that you are an engineer rather than a marine ecologist, should make you more qualified to comment on analytical chemistry than myself.

I beg to disagree. A believe that a practicing biologist or ecologist (such as you) would be better equipped to comment on currently used analytical chemical methods than me, as it's been over 20 yrs since I worked in that field.

Perhaps, you should explain to the readers your academic qualifications etc

My professional qualifications are irrelevant for this discussion, since I'm speaking strictly as an amateur hobbyist aquarist. Although I do have a BS in life sciences, my PhD is in mechanical engineering, and I am a registered (electrical) professional engineer. My professional expertise is in advanced manufacturing, precision machines, and microfabricated systems. Nothing to do with fish, as you can see. Although I'd be happy to comment that the physical mechanism for cyanide plume dispersion is flow turbulence, rather than diffusion. The mean free path of CN ion in water, over a time scale of several seconds, is insignificant compared to the mixing due to turbulence :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Not just test itself........... the method for determining what the data means......the interpretation ........the findings

Are you asking if I believe in statistics?

Do you beleive that the method Peter used can determin the rate of cyanide collection during those years .........

What method did he use? You are asking a question that doesn't make sense in the context of what he did do.

Explain to us what you think he did and what you think it shows.

Maybe I should change the question ......How did Peter determine that 25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide? And do you feel his method was appropriate and accurate? Do you have faith in the results?

 

[hdtran]

Kalkbreath writes:

Maybe I should change the question ......How did Peter determine that 25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide? And do you feel his method was appropriate and accurate? Do you have faith in the results?

Begging your pardon, Kalk, but if you're referring to Rubec et al., "Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the phillipines" (2003), the paper does not say "25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide." Not as a quote anywhere in the text, not as a paraphrase anywhere in the text. The paper says some 48,000 fish were tested for cyanide between 1993 and 2001. (48,689 if you want to quote, but I'm willing to truncate at 2 significant figures). Not 25% of the fish.

Your question (25%) is about as meaningful as asking "How did Peter's paper determine that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.67e-8 in SI units"?

Regards,

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalkbreath writes:

Maybe I should change the question ......How did Peter determine that 25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide? And do you feel his method was appropriate and accurate? Do you have faith in the results?

Begging your pardon, Kalk, but if you're referring to Rubec et al., "Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the phillipines" (2003), the paper does not say "25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide." Not as a quote anywhere in the text, not as a paraphrase anywhere in the text. The paper says some 48,000 fish were tested for cyanide between 1993 and 2001. (48,689 if you want to quote, but I'm willing to truncate at 2 significant figures). Not 25% of the fish.

Your question (25%) is about as meaningful as asking "How did Peter's paper determine that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.67e-8 in SI units"?

Regards,

Ok .....What do you conclude from the study? And what do you suppose the jest of

IMA testing of 48,000 fish in the Philippines shows that 25% of aquarium fish destined for the US and Europe, and 44% of live groupers and humphead wrasse exported to Hong Kong were caught using cyanide. Too much emphasis is being placed on certification as the silver bullet.

is getting at?

 

[blue hula]

Kalk,

I can think of two reasons people are not answering:

1 - they are fed up with you twisting information and persevering in quoting stuff that frankly has been dispelled

2 - they are sensible and realise that you actually need some technical background to comment fairly on Peter's work (that's why it's called PEER review).

For reason 2, I won't comment on the cyanide test because despite having a doctorate in ecology, I don't know everything :wink:

For reason 1, I won't comment on the design / statistics despite having the appropriate background.

For reason 2, I also won't comment on whether my mechanics assessment of my car's health problems is accurate.

Silence says more about people's feeling about the merry go around you keep us on then support for or against Peter's study.

