Peter Rubic and the study?

[mkirda]

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience :?

Kalkbreath represents a danger, Vitz.

If we collectively do not debunk the more obvious scientific errors he makes, then we tacitly encourage him to continue.

Frankly, I learned something during this exchange, and I have a greater appreciation for the level of accuracy Peter was able to achieve when he did this paper.

I have learned that sample sizes are quite large in smaller population sizes (especially in terms of percentages! WOW!), but when the population rises to greater than a few hundred thousand, sample sizes don't increase all that much. You can tell a lot with relatively small sample sizes (hundreds not dozens), and once you break 1000, the accuracy is much greater.

I'd be curious what your reaction was, Vitz, when you looked at the chart.
Did it surprise you at all?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Please clarify what you meant when you stated that the MAC intended to use the test (presumably the one used by IMA) as a benchmark?

My undestanding is that the MAC has a scientist developing a new test for the MAC. Can you explain how that works and how it would be compared (used as a benchmark) with the existing ASTM test (used by IMA and now BFAR)? Please also explain how the new test (that is not published) would meet ISO standards for the MAC when it is not a recognized procedure that has been evaluated (through round robin comparisons etc) by organizations like ASTM, USEPA, APHA, AWWA, WPCF etc?

Peter

 

[hdtran]

So if they test one fish a day .........you will have no problems? Why can the total number be one tenth as large ......... yet the required sample only be cut in half? Actually MAC only exported about 100,000 fish last year ........How many fish should they have sampled?

While I'm not "in the industry," I would personally be happy to see 384 fish as the number being sampled, regardless of whether you're exporting 2000 fish, 20,000 fish, 200,000 fish, or 2,000,000 fish. (Or even 20,000,000 fish). This would tell me that of the remaining fish (say 20,000,000 minus the 384 which are now liquefied), the proportion 'clean' versus 'unclean' is reasonably close (within 5%) to the proportion of the 384 liquidated fish which were 'clean' versus 'unclean.'

384 is not one fish per day, but I'll let that slide. How about 2 fish per working day? That comes out to 400 fish. I'd buy that.

Of course, you have to do it professionally, e.g. the way Toyota or Honda does quality control on their cars. You need to pull the fish truly randomly from the export pile, in other words, out of the airplane, using a random number table.

Then, if any fish tested comes up positive, you shut down ALL operations until the problem is fixed.

 

[mkirda]

Of course, you have to do it professionally, e.g. the way Toyota or Honda does quality control on their cars. You need to pull the fish truly randomly from the export pile, in other words, out of the airplane, using a random number table.

Then, if any fish tested comes up positive, you shut down ALL operations until the problem is fixed.

Agreed, 100%...

If anything, the current samples are biased towards cleaner fish.

Kalkbreath, THAT MEANS THAT THE EXISTING ESTIMATES ARE CONSERVATIVE.
That also means that the real rate is likely being masked by the clean(er) specimens being sent in.

Real enforcement requires impecable BFAR officials visiting daily to all export facilities, making truly random choices of fish, and establishing a proper paperwork chain of custody so that the sample(s) can be tied back to the exporter. Additionally, the information on the results needs to be sent to the proper parties so charges get filed appropriately.

Enforcement of existing laws would do wonders to clean up this problem.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

Mike Kirda writes

Agreed, 100%...

Mike, is that 100% with a 5% uncertainty and 99% confidence 8) ?

Hy

 

[mkirda]

Mike Kirda writes

Agreed, 100%...

Mike, is that 100% with a 5% uncertainty and 99% confidence 8) ?

Hy

Since N=1 and the sample size equals 1, I think we can even approach 100% confidence with 0% uncertainty.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience :?

Kalkbreath represents a danger, Vitz.

If we collectively do not debunk the more obvious scientific errors he makes, then we tacitly encourage him to continue.

Frankly, I learned something during this exchange, and I have a greater appreciation for the level of accuracy Peter was able to achieve when he did this paper.

I have learned that sample sizes are quite large in smaller population sizes (especially in terms of percentages! WOW!), but when the population rises to greater than a few hundred thousand, sample sizes don't increase all that much. You can tell a lot with relatively small sample sizes (hundreds not dozens), and once you break 1000, the accuracy is much greater.

I'd be curious what your reaction was, Vitz, when you looked at the chart.
Did it surprise you at all?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

personally, i think kalk's 'spread of disinformation' is only served greater by your (collective) efforts to counter his statements, as i've hinted to you in the past :wink:

i would think that learning something from anyone here doesn't need to be obtained by sifting out a few isolated posts from an(usually) insanely long tirade of gobbledygook from the resident jibberjabber flapper who is completely ignorant, and i mean COMPLETELY,of almost all the aspects of the very industry that provides his livelihood :roll:

i think a few unanswered posts is far less damaging than many posts tried to be set right, especially when your efforts are really to no avail (i've been following you efforts for the past year or two, vis a vis kalk, and i don't think you've really accomplished anything, however sincere and noble those attempts may be

'megaphone wars' reflect poorly on BOTH sides, imho :?

anyone who can independently think, and research, will easily find out who talks w/substance, and who doesn't-those who don't, or can't, are not likely to be the ones influencing anything of any real substance, anyway, e.g. kalk, and MAC :wink:

and no, i was not surprised by the decreasing %ages vs. increasing sample sizes-i vaguely remember covering that stuff in 11th grade honor elective physics, and 12th grade astronomy, classes, where statistics and probability were covered as part of the standard curriculum.



i'd suggest an experiment-every time kalk posts some inane contention, or 'smokescreen', try pasting in that tiny fonted quote, once, and don't respond further-my money is that w/out 2 arguers, there wonm't be any arguments


kalk-has it ever occured to you that the lack of diversity in posters who respond to you is due solely to the realization of the 'lurkers' that you really aren't worth the time, any longer?

i've been seeing you post the same stuff over and over again, like a broken record, w/the absolute refusal to acknowledge when you've been proven factually wrong-the only conclusion i can come to is that you are not capable of posting anything that's right :wink:

just an observation, here, kalk, nothing personal-for all i know you may be a nice guy, but arguing about your industry, to say nothing of defending your points, just isn't something your qualified to do, based on what i've read in all your posts since i've been reading this forum

i think it may be better for you to just concentrate on running your biz as best you can, make your money as quickly as you can....




for the window of opportunity for you to be able to continue to do so, is getting ever smaller as the inanities continue


i, for one, have made the decision, and have been given the serendipitous fortune, to concentrate my energies and efforts towards helping the problems get solved, in ways i deem meritable, by joining and working for a conservation based org., rather than continue in the 'straight' (read 'existing mainstream' retail biz.

it's about time i gave something back, instead of just taking, like you, kalk

what have you done to continue the insured succes of your livelihood support, kalk?

p.s.- i promise to respond to you intelligently if you post intelligently :wink:

but if you just keep spewing out various kaka, all you'll get is a tiny fonted cliche', in response

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Please clarify what you meant when you stated that the MAC intended to use the test (presumably the one used by IMA) as a benchmark?

My undestanding is that the MAC has a scientist developing a new test for the MAC. Can you explain how that works and how it would be compared (used as a benchmark) with the existing ASTM test (used by IMA and now BFAR)? Please also explain how the new test (that is not published) would meet ISO standards for the MAC when it is not a recognized procedure that has been evaluated (through round robin comparisons etc) by organizations like ASTM, USEPA, APHA, AWWA, WPCF etc?

Peter

Would you have any problems with MAC using the same sample ratios as you did? You tested 750 or so fish during a time frame when about 25 million fish were exported .

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, How does 7,703 aquarium fish and 12,852 food fish tested (total 20,555) from 1996 to 2000 become "750 or so fish"? I think most lurkers are aware that the IMA tested a total of 48,689 specimens from 1993 to 2001. The entire CTD database is being analyzed and will be published (in due time).

While you are waiting, how about answering my questions (highlighted in your last posting)?

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

How bout answering the questions .......You all busted. You can correct my spelling, you can tell everyone how dangerous the truth is ........But you cant explain yourselves and that speaks volumes ............................ One-hundred and fifty sample fish for every 5 million. Funny how a different set of standards is applied ......or is it not funny?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, The IMA did a number of things without any help from the trade. It did net training, CDT testing, village based education programs, coastal cleanups, coral and clam farming, created MPAs, we supported the MAC. What have you done (other than spreading misinformation)?

 

[hdtran]

How bout answering the questions .......You all busted. You can correct my spelling, you can tell everyone how dangerous the truth is ........But you cant explain yourselves and that speaks volumes ............................ One-hundred and fifty sample fish for every 5 million. Funny how a different set of standards is applied ......or is it not funny?

One hundred fifty sample fish? I didn't see that anywhere in Rubec et al. (2003)? Can you point me to the page number, table number, or quote?

And by the way, the 150/5,000,000 is a red herring (is that a red fish, or blue fish :roll: ?) Once you have more than maybe 5,000 fish, it does not matter how many fish you sample, as long as you take at least, say, 384 fish. That's why with way less than 1% of the precincts in, all the networks called Reagan over Mondale in a landslide. (Boy, I'm really dating myself here, aren't I?).

If that's your only argument, you're a bit like the Inquisition telling Galileo that the Sun & the Heavens revolve around the Earth.

Regards,

Hy

 

[mkirda]

How bout answering the questions

How about answering ours?

How did you make up the "150 fish tested" number?

And why didn't you realize that the "750 fish tested" number was more than mathematically sufficient? With 384 fish tested randomly per year, Peter could write a paper that has great significance. With 750 fish tested per year, the paper would be even more credible and accurate. And we have already established that the number was greater than this.

Again, Kalk- This argument is OVER.

I mean, REALLY, REALLY OVER.