Blue hula

 

[Kalkbreath]

Or could it be that now because of me ....... they understand that you cant determine much from testing so few fish .........5 damsels . 2 wrasses . 6 Angelsfish . 5 tangs . 3 anthias . 2 sweetlips . 2 dragonets . 4 cardinals . 2 blennies . 1 puffer . 5 firefish ...........per year and conclude that the other 14 million fish not tested .......are somehow going to have similar results . Even the damsels alone five fish were tested out of tens of thousands each year. :wink: Its only NOW that they are actually reading the report and understanding how silly it is ..........Have you even read the study?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalkbreath writes:

Maybe I should change the question ......How did Peter determine that 25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide? And do you feel his method was appropriate and accurate? Do you have faith in the results?

Begging your pardon, Kalk, but if you're referring to Rubec et al., "Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the phillipines" (2003), the paper does not say "25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide." Not as a quote anywhere in the text, not as a paraphrase anywhere in the text. The paper says some 48,000 fish were tested for cyanide between 1993 and 2001. (48,689 if you want to quote, but I'm willing to truncate at 2 significant figures). Not 25% of the fish.

Your question (25%) is about as meaningful as asking "How did Peter's paper determine that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.67e-8 in SI units"?

Regards,

Do you believe that five fish can determine the average of cyanide exposer for the other 500,000? How about ......five for 10,000?

 

[mkirda]

Maybe I should change the question ......

Ok...

How did Peter determine that 25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide?

I don't know off-hand that this was his conclusion, but let me assume for the time being it was...

How would he have determined this?

Peter answered this already, multiple times.
To paraphrase in layman's terms, he filtered out all the records for food fish.
He got a number X. Of that number X, he could determine how many (Y) tested positive for cyanide. To calculate percentage, you divide Y by X.
Just about any fourth grader not flunking grade school could explain this.

And do you feel his method was appropriate and accurate?

Do I feel that division is an appropriate and accurate method for determining percentage? Yes, of course.

Do you have faith in the results?

Do I have faith in the results?
What an odd question.

In this space/time continuum, percentage is computed via division.
As Tina Turner might say... What's faith got to do with it?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

Kalkbreath initiates a thread with

The report by PeterIMA on cyanide use in the Philippines during the ninties may be the single most often refered study in our industry........I ask this question. How many of the people on this board feel the study Peter conducted with regard to the amount of fish with cyanide present during 1996 through 2000 was accurate and that his methods were proper? I will not debate the study in this post

He then writes

IMA wrote:
IMA testing of 48,000 fish in the Philippines shows that 25% of aquarium fish destined for the US and Europe, and 44% of live groupers and humphead wrasse exported to Hong Kong were caught using cyanide. Too much emphasis is being placed on certification as the silver bullet.

Sorry, the second quote does not appear anywhere in the paper that I'm assuming you're asking about. The nearest quote that I can find in the paper itself is:

"Overall cyanide was found to be present in 25% of the aquarium specimens tested from 1996 to 1999."

Looking at Table 3, I see 7703 aquarium fish tested, of which 1949 test positive for cyanide. Dividing 1949 by 7703, I get 0.2530183 on my $10 calculator. That's 25.3%. Close enough to "25% of the aquarium specimens tested from 1996 to 1999."

Your modified question was "How did Peter determine that 25% of hobby fish tested for cyanide." He didn't. To test 25% of the hobby fish for cyanide, you'd have to test at least 500,000 fish. Your post in the "Fuzzy numbers" thread states 2 million damsels. 25% of that is 500,000. Numbers reported tested were 48,000 (approximately). That's not 25% of the hobby fish, ok? Nor did the paper state that 25% of the hobby fish were tested. That was your assertion. The paper states that 25% of the aquarium specimens tested gave a positive result for cyanide. Not 25% of the hobby fish were tested for cyanide.

You then write in another post here (excerpted)

they understand that you cant determine much from testing so few fish .........5 damsels . 2 wrasses . 6 Angelsfish . 5 tangs . 3 anthias . 2 sweetlips . 2 dragonets . 4 cardinals . 2 blennies . 1 puffer . 5 firefish

I'm sorry, but I don't see 5 damsels, 2 wrasses, 6 angels, etc. anywhere in the paper cited, which is the study that you want folks to comment on, but not debate.