You have yet to show a single mathmatical error in the chart I posted, so at this point, you are arguing with established statistical methods. Unless you can establish that I made an math error (possible, but unlikely), you are then left to challenge established scientific statistical methods.
Good luck in your endeavor.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Again, Kalk- This argument is OVER.

I mean, REALLY, REALLY OVER.

The argument is only over when BOTH parties stop arguing. Seems to me, you like to argue JUST as much as Kalk. Vitz is right, ignore it Mike, you might sleep better. How many more pages you guys gonna take this one?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Odd that no one has suggested how many fish MAC should test? {I left off a zero } Peter , tested and used the data of 7500 fish ....there about. {Over a five year study.} Thats 1500 fish per year ? Whats the question ? 1500 fish were sampled to gauge the industry for that year. And about five million fish were collected each of those years. If MAC collects 200, 000 fish next year.....based on Peters study .....what would you state as a fair numbers of samples to gauge MAC fish ? I predict that many....... if not all of you will change the test requirements for exculpating fish from the test methods used to sully the industry.......Why is that? :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

How bout answering the questions .......You all busted. You can correct my spelling, you can tell everyone how dangerous the truth is ........But you cant explain yourselves and that speaks volumes ............................ One-hundred and fifty sample fish for every 5 million. Funny how a different set of standards is applied ......or is it not funny?

One hundred fifty sample fish? I didn't see that anywhere in Rubec et al. (2003)? Can you point me to the page number, table number, or quote?

And by the way, the 150/5,000,000 is a red herring (is that a red fish, or blue fish :roll: ?) Once you have more than maybe 5,000 fish, it does not matter how many fish you sample, as long as you take at least, say, 384 fish. That's why with way less than 1% of the precincts in, all the networks called Reagan over Mondale in a landslide. (Boy, I'm really dating myself here, aren't I?).

If that's your only argument, you're a bit like the Inquisition telling Galileo that the Sun & the Heavens revolve around the Earth.

Regards,

Hy

You mean like Gore "whinning" Florida? That kinda sampling?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, The IMA did a number of things without any help from the trade. It did net training, CDT testing, village based education programs, coastal cleanups, coral and clam farming, created MPAs, we supported the MAC. What have you done (other than spreading misinformation)?

Peter I am not down playing what you or the IMA have done for the hobby or the reefs {I mean this } I respect You , because your a rare man .you will not lie t6o save your self .....that means a lot in today's world. Having said that , I think you have repeatedly overlooked a few aspects of the trade ......some very important. You may not Like the way I handle myself....... But I do bring out the discussion in everyone ......What is the point of talking about things that we all agree on ..........It s only through dis agreements that alternative veiw points are experienced..........I have brought up more unique questions in the last year, then you have experienced your whole career........As evidenced by the lack of prepared responses. I will lay off now ..........You got my jest ......and the subject of whats a fair test will be back in the lime light soon I am sure ...... :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience :?

(maybe i'll get to build one of these cool 3-d type quote trapezoids :twisted: :lol: )

mike-kalk is playing you like a tool, at this point. :?

see how upset you're getting over the rapid switch in his number, which was put there , imo, to do just that :?:

i think you're all losin a whole lot of energy over nothing. absolutely nothing :?

 

[mkirda]

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience :?

(maybe i'll get to build one of these cool 3-d type quote trapezoids :twisted: :lol: )

mike-kalk is playing you like a tool, at this point. :?

see how upset you're getting over the rapid switch in his number, which was put there , imo, to do just that :?:

i think you're all losin a whole lot of energy over nothing. absolutely nothing :?

Vitz,

I read your post yesterday and realized that you were more right than I was. Tis a pity that Kalk has never read Atlas Shrugged, and learned just one thing out of it:

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it."

I've accomplished what I set out to do. Rational scientific statistical analysis of the numbers that are available show this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

I realize I'm just adding fuel to the fires, but since I'm not "in the industry" like Kalkbreath, Mike Kirda, etc., I'll post once more. I am getting a perverse pleasure out of reading this (kind of like seeing the National Enquirer headlines) (as long as the ellipses stay away...)

Kalk:

You mean like Gore "whinning" Florida? That kinda sampling?

Yes, absolutely like Gore winning Florida. Samples said Gore would get about 51% of the vote. Well, 49% is pretty close to 51%, right?

And I said 384 fish sampled per year (if done professionally) is fine with me--if the consequences are also professional (sample 384 fish per year in a truly random fashion, if you find even 1 positive fish, shut down all collection and exports for one year. Just like NASA grounded the Apollo program after the launch pad fire; just like the FAA grounded DC-10's after the American Airlines Chicago crash). But of course, I'm speaking as a consumer, and I'm perfectly happy with my existing fish :wink:

Speaking hypothetically, are you willing to accept that proposition? Take 384 samples (truly randomly) out of however many are exported per year, and if you find just 1 fish that's tainted, lose one year's earnings?

Regards,