Don't debate. You said, "I will not debate the study in this post." Stick to your word, please. You asked why I thought the study was correct, I told you. DON'T DEBATE THE RESPONDER.

Let me finish with a personal comment (no personal offense intended): Maybe I have a hard time understanding your posts (or positions) because I'm not a native speaker of English. But more and more, it appears to me that the problem is on your end, not mine. Your use of syntax, grammar, spelling, and punctuations appear fractured. Your use of quotations or paraphrases appear to be incorrect, and you pull in numbers that I have not seen before (nor do you cite where these come from). I'm doing my best to try to follow your logic, but I can't. Rather than conclude that I'm too dumb to understand your logic, I'll draw the opposite conclusions: You lack the basic written communications skills to get your point across. If you consider me an important enough audience to communicate with, please work on your written exposition skills. 8)

Regards,

Hy

 

[mkirda]

you pull in numbers that I have not seen before (nor do you cite where these come from)

Hi, Hy.

You will never receive a single citation from Kalk - Trust me on that one.
These numbers like this: He makes them up.

Want proof of that statement? Here: I offer it to you...

Kalk, show us where those numbers came from with a citation.
Name of author, Date, Name of publication, Title of article, page number of citation at a minimum. Any order you prefer- I don't care.

Think he'll respond? I think he'll ignore my question, just like he had ignored my other few dozen requests for citation(s) for his fuzzy numbers. :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. And thanks for staying in the discussion. It has made it so much more interesting. And thanks for confirming that what I thought laser interferometry was actually was right.

 

[Kalkbreath]

you pull in numbers that I have not seen before (nor do you cite where these come from)

Hi, Hy.

You will never receive a single citation from Kalk - Trust me on that one.
These numbers like this: He makes them up.

Want proof of that statement? Here: I offer it to you...

Kalk, show us where those numbers came from with a citation.
Name of author, Date, Name of publication, Title of article, page number of citation at a minimum. Any order you prefer- I don't care.

Think he'll respond? I think he'll ignore my question, just like he had ignored my other few dozen requests for citation(s) for his fuzzy numbers. :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. And thanks for staying in the discussion. It has made it so much more interesting. And thanks for confirming that what I thought laser interferometry was actually was right.

Oh you both have seen the numbers ......your just not looking for them ......Look again ......this time think them through!

 

[mkirda]

Oh you both have seen the numbers ......your just not looking for them ......Look again ......this time think them through!

Hy,

Here's that PROOF I was talking about...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

P.S. And thanks for staying in the discussion. It has made it so much more interesting. And thanks for confirming that what I thought laser interferometry was actually was right

So, do you want to know about homodyne versus heterodyne interferometers? (No, it's not what you think! This is a family oriented forum!)

Seriously, Kalkbreath did post a citation in the "Fuzzy Numbers" thread (Mous et al.) Don't accuse him of never posting sources. Unfortunately, the conclusion that he drew was directly opposite to the authors' comments.

Regards,

Hy

 

[Kalkbreath]

P.S. And thanks for staying in the discussion. It has made it so much more interesting. And thanks for confirming that what I thought laser interferometry was actually was right

So, do you want to know about homodyne versus heterodyne interferometers? (No, it's not what you think! This is a family oriented forum!)

Seriously, Kalkbreath did post a citation in the "Fuzzy Numbers" thread (Mous et al.) Don't accuse him of never posting sources. Unfortunately, the conclusion that he drew was directly opposite to the authors' comments.

Regards,

Hy

Sea the new topic .....and perhaps youll understand.

 

[mkirda]

Sea the new topic .....and perhaps youll understand.

I understand already. You've drawn an erroneous conclusion.

Not like that is exactly new or anything...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula]

Hy,

That's twice you've suggested that perhaps you have trouble understanding Kalk's posts because you are a non native English speaker.

Please let me assure you that it isn't you. Kalk's posts are convoluted and difficult to follow at the best of times and I've given up.

I'm guessing you've perhaps said it tongue and cheek as your posts are a pleasure to read.

Cám on anh !

Blue hula

 

[Anonymous]

I can think of two reasons people are not answering:

1 - they are fed up with you twisting information and persevering in quoting stuff that frankly has been dispelled

2 - they are sensible and realise that you actually need some technical background to comment fairly on Peter's work (that's why it's called PEER review).

Saw this thread almost the second it came up, and didn't responded because of #1.

# of views means dittly squat Kalk. I myself have viewed it several times seeing if any sucker (sorry folks, I wouldn't have taken the bait like you'all---oops I gave in---SUCKER) would reply. Why are you guys bothering with him/this? Its like asking some one if sour milk smells sour, "here, smell this, does it smell sour to you?". DON'T SMELL THE MILK, IT'S GONE BAD!!!!

 

[blue hula]

Congratulations Kalk,

You have discovered fish that belong to multiple genera!

If you look at Table 1 on the IMA website, you'll see that 1807 damsels were tested over a 4 year period (that is approximately 450 individual fish per year).

I was puzzled where you got 5 damsels per year from and decided that it must be that you mistook "genera" for "individual fish" because indeed, if you divide the 19 genera by 4 years, you get pretty close to the number 5.

Alas, the pattern didn't hold. You claim only 2 individual wrasses were tested per year (which makes 8 in total) yet there were 30 separate genera tested.

It was this exciting insight that led me to understand that you have identified fish that can simultaneously belong to more than one genus. Gee 2 individual wrasse representing 30 genera, 3 anthias fish representing 7 genera, and 1 lonely puffer representing 3 genera.

I take it you do understand the difference between genus, species and fish.

Ask me again if I read studies when you've learned to read tables.

As to whether 2000 fish per year (yes, that a total of approximately 8000 fish tested over 4 years) is representative of what's happening on the reef, I reckon it's pretty good. That's what scientists do: they take small samples of the real world and make inferences from them.

So, as a scientist, one would describe the sample collected and say, for instance, that "25.30% of the fish tested were positive for cyanide (1909/7743 Kalk). (Bear with me Hy, there's a reason I'm going to stupid significant figures). Now, as a stats geek myself, I probably would have used a weighted average because of the vastly different number of fish tested per family (e.g. 1800 damsels vs. 1 snake eel). If you do that, oh my gosh, 25.26% of the fish tested were positive for cyanide.

Now, one could argue that all those families where fewer than 5 fish were tested are skewing the results as they are clearly not representative of what happens in the real world. My goodness, when you remove them, and indeed all the families with fewer than 30 fish tested over 4 years, the weighted average of postive cyanide tests is 25.24%. Indeed, even if we exclude all the families for which fewer than 100 fish were tested over 4 years, you get 25.15%

Get it Kalk? Peter's estimate of 25% is pretty damn robust for this data set.

So the remaining question is whether one thinks that the sample of nearly 8000 fish is representative of all the fish caught in the trade out there (which you obviously don't).

If the test was wrong, it's not.
If the sampling wasn't random, it may not be. (note, Peter indicates that it was random if I remember correctly)

But barring these, there is NOTHING in the number of fish to suggest that the sample is not representative of the big juiced blue.

I could have been surfing sigh

Blue hula

[quote/"Kalkbreath wrote:
Or could it be that now because of me ....... they understand that you cant determine much from testing so few fish .........5 damsels . 2 wrasses . 6 Angelsfish . 5 tangs . 3 anthias . 2 sweetlips . 2 dragonets . 4 cardinals . 2 blennies . 1 puffer . 5 firefish ...........per year and conclude that the other 14 million fish not tested .......are somehow going to have similar results . Even the damsels alone five fish were tested out of tens of thousands each year. Its only NOW that they are actually reading the report and understanding how silly it is ..........Have you even read the study?

 

[PeterIMA]

Blue Hula, Thank you for providing an inciteful response to Kalk.
Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Blue Hula, Thank you for providing an inciteful response to Kalk.
Peter

i'd suggest that jessica's posts are more insightful, while kalk's are more inciteful :wink: